DonAithnen (donaithnen) wrote,
DonAithnen
donaithnen

  • Mood:

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.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 5 comments