NEWS RELEASE:
Saturday, October 23, 2004
CFABA.ORG positions on CA ballot measures for 11/02/2004.
To our Commentary and News Release List ™, this is
not spam mail, see below about being removed or added.
N E W S R E L E A S E:
For Immediate Release: Sent via e-mail to our
Commentary and News Release List ™. Contact Robert
Colaco 24/7 at National HQ Voice Mail at (818)757-1776.
Saturday, 10/23/2004
November 2004 Ballot Propositions
Also online at: http://www.cfaba.org/cf06052.htm
Statewide:
General comments on bonds: Any bond act requires the
state to sell bonds to investors, use the money received
to accomplish the project being funded, and then
requires paying back the owners of the bonds the
principal plus interest. Bonds greatly increase the cost
of a project by adding all of the interest to the costs
of the project
********************************************************
Proposition 1A - Protection of Local Government Revenues.
YES
This is a weaker version of proposition 65. It allows
Sacramento to continue to borrow billions of dollars in
the first two years and 2 years each decade. In other
words, in 8 out of 10 years, Sacramento can't do this
unless the Governor declares a state of emergency. A 2/3
vote in each house of the state legislature is required
as confirmation of the Governor's action before this
would go into effect for more than 2 years each decade.
Unfortunately, this 2/3 majority is reached on many big
spending bills and is why the state is running a deficit
already. Too many irresponsible big spending bills are
already being enacted.
This proposal does make the situation somewhat better
than currently. Local governments continue to be subject
to the state taking local funds however.
********************************************************
Proposition 59 - Public Records, Open Meetings.
Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
YES
This proposal is an attempt at a more open state
government. It is a step in the right direction, but
doesn't go far enough. However, half a loaf is better
than none. Provides some teeth in requiring access to
meetings and meeting records. Doesn't apply to some of
the legislature's activities/meetings. Because it is an
initiative, the legislature cannot overturn it. Because
it is a Constitutional amendment, the courts cannot
overturn it.
********************************************************
Proposition 60 - Election Rights of Political Parties.
Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
YES
This proposition needs to pass with more votes than
proposition 62. It would then override 62. It requires
that any party that has at least one candidate in the
primary election will also have a candidate listed on
the ballot for the general election. It would preserve
the influence of the minor parties in any debates. While
minor party candidates rarely win, they can greatly
influence what issues are discussed in a campaign. We
should preserve and protect that influence.
********************************************************
Proposition 60A - Surplus Property.
Legislative Constitutional Amendment
YES
Requires proceeds from sales of state property to be
used to pay off the (Proposition 57) 2004 Economic
Recovery Bonds (the $15 billion in bonds that
Schwarzenegger placed on the ballot and which passed).
The fact that these bonds violated the state
constitution is a matter for another time. Issuing bonds
for general expenditures of the state is a violation of
the state constitution.
Paying them off if surplus property is sold is a step
forward. However, does not require sale of the surplus
property, only where the proceeds go.
*******************************************************
Proposition 61 - Children's Hospital Projects. Grant
Program. Bond Program. Initiative Statute.
NO
Bonds are a poor way to finance ANY government spending.
See comments above. Bonds more than double the cost of
any project.
*******************************************************
Proposition 62 - Elections. Primaries. Legislative
Initiative Amendment and Statute
NO
Only the two candidates who receive the most votes in
the primary would be on the November (general election)
ballot. This would eliminate third/minor party
candidates from the general election. It would greatly
reduce or eliminate the influence of the minor parties
in any debates. While minor party candidates rarely win,
they can greatly influence what issues are discussed in
a campaign. We shouldn't eliminate this influence. In
addition, in rare cases where both major party
candidates have done something that makes them unworthy
of office, we have alternative candidates.
*******************************************************
Proposition 63 - Mental Health Services Expansion,
Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes above $1 Million.
Initiative Statute.
NO
This initiative is sure fire way to drive many with
annual incomes above $1 million out of California. The
current state of California mental health programs need
to be cleaned up first. An ineffective and wasteful
government program does not become effective and thrifty
when it receives MORE tax money. It needs reform first.
