by Tony Medley
According to the Voter Information Pamphlet, in 2006 voters passed
Proposition 1A, which accomplished what this would do, which is to
prohibit politicians from tapping gasoline taxes intended for
transportation and using it for non-transportation projects. There are
no arguments against it and the people who proposed it are urging a vote
Yes. The way I understand it is that this is more inflexible than
what is in Proposition 1A. When it comes to using funds intended for
transportation for other purposes, inflexibility is good.
Increases state spending on education by $300 million annually and
decreases and limits student fees and, therefore, the amount received
from student fees.
No. This is just throwing more taxpayer money at a failed
educational system. Why shouldnít students pay for their education? The
solution to our horrific educational system is vouchers so that the
youngsters condemned to LAUSD and other public schools can attend
private schools where they will get discipline and a much better
education. In an era in which neither the Governor nor the State
Legislator seems to have any inclination to reduce state government
spending, it's up to the taxpayers to say no and this is the Proposition
that requires that "no." The state budget is out of balance. This would
just put it more out of balance and the fact that all politicians are
for it is a pretty good answer to why the state is in such a dismal
Proposition 93: Voters
set up term limits in 1990. This is a professional politician-devised
way to weaken those term limits. Specifically, while it reduces the
total time a legislator may spend in the legislature from 14 to 12
years, it increases the time that legislator may spend in one house up
to 12 years, so some of those who have maxed out in one house will be
out of a job if it doesnít pass.
No. The state legislature is a disgrace. The two main proponents are
Assembly President Fabian Nunez and Senate President Don Peralta. Why
are they for it? They will be out of work if it doesnít pass! If it
passes they will be able to stay in their respective houses for much
longer than the present law allows. Their support has nothing to do with
what is good for the State. Itís entirely selfish. If it doesnít pass,
they will have to figure out how to earn an honest living.
Term limits is the only way to
get rid of these people who canít even pass a balanced budget. The only
thing these people want is to continue in office, which is why they are
fighting so hard to get this passed. Itís being dishonestly touted as
strengthening term limits. It doesnít, but the problem for the people
making those misrepresentations is that if they tell the truth, nobody
would be for it. This is the most important proposition on the ballot.
Allows the Indian gambling organizations to double their slot machines
in exchange for higher payments to the state.
Yes. Iíve never understood why only the Indians should be allowed to
have slot machines in California. That said, if we allow the Indians to
do it, why not get as much money out of them as we can to reduce the
burgeoning state deficit? The main opposition to this is the rest of the
gambling industry, for obvious selfish reasons.