How are you voting on Prop 4? (refinancing, construction, taxes)

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Okay, here's an unbiased one-minute video on Prop 4:

https://elections.calmatters.org/201...hospital-bond/

This is a good article on Prop 4 by California Healthline:

https://californiahealthline.org/new...eally-hurting/

Okay, first, who the heck is Gary Wesley, and who let him write his awful arguments in the official state voter information guide for every single proposition I've read so far, that are all about repealing Prop 13 (that was passed in the 1970's) regardless of the proposition he's arguing against in this election? And who wrote this guide this year anyway? It really seems to be biased this year, and doesn't give the usual unbiased full overall costs for these bonds, etc. You have to do your own math to see the actual cost over the life of the bonds. Anyway, the information guide is a joke this year.

Moving on....

I've decided to vote no on Prop 4, too.

I learned many years ago that non-profit does not mean non-salaried. It also doesn't mean non-insane-spending. All it means is that they spend every dime they take in.

Just one point on this issue - this bond measure makes sure to say that whichever hospital gets money, they can't overspend the money given to them. Now, where's the incentive there to be thrifty with the money? Yep, of course, they're going to be sure they spend every dime. Big whoop. Hey, we didn't spend a dime over the $135 million dollars you gave us - that we don't have to pay back. Isn't that just so great of us? We didn't go over budget! Yay!

Okay, this is another bond measure. And what these people think we don't understand is that when they say - hey voting for this won't raise taxes - what they aren't telling you, in case you didn't already know - is that bonds are paid back with taxpayer money.

Let me say that again. Bonds are paid back with taxpayer money.

So, no, this proposition isn't for a tax increase. It's for a bond that will amount to $2.8 Billion that state taxes must be used to pay this bond back over 35 years at $80 million/year.

This bond is for grants - money that they don't have to pay back - that will mostly go to private children's hospitals.

This proposition was written by private childrens hospitals.

These same hospitals have gotten a ton of free money that they didn't have to pay back in 2 other propositions like this one already. That money ends this year. That money was supposed to be used for what they're asking for again.

"Back in 2004, California’s children’s hospitals asked voters to approve a $750 million bond measure to help fund construction and new medical equipment. In 2008, they asked for $980 million more. Now they’re hoping voters will agree on Nov. 6 to cough up an additional $1.5 billion." (from the article linked to above)

Now, let me again say why a "non-profit" status really irks me. That just means that they spend all the money they get every year. It doesn't mean they don't take in a lot of money. Plus, with a non-profit status, they also get a break on taxes.

And look at how they wrote this, as far as how the money would be divvied up:

The 8 private hospitals each will get $135 million.

The 5 state UC hospitals will each only get $54 million.

The roughly 150 public and private "non-profit" hospitals that provide services to children, but aren't solely a children's hospital, will each only get $1 million.

And the text doesn't say it's just for necessary construction, it also says the funds can be used for "construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing, equipping, financing or refinancing..."

Financing or refinancing? Furnishing - like new fancy desks for the CEO's office, maybe?


So, nope. I can't vote for this one, either. It's too vague, the money isn't fairly distributed and there's no accountability. We just need to stop financing private enterprise. If this was about financing state owned and run hospitals, I'd probably be all for it, assuming it was needed. But, this is ridiculous, in my opinion. They threw some bones at the state hospitals to try and make it look legit, but this is another ploy at getting taxpayers to fund private enterprise, in my opinion.

So, no on Prop 4 for me.

Would love to hear your opinions on this one, too.

And maybe I need to look into how to be the person who writes the rebuttals in the voter information guide.

[TCROX]

You are right again! Just another of the bond measures that only take money for paychecks- NO MORE! Stop them this election!
NO on 1-4 !
Yes on 6 !
Vote for John Cox- do not let Brown Jr become Gov!!

[TCROX]

Another amazing presentation! Thanx!!

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

LOL, well, we do agree on some things. On to Prop 5 next. That one will take more time to sort out, so I'll look at that one tomorrow.

[davidt1]

Thanks for mentioning that Gary Wesley guy. That rant against Prop 13 is totally out of place and should be removed. I am not sure he wrote that argument against Prop 13. It is more likely that the government who wants to destroy Prop 13 put that in there. Or he did write it and they allowed it on purpose. Either way it's fishy, snaky, and unprofessional.

[evening sun]

No from me too. I generally vote No, always, on bond measures.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by davidt1

Thanks for mentioning that Gary Wesley guy. That rant against Prop 13 is totally out of place and should be removed. I am not sure he wrote that argument against Prop 13. It is more likely that the government who wants to destroy Prop 13 put that in there. Or he did write it and they allowed it on purpose. Either way it's fishy, snaky, and unprofessional.

I agree. I complained to them on twitter today, too. Really weird. The whole voter information guide was incredibly weird this election. They let this weird Gary Wesley take over all of the arguments and rebuttals, plus the normally unbiased analyses of the costs of propositions was questionable. Instead of giving the actual long-term costs, they simply mentioned the cost per year. But, if you add up the cost per year over 35 or 40 years, it's mind-boggling for these bonds.

So, I really am disgusted with whomever put out this voter information guide this year and I told them so on Twitter.

I also asked how to submit my own arguments and rebuttals in the next one.

I really want to know why this Gary Wesley guy was the only argument and rebuttal listed on all of these propositions. When his agenda was obviously having nothing to do with the propositions at hand.

I highly suggest sending your complaints to the Secretary of State's twitter account at @CASOSvote . I'm not sure where else to complain, but I'm really livid over this voter information guide. It's not helpful in the least, and it makes the arguments against these propositions look like some loony tune argument, when there are real, valid arguments against these propositions.

[davidt1]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

I agree. I complained to them on twitter today, too. Really weird. The whole voter information guide was incredibly weird this election. They let this weird Gary Wesley take over all of the arguments and rebuttals, plus the normally unbiased analyses of the costs of propositions was questionable. Instead of giving the actual long-term costs, they simply mentioned the cost per year. But, if you add up the cost per year over 35 or 40 years, it's mind-boggling for these bonds.

So, I really am disgusted with whomever put out this voter information guide this year and I told them so on Twitter.

I also asked how to submit my own arguments and rebuttals in the next one.

I really want to know why this Gary Wesley guy was the only argument and rebuttal listed on all of these propositions. When his agenda was obviously having nothing to do with the propositions at hand.

I highly suggest sending your complaints to the Secretary of State's twitter account at @CASOSvote . I'm not sure where else to complain, but I'm really livid over this voter information guide. It's not helpful in the least, and it makes the arguments against these propositions look like some loony tune argument, when there are real, valid arguments against these propositions.

You might be onto something here. Contact a news outlet. They like this sort of things.

[TCROX]

Yes- we really, yea, BADLY need a changing of the guard .

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by davidt1

You might be onto something here. Contact a news outlet. They like this sort of things.

Any suggestions? I don't know where to start, but this is really insane.