It's funny that you're against 77, which would basically end up throwing out the few Republicans left in the Legislature. CA is a blue state. Only 2000's gerrymandering saved the GOP as a factor in the state. Otherwise, they'd have a seat for Rocklin and maybe Orange County, but that's it.
75 doesn't matter too much. Even though your argument about corporation shareholders is bogus since you can always sell WMT if you don't like Wal-Mart.
The benefit of the 75 campaign is that now state workers and union members are aware that they have an out if they don't want their money to go political spending agendas. There will probably be lots of information on how to "opt out" once 75 gets defeated. (At least that's what I hear).
So the goal of 75 will mostly be realized, even if it doesn't pass. Mission accomplished!
Posted by muckdog at November 2, 2005 09:52 AMSick, Arnold has already said that if his measures fail, he'll probably raise taxes. I'd recommend the car tax. Maybe try to get higher property taxes, gas taxes, and sales taxes.
Posted by muckdog at November 2, 2005 09:59 AMmuckdog, our 2000 redistricting was incumbent protection, not Republican protection. A few on each side would be vulnerable with neutral districts. California as a whole may be blue, but most of the inland areas and exurbs are solid red.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at November 2, 2005 10:06 AMWell, Junkie, you don't have to worry about any seats changing parties in CA. Heck, why bother voting? It's baked in the cake.
Posted by muckdog at November 2, 2005 10:50 AMTake it to the bank because the FP has always been right. Arnold is going down HARD. I have 22 NO votes so the guv has no chance.
Posted by john at November 2, 2005 10:54 AMmuckdog, CA does have a problem with redistricting - competitive elections would help us alot. However, I am at present unwilling to do anything which might give Arnold and Tom DeLay more power. Also, the initiative's plan to redistrict for 2006 is some combination of bad idea and unworkable.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at November 2, 2005 10:59 AMMuckdog must never have been a union member, nor does he know any.
EVERY union member has the right to refuse their dues to be used for political purposes, and has had for many years. to claim anything else is merely spin.
I say this as a union member whose union requires specific permission by the membership before any political funds can be donated.
Posted by pessimist at November 2, 2005 11:07 AMwow, that "Tax tax tax" line sure is a novel approach that hasn't been beaten into the ground for the last 60 years. glad to see the intellectual powerhouse that is the modern conservative movement is still exploring new avenues.
Posted by benjoya at November 2, 2005 11:19 AMOuch!
Posted by snark at November 2, 2005 11:30 AMLooks to me like the citizens of CA are taking out their disgust with Arnold when chosing how to vote on these amendments.
I don't live in CA but from what I've read, you really shouldn't trust Arnold to take out the trash so why would anybody vote for his stupid initiatives?
Posted by Ga6thDem at November 2, 2005 11:51 AMMuck,
You like the GOP a lot don't you? Could you please come to GA and take Gov. Hee Haw from us? Maybe you and Sonny Bubba Goober could go out for some beer together and figure out some way to finally get the poll tax reinstated. He's tried but 2 courts have overruled him.
It was stupid to put anything else on the ballot but arnolds in the first place. This special election with our tax money should have been all on schwarzenonfrude, but that aside, I agree completely on governance by proposition.
It's responsive and well written law, every time, right? I especially love it when we have battling props, that's the best!
Yeah, term limits, the best thing since, I don't know, hemmorhoids?
You want competition? Level the playing field. Force the fucking god damned media to print, air, broadcast etc, the campaigns. Commercials, debates, you name it. Equal air time for all, state financed campaign money, the whole lot. Publicize their records, their accomplishments, the crony's, all of it. One great big fucking searchlight on their activities or lack thereof.
It would be especially enjoyable to know that some liberal is using muckdogs tax money to rip his party to shreds for their treasonous, criminal, reprehensible behaviors, especially enjoyable.
Posted by Duckman GR at November 2, 2005 12:30 PMIt's very good news, thank you.
Posted by paradox at November 2, 2005 12:36 PMALL,
REMEMBER HOW CONFIDENT MANY PEOPLE WERE THAT BUSH WOULD BE DEFEATED. DO NOT GET COCKY! GET PEOPLE OUT TO VOTE NO ON 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 - YES ON 79 AND 80!
I see the Thugs in Washington are planning to raise the taxes of all homeowners by essentially eliminating the homeowner's deduction. Also deductions for state and local taxes. Both of these tax increases will will strongly affect Californians.
I read also that Arnold's rich man's clique has decided to shred already produced ads about the propositions that include his image because His Muscleness rubs voters the wrong way.
