FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
To our Commentary and News Release List™
Thursday, October 29, 1998
For Immediate Release;
Contact Robert Colaco at (818)757-1776
Citizens For A Better America ® Makes its recommendations for the California State Measures on the November 3, 1998 ballot.
Below you will find our recommendations for the California State Measures, i.e. the propositions. All references to page numbers are from the California Voter Information Guide, general election November 3, 1998 ballot pamphlet. You will find the
Proposition number and our position on it. Under that you will find the title as it appears in the ballot pamphlet in Capital letters.
Proposition 1A - No
CLASS SIZE REDUCTION KINDERGARTEN-UNIVERSITY PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 1998.
A Bond Act is actually a loan. The State Legislature placed this proposition on the ballot as a way around having to fit it into the budget. The issue is not about facilities but about how we are going to pay for them. Vote NO and tell the legislature
they need to fit it into the budget.
Proposition 1 - YES
PROPERTY TAXES: CONTAMINATED PROPERTY LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
It protects our hard fought for Proposition 13 restraints on limiting local taxes. It allows repair or replacement of environmentally-contaminated property or structures without increasing the tax valuation of original or replacement property.
Proposition 2 - YES
TRANSPORTATION: FUNDING. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
It puts in a safety system. It places tighter restrictions on the loaning to the General Fund of the revenues collected from such things as gasoline taxes and motor vehicle taxes. Keeping the money available for the purpose it was collected. Our federal
Social Security System could use the same kind of safety system.
Proposition 3 - NO
PARTISAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ELECTIONS. LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE AMENDMENT.
Californians voted by a 60% margin in March 1996 to allow for open primary elections. An open primary very simply means, that no matter what political party you are registered in you will be able to vote for whichever Presidential candidate you like. It
also means that the about nine (9) percent of California’s registered voters who have not chosen a political party, probably because they are absolutely disgusted with all of them, can vote for a Presidential candidate. If this measure passes then it
will be back to the way it was back in 1996 and before, but only for the presidential race. This measure will only lead to more voter confusion and apathy.
**MORE**
I would challenge both the major political parties again to come clean on this entire issue. If they are so opposed to this concept of open primaries then why don’t they change it and take California back to the way it was previously.
The proponents of this measure said in their Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 3 on page 15 - “THEY’RE GAMBLING WITH YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE, TRYING TO WIN A BATTLE ALREADY LOST IN FEDERAL COURT SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO!” I was very disappointed that the
proponents did not mention which “BATTLE ALREADY LOST IN FEDERAL COURT SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO!”, so that anyone can go onto the Internet and find out what they are talking about. Also, they themselves did not go into anymore detail nor did they provided any
additional information. I have meet Bill Leonard before and I am on his Christmas Card List so I called Bill Leonard, the Assembly Republican Leader to ask him to convince me to his viewpoint and he did not return my call. I encourage you to VOTE NO on
Proposition 3.
Proposition 4 - NO
TRAPPING PRACTICES. BANS USE OF SPECIFIED TRAPS AND ANIMAL POISONS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
The Analysis by the Legislative Analyst says on page 17: “Also, there would be unknown additional state and local costs for animal control purposes to capture and kill mammals that threaten property, endangered species, or public health. These costs
could be from several hundred thousand dollars up to in the range of a couple of million dollars annually. Actual costs would depend on the cost-effectiveness of animal control methods not banned by the measure.
There could also be an unknown annual loss of personal income to landowners to the extent that allowable alternatives to the prohibited animal control methods are found to be less effective.”
We are opposed to any open ended commitment by state and local governments and individuals. Vote NO.
Proposition 5 - NO
TRIBAL-STATE GAMING COMPACTS. TRIBAL CASINOS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Both the political committees associated with either passing or defeating this measure have spent millions and millions of dollars with every kind of advertising in California over the last several months
We are opposed to any kind of gaming. Casinos, wherever they are, have been proven to do great harm to society especially to those that are on the lower economic scales. Anything that makes gaming easier has been proven to be disastrous in state after
state, community after community.
**MORE**
The Analysis by the Legislative Analyst on page 20 and 21 says some notable things:
-“Amends California law to allow slot machines and banked card games at tribal casinos.”
