Welcome to Robyn Nordell's Conservative California Election Website
Upcoming Elections
California Presidential Primary Election - June 5, 2012
National Presidential Election - November 6, 2012
Extensive Voter Recommendations Will Be Posted 3-4 Weeks Prior to Elections
CALIFORNIA STATE PROPOSITION INFORMATIONCalifornia Presidential Primary Election - June 5, 2012
National Presidential Election - November 6, 2012
Extensive Voter Recommendations Will Be Posted 3-4 Weeks Prior to Elections
For the November 2, 2010 Elections
Updated 10/16/10
More Proposition Info Will Be Added Soon
NO on Prop 19!! Don't buy the Lie! - www.MarijuanaHarmsFamilies.com
SaveCalifornia.com Election Center - Excellent Prop Info
Listen now: Facts about the 9 California props
Christian Citizenship Council/Frank Kacer—Nov, 2, 2010 Proposition Recommendations
YES on Prop 23! Orange County Register, Oct 3, 2010
"If Proposition 23 on the Nov. 2 ballot doesn't pass, your lives, livelihoods and liberties will come inescapably under the thumb of the Administrative State"… "Prop. 23 would merely delay – mind you, not repeal – implementation of the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, perhaps the most arrogantly misnamed law the California Legislature ever passed." Read the entire article.
SECRETARY OF STATE Proposition Information for the November 2, 2010 California Primary Election – Texts of Propositions, State Issued Summary/Analysis, Arguments and Rebuttals
The CA Republican Assembly (CRA), Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, Congressman Tom McClintock, Capitol Resource Institute, Congressman John Campbell, Craig Huey, OC Supervisor John Moorlach, Campaign for Children & Families, and Robyn Nordell all agree on the following positions:
Proposition 19: NO
Proposition 20: YES
Proposition 21: NO
Proposition 22: See Below; Conservatives Are Split on 22
Proposition 23: YES!!
Proposition 24: NO
Proposition 25: NO
Proposition 26: YES
Proposition 27: NO
NO on Prop 22:
Chuck DeVore; Capitol Resource Institute; Chris Norby, Supervisor John Moorlach, and Craig Huey
YES on Prop 22:
Tom McClintock and Congressman John Campbell, Campaign for Children & Families, and Robyn Nordel
NO on Prop 22, Reader Rebuttal: Chuck DeVore on Prop 22, FlashReport, 8/19/10
NO on 22: Reject the Redevelopment Power Grab - Assemblyman Chris Norby, FlashReport, 8/15, 2010
YES on Prop 22 – Prop 22 is About Local Control, Period, FlashReport, 8/17/10, by Jim DeMartini, Chairman , Stanislaus County Republican Party & Stanislaus County Supervisor and Zack Scrivner, Chairman, Kern County Republican Party & Vice Mayor, City of Bakersfield
PROPOSITION ANALYSIS FROM THESE ORGANIZATIONS
CRA-CA Republican Assembly's Proposition Recommendations for the 11/2/10 California Election
Chuck DeVore's Statewide Ballot Proposition Recommendations for the Nov 2, 2010 Election
Tom McClintock Proposition Recommendations for the Nov 2, 2010 Elections
Craig Huey - Election Forum's Proposition Picks for the 11/2/10 Elections
CRI—Capitol Resources Institute's Proposition Voter Guide
Congressman John Campbell
CRA-California Republican Assembly Proposition Recommendations
For the Nov. 2, 2010 California Election
Proposition 19: NO (Marijuana legalization.)
Proposition 20: YES (This would allow the independent State Commission on Redistricting to re-draw the Congressional Districts in the same manner as they are already authorized by Proposition 11 to re-draw the Legislative District boundaries.)
Proposition 21: NO (This would increase the Vehicle License Fee by $18, but in return taxpayers would allegedly receive free parking at state parks, at least until the Democrats find some other way to tax people who seek to use public parks.)
Proposition 22: NEUTRAL (This initiative would prevent the Legislature from raiding local government funds, as defined. Among many other things, it would explicitly protect redevelopment funding, which has historically been used for corporate welfare, crony capitalism, and eminent domain abuse.)
Proposition 23: YES (This is the California Jobs Initiative to suspend AB 32.)
Proposition 24: NO (This is a $2 billion tax increase aimed at businesses, which are already struggling to stay in business without leaving California.)