So Arnold's new strategy is to use the word "tax."
He's always hated representative democracy and disdained the Legislature. But now that his "star power" is waning, what does he have left?
Oh, yeah. The "tax" word....
Posted by baked potato at November 2, 2005 01:33 PMSo what, Get a clue?
They say that bush's tax cuts were the biggest tax cuts ever, but they only benefitted the toppers.
They want to raise taxes, arnold does, mucky, can that betrue?
They want to raise the taxes on homeowners!!
Get it?
THEY WANT TO RAISE TAXES ON HOMEOWNERS!!
Posted by Duckman GR at November 2, 2005 01:56 PMEVERY union member has the right to refuse their dues to be used for political purposes, and has had for many years. to claim anything else is merely spin.
You're absolutely correct in that they've had the righ;, but they just didn't know about it. It was "top secret" info. Now they know. Heck, what does it amount to, about $10-15 a month? Quit sending the union political dues, and get free HBO!
I predict a surge in stamp sales as union members send off their "opt out" letters. Now that they know they can. Agreed?
Either way, 75 is a winner as far as those who'd rather spend that $10-15 themselves. IT'S YOUR MONEY!
Posted by muckdog at November 2, 2005 02:48 PMMuckdog,
I know someone who moved to this area from CA. He went non union when he got his first job here. He had to pay $800.00 per month for family coverage with the insurance company. He then went and found a company w/ a union so that he could afford to cover his family with insurance. Even with paying the union dues, he comes out ahead. You're too hung up with stupid little numbers to see the entirety of the situation.
He then went and found a company w/ a union so that he could afford to cover his family with insurance. Even with paying the union dues, he comes out ahead.
He'd still have these benefits, because he'd still be paying union dues that go for bargaining and negotiation. He'd just be saving the $10-15 of political money.
If he wants to pay $10-15 a month extra, more power to him.
But some would prefer subscribing to Netflix or HBO, or whatever.
And now they will. Because they know they can opt out. The secret is out. Bwahahaha.
Posted by muckdog at November 2, 2005 04:27 PMNaw muck,
You don't know any union guys do you? They know that without paying those few dollars they will lose what political influence they have. After all, as long as the GOP is in power, pay for play is the game baby!!!!
Ga6, a lot of people are moving from CA to elsewhere. I know some folks who are financial planners, and they tell me they're swamped with seniors moving out of CA. Lower taxes. It makes a ton of sense for retirees trying to stretch their dollars. Consider home prices are cheaper elsewhere, lower taxes, etc.
Posted by muckdog at November 2, 2005 05:17 PMMuckhog seems to be having some problem understanding cost benefit analyses. Perhaps he needs to study more.
a lot of people are moving from CA to elsewhere. .Posted by muckdog
Here are the latest California population stats and they show a net gain.
I know some folks who are financial planners, and they tell me they're swamped with seniors moving out of CA. Lower taxes. It makes a ton of sense for retirees trying to stretch their dollars. Consider home prices are cheaper elsewhere, lower taxes, etc.Posted by muckdog
Many seniors move because their major asset is their home, which has appreciated more in California than compared to other states. People can make money selling a California home and moving to a cheaper, less desirable location. Taxes would amount to a tiny percentage of their costs. The difference in taxes between California and South Dakota do not make living in South Dakota an attractive option. You seem to be having some problem understanding cost benefit analyses. Perhaps you need to study more.
a lot of people are moving from CA to elsewhere
Why are there so many more people here then? How long before we start to notice this drop in population?
Posted by Repack Rider at November 2, 2005 09:24 PMGet a Clue,
The reason for outrage as I see it is the fact that this deduction has been an unchallenged part of American life for a long time. Unlike income taxes, which most middle class progressive Americans accept as a legitimate cost of being sucessful enough afford the taxes they owe , this new "house tax" could eventually "trickle down" to where hard pressed homeowners would be in danger of having to sell the only real investment that they actually own. It's sort of the camel's nose under the tent kind of thing.
Posted by rlp at November 3, 2005 11:57 AMI hope people don't vote against 78 just because they are mad at Arnold...no matter what you think of him, 78 is the better chance for people to get the prescription drug discounts that they need. As much as people might like 79 on paper, the chance of it actually happening that way are so small...at best, it'll be debated in court for several years and then come out looking very different. Show your frustration at Arnold on other propositions - look out for people who need it by supporting 78.
Posted by at November 3, 2005 12:31 PMDamn, someone forgot to make Initiative 81, Recall the Governor. I'd bet Bill Bennett's money on the chances that would have for passage.