WC Varones

Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools

Varones Voters' Guide to the 2010 California Propositions

Your reform / libertarian / common sense / Tea Party guide to the issues.

UPDATE: Guide to the candidates is here.

Prop 19 - Yes. Legalize marijuana. Stop prosecuting adults for what they decide to consume, and let law enforcement focus on real crime.

Prop 20 - Yes. Stops politicians from gerrymandering their own districts and creates a citizens' panel to draw district boundaries for Congressional races.

Prop 21 - No.
Increases car tax to pay for state parks. We already pay taxes for the state parks, but Sacramento politicians gave it all away to the state employee unions. This is just another money grab to fill the hole left by the money they stole.

Prop 22 - Yes No.
Prohibits politicians from raiding transportation funds to fill holes in general fund budget. UPDATE: I'll trust Chuck DeVore on this one:
Initially, I was in favor of this initiative, as I thought it dealt solely with protecting local funds from raids by Sacramento. As I studied it I discovered otherwise. Prop. 22 is really about protecting often abusing redevelopment agencies from Sacramento. Redevelopment agencies use eminent domain to take property from one private owner and give it to another. They are legally state, not local agencies, and they have been diverting ever larger chunks of local property tax revenue (now some 12 percent) away from local schools, fire departments, and special districts.


Prop 23 - Yes. Suspends California's draconian, job-killing AB32 energy tax until the economy improves.

Prop 24 - No. Raises taxes on California businesses, already struggling in the worst business state in the U.S.

Prop 25 - No. Makes it easier for legislature to raise taxes by removing 2/3 requirement. Even with the 2/3 requirement, we have the highest taxes in the nation. Imagine what they'd do if we made it even easier!

Prop 26 - Yes.
Closes loophole where politicians can raise taxes without a 2/3 vote by dishonestly calling them "fees."

Prop 27 - No. Reinstates gerrymandering, allowing state legislators to draw their own districts.


San Diego Prop D - No.
Raises the sales tax to among the highest in the entire United States to allow the fatcat public employee unions to avoid pension reform.

I came to these positions independently, but my views align with many reform/liberty organizations such as the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition, Richard Rider's San Diego County Tax Fighters, Temple of Mut, the John and Ken Show, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, and the CA Libertarian Party.

I welcome your feedback. Please forward to your liberty-minded friends. Candidate endorsements to follow soon.

10 comments:

SarahB said...

Excellent summaries!

SRS said...

"Prop 25 - No. Makes it easier for legislature to raise taxes by removing 2/3 requirement."

This is false.

Prop 25 only changes the 2/3 requirement to pass a budget. It leaves in place the 2/3 requirement to raise taxes.

There was CA appellate court ruling that said explicitly that Prop 25 is not about taxes.

Sam said...

The war on drugs is one of the biggest factors contributing to the growth of government overreach into the lives of private citizen's.

Vote YES on Prop 19.

W.C. Varones said...

SRS,

If the unions are supporting it and it would allow Democrats to pass budgets unilaterally, I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to raise taxes.

Look at the weaselly games they've been playing the last few years trying to call everything a "fee" instead of a tax.

Give these crooks an inch and they'll take a mile.

Soquel by the Creek said...

Vote NO on Proposition 27! Protect the previously passed redistricting reform.

Which self-serving California politicians and their party are apparently afraid of free and fair elections?

CHART: Members of Congress Supporting Prop. 27
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/5rRK95eUfl_mMv7VDhroZA

CHART: California Legislators Supporting Prop. 27
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/kSlmzhjkJO1HmjI-4kr2yQ

Which special interests are protecting their multi-million dollar investments in California's politicians?

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/yZF1GOcrcr_R5_umu6rPfw

Which well-connected big-money donors, many from out of state, are funding Proposition 27?

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/irNzPYoCZfYe6mlT53qy6Q

How are they inter-related and what does this reveal about these politicians and their party?

Those funding Proposition 27 should be ashamed of their efforts that stand in the way of free and fair democratic elections!

Proposition 27 Revealed!
http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2010/09/proposition-27-revealed.html

Jr Deputy Accountant said...

Great job on this, WCV. Since I don't leave the state until October, this will be my last vote as a Californian.

I support Prop 19 BUT I'm worried that as soon as there are $$$$$s attached to weed, the govt will find some way to muck it all up for those who genuinely do need their "medicine" and small-time growers. This may actually end up causing MORE judicial traffic as they come down on the little guys who just want to grow but refuse to pay taxes to do so. You know how it goes, homie.

Anonymous said...

Referring to AB32 (re: prop 23) as an "energy tax" is intellectually dishonest. It is a regulation designed to protect the public, not a tax. If you're cited for a traffic violation is that a speeding tax?

If you think the public good is better served by allowing unchecked pollution, and you think global warming is cool or doesn't exist, then make that argument...but don't hind the ball under manipulative spin words like "draconian" and "tax."

W.C. Varones said...

Anonymous,

Referring to carbon dioxide as "pollution" is intellectually dishonest. It's what you exhale, and it's what plants need to breathe.

If you think the public good is better served by regulating the crap out of anything that moves, then make that argument...but don't hide the ball under manipulative spin words like "unchecked" and "pollution."

Anonymous said...

Your position on gerrymandering is stupid. You think a Star Chamber superduper committee of czars is a better way to go? Haven't you had ENOUGH of czars and superpowerful committees -- that have absolutely zero ultimate accountability?

If you don't like the lines the Legislature draws, you can vote their asses out of office. You can protest in the streets, and legislators who fear being voted out will pay attention. What attention do you suppose an appointed committee of retired Democratic judges is going to pay?

The political process is the ONLY check on government power. You should *want* the Legislature drawing the districts, because these are the only people who you can influence through, e.g. phone calls and letters, donations (or withholding donations), and your votes. No one else will need to pay attention -- and they won't.

W.C. Varones said...

"If you don't like the lines the Legislature draws, you can vote their asses out of office."

Yeah, how has that worked out the last decade? Legislators of both parties draw districts where they have such huge majorities that they can't lose.

Look at the percentage of incumbents who lost in California Assembly, State Senate, and Congressional races over the past 10 years. It's almost zero. Even in this tidal wave election year, the vast majority of the bums will be re-elected because they created voter-proof districts.

Your position is so naive I think you must be a shill for the politicians.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Contact Us

e-mail: wcvarones *at* yahoo *dot* com

Blog Archive