Proposition 25: NO (This initiative would eliminate the two-thirds vote requirement for passage of the state budget and it would cause legislators to forfeit their salaries and travel allowances if the budget is not adopted by June 15 each year. Although the ballot summary claims that it would leave the current two-thirds requirement for tax increases unchanged, the text of the amendment itself makes it certain that the Democrats could increase taxes by majority vote, too.)
Proposition 26: YES (Requires a two-thirds vote for certain fee increases. This initiative fixes the damage done by the California Supreme Court in the infamous Sinclair Paint case.)
Proposition 27: NO (Eliminates the independent State Commission on Redistricting.)
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore's Statewide Ballot Proposition Recommendations
For the 11/2/10 CA Election
Chuck DeVore--Proposition 19: NO – Marijuana legalization
My biggest concerns with this initiative, aside from the basic policy considerations, are two large unintended consequences: 1) will drug abuse grow, thus putting more of a strain on our out-of-control welfare system; 2) the impact of lawsuits on employers seeking to enforce a zero-tolerance policy (especially important in the defense industry).
Chuck DeVore--Proposition 20: YES – Redistricting reform extended to Congress
Prop. 20 will make the independent State Commission on Redistricting re-draw Congressional Districts in 2011, instead of the legislature working with liberal interests, just as the independent commission will re-draw Legislative district boundaries per 2008's Proposition 11.
Chuck DeVore--Proposition 21: NO – Vehicle license fee hike of $18
Increases the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) by $18. The VLF was already almost doubled during the largest tax increase in U.S. history at the state level in Feb. 2009. This $18 tax is supposed to give all California licensed cars the ability to enter state parks for free – of course, many Californians never, or infrequently, use state parks, so this is really more of a tax than a fee.
Chuck DeVore--Proposition 22: NO – Redevelopment agency protection
Initially, I was in favor of this initiative, as I thought it dealt solely with protecting local funds from raids by Sacramento. As I studied it I discovered otherwise. Prop. 22 is really about protecting often abusing redevelopment agencies from Sacramento. Redevelopment agencies use eminent domain to take property from one private owner and give it to another. They are legally state, not local agencies, and they have been diverting ever larger chunks of local property tax revenue (now some 12 percent) away from local schools, fire departments, and special districts.
Chuck DeVore--Proposition 23: YES – Suspends California's greenhouse gas reduction law
In 2006 the Legislature passed AB 32, a bill that aims to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in ten years. This task will be impossible without massive additional job losses or the full-scale implementation of modern nuclear power. Prop. 23 simply says that, until California's unemployment rate dips back below 5.5 percent for a year, AB 32 will remain on hold.
Chuck DeVore--Proposition 24: NO – Makes California more hostile to business and job creation
Increases taxes by $2 billion on California businesses, both large and small.
Chuck DeVore--Proposition 25: NO – Makes it easier to grow government and raise taxes
Eliminates the two-thirds vote requirement to pass the state budget, making it easier to grow government, thus increasing the pressure to raise taxes.
Chuck DeVore--Proposition 26: YES – Makes it harder to raise taxes by disguising them as fees
Taxes require a two-thirds vote to increase in California. Fee increases require a simple majority. Why the difference? Taxes are supposed to go to the General Fund while fees are designed to offset the cost of a government "service" or a regulatory good (such as pollution control). Desperate for more cash, Democrats have taken to passing majority vote fees that are really new taxes, Prop. 26 would end this growing practice.
Chuck DeVore--Proposition 27: NO – Turns back the clock on redistricting reform
Sponsored by public unions and Democrats, this initiative eliminates the independent State Commission on Redistricting so liberal lawmakers can draw their own district lines in 2011 so the politicians can chose the voters instead of the voters choosing the politicians.
Tom McClintock on the Nov. 2, 2010 Propositions
By Jon Huey, on October 5, 2010
Tom McClintock--Prop 19: When Worlds Collide. NO. If this simply allowed people to cultivate and smoke marijuana themselves and left the rest of us alone, it would be worth considering. But it goes much further and provides that "no person shall be … discriminated against or denied any right or privilege" for pot use, inviting a lawsuit every time an employer tries to require a drug test, for example. If you want to smoke pot in your own world, I don't care. But don't bring it into mine.
Tom McClintock--Prop 20: Congressional Redistricting. YES. This finishes the work we began in 2008 to get redistricting decisions away from self-interested state legislators and into the hands of a bi-partisan commission. The original reform omitted Congressional districts – this simply adds them.