********************************************************
Proposition 64 - Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair
Business Competition Laws. Initiative Statute.
YES
This is a much needed reform. Currently anybody can
bring a lawsuit against a business for unfair business
practices. There is no need to show any financial
damages, property damages, or physical injury. Our
current laws allow lawyers to strongarm / loot small
businesses who don't have the money to fight back. This
would limit lawsuits to those who have suffered physical
or financial loss and/or to the state/local
government(s) for unfair business practices. This is a
common sense correction to the law.
*******************************************************
Proposition 65 - Local Government Funds, Revenues. State
Mandates. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
YES
Conservative groups disagree on this one.
On the beneficial side, this forces the state to stop
taking revenues from local governments. It is stronger
than Proposition 1A because there are no exceptions
without a vote of the people. On the detrimental side,
makes permanent the current inequities in allocation of
property taxes for public services such as fire, police,
schools, parks, libraries, etc. However, if the
initiative passes, this could be corrected in a future
initiative.
*******************************************************
Proposition 66 - Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex
Crimes. Punishment. Initiative Statute.
NO
Requires a number of changes in the application of the
"Three Strikes Law."
1. Requires resentencing of offenders whose third strike
is considered non-violent and non-serious. This needs to
be done within 180 days. (How can a felony be
non-serious?!)
2. Requires each strike to be tried separately.
3. Two felony convictions in one trial would be
considered only one strike.
4. According to the Legislative Analyst, arson,
residential burglary, attempted burglary, criminal
threats, felony gang crimes, unintentional serious
bodily injury while committing a felony (such as drunk
driving) will not be considered strikes.
This initiative is supported by Ramona Ripston, the
Executive Director of the Southern California ACLU.
Enough said.
*******************************************************
Proposition 67 - Emergency Medical Services. Funding.
Telephone Surcharge. Initiative Constitutional Amendment
and Statute.
NO
Many emergency rooms have been closing recently due to
huge deficits. These are due to the number of uninsured
people who use emergency rooms as their first place for
medical care. Many are illegal aliens. Both state and
federal laws require the emergency rooms to treat
anybody whether insured or not! Laws also require
inclusion of those with unhealthful lifestyles which
drives up insurance rates for all.
This proposal would impose a tax on phone use to
compensate for these non-paying emergency room patients.
There are no limits on cell phone and business phone
surcharges. No audits are required to ensure
accountability in use of your taxes. Too many businesses
are already leaving California to reduce costs and keep
their product pricing competitive. This would make the
exodus worse.
*******************************************************
Proposition 68 - Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling
Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues,
Tax Exemptions. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and
Statute.
NO
If you do not want Indian gambling facilities in urban
areas of California, vote NO. Increased crime comes with
gambling facilities. They would also increase traffic
congestion. It exempts the Indian tribes from any
increases in state and local taxes. It also doesn't even
specify whether the state would continue to receive the
payments it currently receives. It eliminates the power
of the Governor to negotiate how much is paid for the
right to operate casinos in California. If passed, this
would cause serious damage to living conditions in urban
areas.
*******************************************************
Proposition 69 - DNA Samples. Collection. Database.
Funding. Initiative Statute.
NO
This initiative sounds good on the surface. However, it
has some serious flaws. Specifically, it permits law
enforcement agencies to take a DNA sample from those who
have committed no crime. There is no requirement that
those who are innocent be excluded from the database,
even if requested after acquittal.
If the proposal required DNA testing of only convicted
felons (except white collar crime) and required DNA
testing of anybody who requests it (to prove innocence),
it would be a good proposal, particularly if the DNA
records which were voluntarily given/requested were
expunged from the database after acquittal or dropping of
the charges.
There is also no requirement for secondary testing in
the case of a match with a felony crime scene. If the
lab makes a mistake, as has happened in two other
states, an innocent person could be convicted and spend
a long time behind bars without any guarantee that the
test could be redone as a check.
