U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-08-2012, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,797 posts, read 24,045,729 times
Reputation: 6270

Advertisements

We have two new propositions to vote on as part of the June ballot:

Prop 28 - Current law limits service as an elected official in the State Assembly to 6 years, and the State Senate to 8 years. This proposition changes the law to be a combined total of 12 years, but would allow the full time to be served in either the Assembly or Senate.


Prop 29 - Current cigarette tax is 87 cents per pack. This proposition adds $1.00 per pack to the tax, so the total tax per pack of cigarettes would be $1.87. The additional tax revenue will be used to fund cancer research, smoking reduction programs, and tobacco law enforcement.


Generally, this forum likes to have discussions about proposed changes to California law, so I'm presenting this thread for anyone who wishes to discuss either (or both) of these proposals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2012, 09:14 AM
 
Location: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
6,390 posts, read 7,786,410 times
Reputation: 2622
I noticed that the anti prop 29 ads used a professional scientist looking person who complains that it will raise taxes and the money raised could be spent out of state. Disingenuous, it does raise taxes, but only on the purchase of cigarettes, and the money spent out of state could easily be cancer research that crosses state lines. The ad seemed reasonable to me until I read who was paying for it, Phillip Morris.

Prop 28, there has been information out that the current state of the legislature is due to term limits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Orange County, CA
3,730 posts, read 5,356,703 times
Reputation: 4205
No and No.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 09:31 AM
 
Location: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
6,390 posts, read 7,786,410 times
Reputation: 2622
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShoe View Post
No and No.
Thank your for your analysis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 10:32 AM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,504,622 times
Reputation: 10928
I categorically vote yes on all limitations to career politicians and no on all bonds, tax increases, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 10:39 AM
 
Location: anywhere but Seattle
1,082 posts, read 1,942,256 times
Reputation: 984
28 yes
29 no
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 10:46 AM
 
Location: San Diego
36,739 posts, read 33,206,725 times
Reputation: 21089
yes and yes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 11:18 AM
 
Location: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
6,390 posts, read 7,786,410 times
Reputation: 2622
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_1104BCRB.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 05:13 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,797 posts, read 24,045,729 times
Reputation: 6270
I'm likely voting "no" on both measures.

Prop 28 opens up a 12 year window to serve at the same job, doubling the potential time in the Senate. I understand the advantages about being on a job longer, and developing strategic relationships, and I also understand that those serving shorter times are more dependent upon the "experts" who support those organizations. However, I believe that the deals cut through long term service are more of a negative than those other issues.

Regarding Prop 29, I don't favor "sin taxes", and would actually be supportive of repealing the current $.87 tax instead of adding an additional one. Regarding funding research, I view that as a federal issue, and the other non-research stuff I just see as some organizations trying to create their own lucrative jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Orange County, CA
3,730 posts, read 5,356,703 times
Reputation: 4205
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShoe View Post
No and No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by .highnlite View Post
Thank your for your analysis.
Rather than post a summary and repeat of the arguements at the editorials will just post the links. Do not always agree with the positions that the OCR takes, but this time their opposition to both propositions seems based on pretty solid logic.
www.ocregister.com/articles/terms-351396-years-prop.html

www.ocregister.com/articles/prop-351754-government-bad.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top