- Currently “The State Constitution and various other state laws limit the types of legal gambling that can occur in California. The State Constitution specifically: ...Prohibits Nevada- and New Jersey-type casinos (although this phrase is not defined).”
But on page 21 it says: “It is unclear if the games authorized by this compact would result in ‘Nevada- or New Jersey-type casinos’ and therefore violate the State Constitution. Since there is no current definition of this phrase, the question would
almost certainly have to be decided by the court.”
-“Additionally, the measure would set 18 as the minimum age to gamble in an Indian establishment.”
- “Currently, the minimum age to gamble in California is 18 for the state lottery and 21 for all other legal forms of gambling.”
The concept of allowing 18 year olds to be involved in hard core gambling is not only revolting but also very dangerous. Do we want to sacrifice our 18 year olds, do they not have enough problems with drugs, violence and every disgusting thing that 18
year olds did not have to deal with 10, 20 and 30 years ago. I say that our 18 year olds are not for sale, vote NO on Proposition 5.
Proposition 6 - NO
CRIMINAL LAW. PROHIBITION ON SLAUGHTER OF HORSES AND SALE OF HORSEMEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Not every horse owner, rider is supporting this measure. I called David and Virginia Shemanski for their thoughts. David Shemanski is on Citizens For A Better America’s Executive Advisory Committee. He and his wife have a backyard horse. Virginia is a
Hunt-seat (English) riding instructor. They are both opposed to Proposition 6 and Virginia said: “Proposition 6 is completely unnecessary, and we encourage everyone to vote against Proposition 6.”
Proposition 7 - NO
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT. TAX CREDITS, INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Everyone that I know is for Air Quality Improvement, but this is not the right approach. As its opponents argue it would “permit the transfer of tax breaks from California subsidiaries to multinational corporations.”
Again on page 110, section 23630g it says: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any tax credit awarded pursuant to this section may be used by any member of the taxpayer’s unitary group.”
With my experience in my bookkeeping and tax preparation business, “taxpayer’s unitary group,” means what the opponents say about “the transfer of tax breaks from California subsidiaries to multinational corporation.” Citizens For A Better America has
aggressively opposed agreements that benefited multinational corporations and hurt American Citizens and workers. Agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the
establishment of the World Trade Organization (GATT/WTO), the expansion of NAFTA to Chile and other countries we know that must always be vigilant about these multinational corporations who want to improve their profits at the expense of Americans.
**MORE**
We agree with the opponents of this measure about the enormous costs 218 million dollars per year but we are concerned to win their battle they may have gone too far and confused the voters with inaccurate references.
In the four instances where on Page 32 and Page 33 they mention sections of this law, only one of those four sections actually correlates to what they said in the voter pamphlet. They stated their opposition in proving their point in sections 44475.9(b)
(its on page 99), section 44475.57 (its on page 105), section 44475.5© (its on page 98), all three of these sections do not actually match what the opponents said about them.
However, in the last section, section 23630g (its on page 110) it does match. On page 33 the opponents say: “but that’s what Proposition 7 will do, and worse. Proposition 7: ...puts an enormous new loophole into state tax law, to permit the transfer of
tax breaks from California subsidiaries to multinational corporations who will receive a guaranteed market for their equipment in California.”
Again on page 110, section 23630g it says: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any tax credit awarded pursuant to this section may be used by any member of the taxpayer’s unitary group.”
These references do match the section and this passing on of tax breaks is enough by itself to mandate a NO vote on Proposition 7.
Proposition 8 - NO
PUBLIC SCHOOLS. PERMANENT CLASS SIZE REDUCTION. PARENT TEACHER COUNCILS. TEACHER CREDENTIALING. PUPIL SUSPENSION FOR DRUG POSSESSION. CHIEF INSPECTOR’S OFFICE. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
I must admit the proponents of the measure picked a title that would get them a lot of votes. The first signatory on this is Pete Wilson the Governor of California.
I will allow Greg Tepe, Trustee of the Lancaster School Board in Lancaster, California and a candidate who has made our list of endorsement twice already, to tell you why he is opposed to this measure:
“I am opposed to Proposition 8 because the Chief Inspector takes the power and decision making away from the people and the duly elected local school board and places it into the hands of someone appointed by the governor for a 10 year term.
That person will have the ability to set his own salary and the salaries of all of the newly created chief inspector’s office. He would have enormous ability to put unnecessary requirements on local school districts. Local school district already go
through federal and state reviews of funds received by them. We do not need additional red tape and bureaucracy that is already burdening our public school system. Vote NO on Proposition 8,” Greg Tepe, Trustee of the Lancaster School Board in Lancaster,
California.
Keith Giles also a Trustee of the Lancaster School Board in Lancaster, California, encourages you to vote NO on Proposition 8.
**MORE**
We are honored to have endorsed Greg Tepe in 1993 for Trustee of the Lancaster School Board in Lancaster, California. He was on our A+ Candidates list in our “HAVE YOU BEEN LIED TO?”™ flyer in November of 1993 and he won that seat back then. He was up
for re-election in November 1997 and he received our endorsed again. He was put on our “Good Guys List”™ in our November 1997 “HAVE YOU BEEN LIED TO?” ™ flyer. Along with Keith Giles, he won his seat on November 4, 1997. After getting out our “HAVE YOU
BEEN LIED TO?” ™ flyers in their district, Keith Giles narrowly won his seat by 48 votes out of the 2,374 that were cast. We are confident that our “HAVE YOU BEEN LIED TO?” ™ flyers made the difference.
Proposition 9 - NO
ELECTRIC UTILITIES. ASSESSMENTS. BONDS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Again we do not know of anyone who would not want to pay less in their electric utilities. It is however something that was said in the Analysis by the Legislative Analyst that convinced us to recommend a no vote on this measure.
On page 41 under the Bonds section. “The measure would not allow the utilities to charge customers for the costs of repaying the rate reduction bonds. Legal questions have been raised regarding the application of the measure’s provisions to these bonds.
For instance, the measure could be interpreted as interfering with a contractual arrangement already entered into with the bondholders. (The state and federal constitutions prohibit impairments of contract.)” A deal is a deal whether we like it or not
after the fact.
The freedoms we enjoy in America in comparison to third world banana republics are because we as Americans have such an incredible Constitution. We must not allow anyone whether in Sacramento or Washington, DC to weaken that Constitution for their
political gain, even though they seem to be trying to do just that on a daily basis.
Proposition 10 - NO
STATE AND COUNTY EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. ADDITIONAL TOBACCO SURTAX. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
This is just another tax hike, this time against smokers. I do not smoke and wish that others did not either, because of the great harm it does to our health. This tax is just a doorway to adding additional bureaucracy and we do not need them. It does
just what the opponents say, it creates 58 county commissions where the commissioners are appointed.
Proposition 11 - NO
LOCAL SALES AND USE TAXES-REVENUE SHARING.
Again this appears to sound good. Assemblyman George Runner, one of proponents of this measure and I have talked on several occasions. I did call his office to ask him to alleviate my concerns about this measure and he did not return my call.
I am deeply concerned that this measure would make it easier for local city councils and local board of supervisors to potentially raise taxes.
In the Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 11 on page 11 of the Supplemental Ballot Pamphlet the proponents (including Runner) state: “During all that time no one opposed this measure.” Yet on page 8 of that same pamphlet it says: “Final Votes Cast
by the Legislature on ACA 10 (Proposition 11)
Assembly: Ayes 64, Noes 4. Senate: Ayes 30, Noes 2.”
I do not understand how you can make the statement “During all that time no one opposed this measure,” when there were 4 NO votes in the Assembly and 2 NO votes in the Senate. I understand a NO vote to mean you are opposed. Vote NO and oppose this
measure.
“VOTE! It’s a privilege and a responsibility ” - Robert Colaco
| In Summary: | |
| Proposition 1A - No | Proposition 6 - NO |
| Proposition 1 - YES | Proposition 7 - NO |
| Proposition 2 - YES | Proposition 8 - NO |
| Proposition 3 - NO | Proposition 9 - NO |
| Proposition 4 - NO | Proposition 10 - NO |
| Proposition 5 - NO | Proposition 11 - NO |
--###--
If you would like to be removed from our Commentary and News Release List , please let us know in
writing, include fax number. If you use this story we would appreciate you sending us a copy. Thank you!
© copyright 1998 Citizens For A Better America ® (CFABA.org)
Publisher of the Have You Been Lied To? ™ Flyer
Robert Colaco, National Chairman, Founder.
F.E.C. ID #C00278333
Site Directory