Tom McClintock--Prop 21: Highway Robbery. NO. Right now, state park users pay a nominal fee that helps pay for upkeep, assuring that those who use our state parks help pay for them. This measure ends the day-user fee and shifts the cost to the rest of us by imposing an $18 per car tax increase whether we use the parks or not. Stealing money from highway travelers used to be called "highway robbery." Now it's called "Proposition 21."
Tom McClintock--Prop 22: Hands Off Our Money. YES. This takes a giant leap toward restoring local government independence and protecting our transportation taxes by prohibiting state raids on local and transportation funds. Local governments are hardly paragons of virtue, but local tax revenues should remain local.
Tom McClintock--Prop 23: Liberation from the Environmental Left. YES. In 2006, Sacramento's rocket-scientists enacted AB 32, imposing draconian restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions (yes, that's the stuff you exhale). They promised to save the planet from "global warming" and open a cornucopia of new jobs. Since then, California's unemployment rate has shot far beyond the national unemployment rate and the earth has continued to warm and cool as it has for billions of years. Prop 23 merely holds the Environmental Left to its promise: it suspends AB 32 until unemployment stabilizes at or below its pre-AB 32 level.
Tom McClintock--Prop 24: Because Taxes Just Aren't High Enough. NO. This is a predictable entry by the public employee unions to impose an additional $1.7 billion tax on businesses. The problem, of course, is that businesses don't pay business taxes – we do. Business taxes can only be paid in three ways: by us as consumers (through higher prices), by us as employees (through lower wages) and by us as investors (through lower earnings on our 401(k)'s).
Tom McClintock--Prop 25: Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire. NO. This changes the 2/3 vote requirement for the state budget to a simple majority – a reform I have long supported. Experience has shown that the current 2/3 vote requirement for the budget does not restrain spending and it utterly blurs accountability. But such a reform MUST repair the 2/3 vote requirement for all tax increases and restore constitutional spending and borrowing limits. Without these provisions, Prop. 25 would be a disaster for taxpayers and a recipe for bankruptcy.
Tom McClintock--Prop 26: Calling a Tax a Tax. YES. Under the infamous Sinclair Paint decision, virtually any tax may be increased by majority vote as long as it is called a "fee," gutting the 2/3 vote requirement in the state constitution to raise taxes. Prop. 26 rescinds Sinclair Paint, restores the Constitution, and calls a tax a tax.
Tom McClintock--Prop 27: OMG. NO. Want to go back to the days when politicians drew their own district lines, literally choosing their own voters? This will get us there.
Craig Huey - Election Forum's Proposition Recommendations
For the 11/2/10 California Elections
Craig Huey--No - Proposition 19—Legalizes Marijuana Under California But Not Federal Law. Permits Local Governments to Regulate and Tax Commercial Production, Distribution, and Sale of Marijuana—State of California
Craig Huey--Yes - Proposition 20—Redistricting of Congressional Districts—State of California
Craig Huey—No - Proposition 21—Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs. Grants Surcharged Vehicles Free Admission to All State Parks—State of California
Craig Huey—No - Proposition 22—Prohibits the State From Borrowing Or Taking Funds Used for Transportation, Redevelopment, Or Local Government Projects and Services—State of California
Craig Huey--Yes - Proposition 23—Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major Polluters to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops to 5.5 Percent Or Less for Full Year—State of California
Craig Huey--No - Proposition 24—Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses to Lower Their Tax Liability—State of California
Craig Huey--No - Proposition 25—Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass Budget and Budget-Related Legislation From Two-Thirds to A Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes—State of California
Craig Huey--Yes - Proposition 26—Requires That Certain State and Local Fees Be Approved By Two-Thirds Vote. Fees Include Those That Address Adverse Impacts on Society Or the Environment Caused By the Fee-Payer's Business—State of California
Craig Huey--No - Proposition 27—Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting With Elected Representatives—State of California
Capitol Resource Institute Proposition Voter Guide
For the 11/2/10 California Election
Capitol Resource Institute has analyzed ballot initiatives and in hopes of providing the community some sense of direction we have taken an official position on all ballot propositions. Although not all initiatives are conspicuously under the purview of CRI's mission, let us assure you they will affect the family. Tax or fee-related propositions would pinch the already tight pocketbook of any family. Provisions to scale back business-friendly laws would result in additional job loss or prohibit a family member from finding employment. Burdensome green-gas emissions regulations means additional energy costs for families whose budget cannot afford expenditure spikes or to shift a family's priorities. Fiscal and social issues are intricately intertwined. Good tax policy means families can keep more of their own money and spend it on what they deem necessary.
Proposition 19- