|
||||
"Being too charming was never one of my faults." - Kill Me Later
Webcam 
Mine ::
about me.
wishlist
Powered by Blogger. |
How I would vote (if I had remembered to re-register after moving).
Proposition 1A: Yes. Gas taxes should be spent on roads and roads only. If you live in California you know how badly our roads suck. Proposition 1B-1E: No. Because I'm cynical and am pretty sure that giving the CA state government any extra funds would be like using money as cat litter. Proposition 83 (Jessica's Law): Yes, YES, yes! The only people who could possibly be against this proposition are the Democratic members of the California state legislature and/or people who love rapists and child molestors. Harsh thing to say, I know, but 'tis true. See for yourself if you don't believe me. Proposition 84: No. See explanation for Prop 1B-1E. Proposition 85: Another emphatic yes. I'm sure the kiddie rapists would love it if they could send their victims off to the clinic to get rid of the evidence without their parents knowing. Anyway, the parents of a young girl going through that kind of physically and emotionally taxing procedure should be informed of it. There are exceptions provided for in the proposition, such as medical emergencies and waiver provided by the courts. Proposition 86: No. I might be for it if the bulk of the funds actually went to smoking cessation programs but this bill is full of problems and seems to be by hospital corporations for hospital corporations. Proposition 87: No. Exactly how they would tax oil companies without the cost being passed onto consumers is a mystery to me. Oil prices are determined by so many factors, even with tons of oversight (which would still cost us taxpayers lots of dough) how would they determine whether or not oil companies are passing the costs onto us? And also, we don't need another bureaucracy controlling lots of money that doesn't belong to them with no pressure whatsoever to produce any results whatsoever. Yeah, that sounds like a recipe for success. Not. Proposition 88: No. Throwing more money at the education problem in California will not solve the problem. I am absolutely sure of this because I went to a top-notch public high school in California and I can tell you that we had the crappiest equipment/buildings/everything (including a mildly retarded sophomore honors biology teacher) compared to other schools in our district (some stupid rule about the school with the highest test scores not needing any extra funding). It didn't matter. What mattered was the fact that our parents whooped our butts if we didn't crank out those A's. In the end that's what it all comes back to, how much do the parents care and how involved are they willing to be in their child's education? My parents came from Taiwan where their class sizes were much larger than ours (40-50+ students) and yet students were well-behaved and well-educated. Why? Respect for teachers and the education system, which is instilled in them (by their parents) from an early age. Proposition 89: As someone who has worked behind the scenes in fundraising I am absolutely against this proposition. I can tell you from first-hand experience that more regulations on political fundraising does nothing more than make the whole system more and more confusing and opaque. Prior to all the new federal regulations (thanks to John McCain) money flowed through campaigns and pretty much only campaigns and thus, candidates were unquestionably responsible for the advertising, etc. that was put out through their campaigns. Now we have all these 527's raising the big money and they are NOT technically tied to any campaign (because legally they can't be) except they totally are tied to campaigns unofficially...but now when they put out outrageous attack ads the candidate can shrug and say "it has nothing to do with me." Because this is a free speech society big money will always be involved in campaigns. I would much rather have it tied directly to campaigns rather than through these unaccountable 527's. The ironic thing is that Democrats are the ones constantly clamoring for campaign finance reform and yet THEY were the ones that rushed out to form 527's so they could still accept the big money that they depend on. We Republicans were actually behind on this because we kept expecting the Supreme Court to rule them unconstitutional, and when they didn't we had to play catch-up. Luckily the Swiftie's were far more effective than the nutjobs at MoveOn.Org. Proposition 90: Yes. Eminent domain = bad. As far as the candidates for state office go, my old company is actually working on pretty much every single campaign (except, I believe McClintock's) and I strongly support each and every one of those candidates. Especially Tony Strickland who is running for Controller and has some really good ideas on how to reign in the tax and spend liberals in our legislature. He's running against John Chiang who will do nothing more than rubber stamp everything his Democratic comrades want. Tony was in our office all the time during the summer because he's an incredibly dedicated and hard-working guy. Just an overall great guy that I can't say enough good things about. Steve Poizner is running for Insurance Commissioner against Cruz Bustamante. Since I worked on Poizner's campaign briefly over the summer I can tell you that it is indeed true, Poizner is not taking any insurance money while his opponent has. I think Cruz offered to return the money but still ended up keeping a lot of it. Not surprising. I don't know a whole lot about Chuck Poochigian but I do know that he will be much tougher on criminals than the criminal-coddler Jerry Brown. Also Jerry Brown has "improving schools" on his agenda, since when is this the job of the State Attorney General? This is the problem with liberals, learn to focus people! Bruce McPherson is the current Secretary of State, appointed by Arnold and confirmed unanimously by the legislature (which, as you know, is mostly made up of Democrats) after Kevin Shelley (D) stepped down due to a number of scandals. Bruce has done an excellent job of restoring public trust to an office that was left tarnished by his Democratic predecessor. And that leaves Tom McClintock, who as I remember from the last gubernatorial race, is a good guy and a real, non-Rino, Republican.
Comments:
Post a Comment
(c) 2001-2006 transcended.net - all rights reserved |
|||