It's special election time again in California. How will you vote? (Los Angeles: attorneys, school districts)

[Oerdin]

Please show a citation for that claim.

[4beanie]

I am only going by the election results in general. After the elections the newspaper prints the results and states county by county the percentage of republican and democrat votes. The items that pass had a higher democrat vote. Can't state specifics right now I am traveling and looking for somewhere to relocate. After the special election in May check to see how the percentages go. hopefully I'll be home in time to vote!

[happ]

Originally Posted by 4beanie

If you check your elections results you will see that most of the spending programs that pass are won by democrat voters. I vote no on any bond issue that causes a financial impact on the state. It does not matter to me what it's for, spending is spending and we have no money.

It's called the "majority" & I don't know how you would be able to know how Democrats & Republicans voted for the propositions in the privacy of the voting booth.

[elousv]

NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

Please do not fall for the twisted lies of the adds you will see regarding these tax increases.

[NorthSDLifer]

Probably no on all of them.

I don't mind living in a higher-tax state if it seems like we get our money's worth, but do we? A $41 (or $42) billion deficit through fiscal yr 2010 that has already grown by $8 billion? How much higher can we raise taxes, especially in this climate? I heard a figure a few weeks ago (from "John and Ken Show," citing some news story or report) that our deficit per resident of $1,100 (approx) was almost $400 higher than the next state (NY).

I think I'm in favor of seeing the whole thing blow up and having to start over again. Yes, voters have mandated spending and approved too many bond measures, but did voters negotiate wildly unrealistic salary and benefits packages for state employees? So much more we could get into.

Sorry to pick on public-sector people, most of whom I imagine don't live in lavish homes, but if we can't afford to pay for your crazy-good bennies, sorry. Something's gotta give.

I'm a little tired of hearing soundbites from teacher union people whining about possible layoffs six months down the road when thousands upon thousands of people in the private sector have lost their jobs, whose retirement plans aren't covered by taxpayers when they become underfunded.

The critics of Prop 1A say the legislature can increase the spending limit simply by voting to raise taxes. Some mechanism, if true.

And it was a Democratic-controlled Legislature than voted in all these regressive taxes, not some vocal minority.

And here's my caveat: generally a union-defending Democratic sympathizer, although I am registered Libertarian. That makes a lot of sense, eh?

[18Montclair]

Proposition 1A: Limits future state spending and requires a larger reserve fund. Extends tax increases for an additional two years.
NO.

Proposition 1B: Allocates money to schools to compensate for past budget cuts.
NO.

Proposition 1C: Allows the state to borrow up to $5 billion from future lottery proceeds.
NO.


Proposition 1D: Allows voter-approved tobacco tax money that funds some children's health care and social services programs to be redirected.
Redirected where?


Proposition 1E: Allows voter-approved money targeted for community mental health programs to be redirected.
Redirected where?


Proposition 1F: Prohibits state elected officials from receiving pay raises when the state is running a deficit.
YES.

[Curmudgeon]

Very simplistically, the initiative system simply permits end-runs around what should be the business of the Legislature and has resulted in run-away categorical spending. For so long as Californians continue to vote with their hearts rather than their heads, as well as special interests, California will continue to place future generations' sustainability at risk.

Since we're leaving the state I really wouldn't care but for the fact that we have six grandchildren here. Thankfully, three others have "escaped" the madness and live elsewhere.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Proposition 1A: Limits future state spending and requires a larger reserve fund. Extends tax increases for an additional two years.
NO.

Proposition 1B: Allocates money to schools to compensate for past budget cuts.
NO.

Proposition 1C: Allows the state to borrow up to $5 billion from future lottery proceeds.
NO.


Proposition 1D: Allows voter-approved tobacco tax money that funds some children's health care and social services programs to be redirected.
Redirected where?


Proposition 1E: Allows voter-approved money targeted for community mental health programs to be redirected.
Redirected where?


Proposition 1F: Prohibits state elected officials from receiving pay raises when the state is running a deficit.
YES.

I had the same question, redirected to what?

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by NorthSDLifer

Probably no on all of them.

I don't mind living in a higher-tax state if it seems like we get our money's worth, but do we?

Our taxes are quite moderate and middle of the pack. California's average tax rate is 10.3% (for total combined taxes) while the US's average total combined average state tax is 10.1%. That's hardly a high tax state and is in fact right about the national average.

[NorthSDLifer]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

Our taxes are quite moderate and middle of the pack. California's average tax rate is 10.3% (for total combined taxes) while the US's average total combined average state tax is 10.1%. That's hardly a high tax state and is in fact right about the national average.

Highest income and sales tax. Second highest gas tax to NY. I saw this on an updated graphic at msn.com or msnbc.com. Property taxes are lower, yes, but we have a high cost of housing. From listening to KFI, I know that the anti-tax crowd claims we are much higher than middle of the pack, often citing CA as 6th highest.