There is no reason for white collar criminals (such as
people intentionally bouncing checks) to be tested. Tests
on this type of criminal would waste law enforcement
funding which could be better spent elsewhere. This
initiative should be rewritten and put on the ballot after
corrections.
*******************************************************
Proposition 70 - Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive
Gaming Rights.
NO
Contributions to State. Initiative Constitutional
Amendment and Statute.
Gives Indian tribes a 99 year monopoly. It eliminates
requirements for more complete environmental rules and
also eliminates negotiations with local governments,
stopping local input and control.
No size or location limits on casinos. It also would have
many of the same results as proposition 68. To repeat: If
you do not want Indian gambling facilities in urban areas
of California, vote NO. Increased crime comes with
gambling facilities. They would also increase traffic
congestion. There is no local input or control if this
passes.
It exempts the Indian tribes from any audits to ensure
the state getting what is required in taxes. It
eliminates the power of the Governor to negotiate how
much is paid for the right to operate casinos in
California.
If passed, this would cause serious damage to living
conditions in urban areas. Since the tribes are exempt
from other taxes, the casinos would apparently not be
subject to property taxes or income taxes either.
*******************************************************
Proposition 71 - Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
NO
This is a bond initiative. See comments at top on the
financing of bond issues. Unlike other bond issues,
there is no time limit on this proposal. It could go on
for decades. It also puts the state in the position of
funding research.
Research funding is typically done by the federal
government. (Whether federal government funding is
constitutional is an issue we won't address here).
Additional problems concern both morals/ethics and
effectiveness. ADULT stem cells are already used to treat
many diseases. They are effective. Embryonic stem cells
have never been shown to be effective at treating
ANY disease.
Furthermore, they have caused tumors in lab animals. The
only effects have been detrimental. An embryo is a human
life. Destroying an embryo to help others has serious
ethical problems even if it were effective. But it isn't!
This proposal is both a financial and ethical disaster.
********************************************************
Proposition 72 - Health Care Coverage Requirements.
Referendum.
NO
Requires businesses with at least 20 employees to pay
for health insurance for those employees. Federal law
prohibits states from doing this very thing. This would
make lawyers rich with fees from lawsuits. Why waste
state money to defend an illegal initiative?
In addition, if this initiative were enacted, more
businesses would leave California to keep costs down and
competitive with goods made in other states. Businesses
which stay will have costs per employee go up,
increasing layoffs for budget reasons.
Businesses would have the option of negotiating directly
with insurance companies or having the state do it. The
state would be in the position of negotiating health care
for those businesses who opt for this option as specified
in the proposal.
This is more bureaucracy with more opportunities for
graft, fraud and kickbacks. Let the businesses or
individuals negotiate their own health plans.
********************************************************
Los Angeles County:
Proposition A - Los Angeles County Public Safety,
Emergency Response and Crime Prevention Measure.
NO
Proposes a 1/2 cent increase in sales tax to fund
police/fire services, etc. Proposition 172, passed in
November 1993, already provides a 1/2 cent of sales tax
in Los Angeles County to fund the same services.
The public safety revenues are being used for other
purposes. The REAL problem is lack of accountability -
Los Angeles County Supervisors should be required to
follow the law and let the money already being collected
be used for its legally mandated purpose.
In addition, deporting illegal aliens who are in County
jails would greatly reduce costs, freeing up money for
other law enforcement/fire fighting purposes.
**********************************************************
Citizens For A Better America ® with the acronym and
website of CFABA.ORG appreciates the work done on the
analysis and recommendations of the California ballot
measures for the November 2, 2004 election by Bob Pegram.
Bob was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives
and was endorsed by CFABA.ORG for the March 2, 2000
primary election [http://www.CFABA.ORG].
He has also been a faithful member of CFABA.ORG with a
minimum commitment of five dollars a month, sixty dollars
a year. I have enjoyed reading and agreeing with Bob's
recommendations," said Robert Colaco the Volunteer
National Chairman and Founder of Citizens For A Better
America ®.
CFABA.ORG was founded on October 15, 1992. It is not
controlled, authorized or connected to any Political
Party, Candidate, Corporation, or Labor Union.
Americans are always invited to become members of
CFABA.ORG with a minimum commitment of five dollars a
month, sixty dollars a year.
Citizens For A Better America ® is a Registered
Trademark ® in the United States Patents and Trademarks
Office (USPTO.GOV). The Registration Number is 2500525.
This is The End of News Release from Citizens For A
Better America ® (CFABA.ORG).
© Copyright, 1992-2004. All Rights Reserved by
Citizens For A Better America ®.
--###--
To our Commentary and News Release List ™:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is not spam mail. We are sending this to those on
our Commentary and News Release List ™. To be added
or removed from our Commentary and News Release List™,
please put Addme or Removeme in Subject Line.
This document can be forwarded, e-mailed and
re-published in its entirety and without change.
From: "For ...
To: THIS IS THE END OF E-MAIL FROM:
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER AMERICA ® (CFABA.ORG)."
[http://www.CFABA.org]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you use this story we would appreciate you sending
us a copy. Thank you!
If you use this story we would appreciate you sending
us a copy. Thank you!
E-mail Addresses:
01. Headquarters: MailTo:HQ@CFABA.org
02. For your comments regarding this News Release for
possible future publishing click on the following
link and send your comments
MailTo:Comments@CFABA.ORG
This was sent to you by:
Citizens For A Better America ® (CFABA.ORG)
F.E.C. ID #: C00278333 http://www.fec.gov
F.P.P.C. ID #: 1265022 http://www.fppc.ca.gov
National Headquarters:
PO Box 7647
Van Nuys, California 91409-7647
Voice Mail 24/7: (818)757-1776
Visit any of our Internet Websites by clicking on any
of the following links at:
Our main website:
[http://www.CFABA.org]
To read about our endorsed candidates:
[http://www.GoodGuysList.org]
To read the articles printed in our flyer:
[http://www.HaveYouBeenLiedTo.org]
If you would like to see pictures of our Leadership
Team, please click on the following link:
[http://www.CFABA.org/cf01002.htm]
We would encourage you to look on our Links page
to see links to government agencies, etc. Please click
on the following link:
[http://www.CFABA.org/cf08000.htm]
If you have questions about individual topics that we
have dealt with in the past, please look at one of the
following links:
If you would like to see different
"HAVE YOU BEEN LIED TO?" ™ Flyer
Articles by Topic:---------------------------
please click on the following link:
[http://www.HaveYouBeenLiedTo.org/hy00001.htm]
Or, if you would like to see different Commentaries and News
Releases by Topic:---------------------
please click on the following link:
[http://www.cfaba.org/cf04000.htm]
E-mail addresses:
[MailTo:HQ@CFABA.org]
To be added or removed from our Commentary and News
Release List ™ please click on one
of the following links:
[MailTo:AddMe@CFABA.org]
[MailTo:RemoveMe@CFABA.org]
© Copyright, 1992-2004. All Rights Reserved by
Citizens For A Better America ® and Robert
Colaco. This has been authorized, paid for and
published by Citizens For A Better America ®.
This is not authorized by any candidate or
candidate committee.
® = Registered Trademark. ™ = Trademark.
[DOC NAME: NR040505.TXT]
All Registered Trademarks and Trademarks are the
property of Citizens For A Better America ® or
Robert Colaco and may not be used without written
permission.
Citizens For A Better America ® is registered with
the United States Patents and Trademarks office. It's
Registration Number is: 2500525. It's Serial Number
is: 78030621. Use of the name Citizens For A Better
America ® without the ® or ® after the name is not
permitted under any circumstances. So that everyone
knows that it is a Registered Trademark.
======================================
|Paid For By CITIZENS FOR A BETTER AMERICA ® (CFABA.ORG)|
======================================
THIS IS THE END OF E-MAIL FROM:
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER AMERICA ® (CFABA.ORG).
Site Directory
