?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
05 February 2008 @ 07:47 am
Don't _encourage_ people to be sheep!  
Here's the SoCal ACLU voter guide page for the propositions: http://www.aclu-sc.org/static/08vote/

Here's the California Democratic Party voter guide page for the propositions: http://www.cadem.org/site/c.jrLZK2PyHmF/b.3642765/

Note how one of them has recommendations _and_ an explanation of why they believe in their conclusions (or rather lack thereof.) The other just tells you yes, no or neutral with no further explanation.

The cynical "lesser of two evils" side of me wonders if perhaps the democratic party doesn't really want the public thinking for itself =P

Edit:

From: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/argu_rebut/argu_rebutt92.html

In the against argument:
"Nowhere in the measure does it identify a way to pay for all the new spending. The politicians would be left to decide. They could raise the sales tax or put new taxes on other items or even increase our income taxes to raise the money this measure would require. Or, they could cut education funding, including K–12 schools."

In the rebuttal:

"PROPOSITION 92 DOESN’T RAISE YOUR TAXES . . . IT LOWERS OUR FEES. State law requires the non-partisan Legislative Analyst to highlight any tax increases in Proposition 92, but look carefully. There is nothing to highlight because it doesn’t raise taxes."

In general i have no problem with paying taxes to get useful stuff done, however the "against" people have a point that the rebuttal doesn't actually counter, it confirms! It lowers fees and doesn't raise taxes, that's what _they_ said! So can you answer their question of where the money is going to come from?

" * Increase in state spending on K–14 education from 2007–08 through 2009–10—averaging about $300 million per year, with unknown impacts annually thereafter.
* Loss of student fee revenues to community colleges—potentially about $70 million annually."

An increase in money spent, a decrease in money coming in, and not accounting for how to cover the gap. If there actually _was_ a reasonable tax hike included in the proposition i'd probably go for it. However i'm not sure i can vote for something like this when i have no idea where the money is going to come from. And the fact that the "for" people are trying to fast talk around the issue makes me even more leery of it.
 
 
Current Mood: annoyedannoyed
 
 
 
Steuardsteuard on February 5th, 2008 04:59 pm (UTC)
I got pretty cynical about political party organizations while living in Illinois. It's not that I've lost respect for individual members of parties (I'm pretty reliably a Democrat, after all), but I've come to see much of the "party apparatus" as being more focused on expanding its own power than on doing what's best for the country. Illinois is probably the textbook example of that (on both the Democratic and Republican sides), but I'm guessing it's similar in most places where there's a lot of power to go around. The party machinery (either party) generally doesn't want people to think carefully about the issues, it wants people to do what it says.

With that in mind, it's a bit telling that the only clear positions taken in that Democratic Party voter guide are NO on the ballot measure that even its supporters have abandoned and YES on the ballot measure that extends the terms of many powerful legislators who would otherwise be forced out of their seats. (I still need to decide how to vote on that.)
DonAithnendonaithnen on February 5th, 2008 08:57 pm (UTC)
Wow, i hadn't even gotten to that loophole on 93 yet before you posted about it. I ended up going no. The advantage of reducing the total term limit by two years wasn't worth expanding it for a lot of individuals by several times that amount. Besides, the people in question don't _have_ to get out of politics, they'd just have to _work_ at getting elected to a different position. Oh noes.
Kimchalgaryn on February 5th, 2008 05:52 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I'm voting against 92 for exactly the reasons you are leery of it.
cwendy41cwendy41 on February 5th, 2008 07:07 pm (UTC)
Baa! Baa!
Chaos Never Blinkssithjawa on February 5th, 2008 08:14 pm (UTC)
You're right, that's lame. Even the PDF doesn't state reasons.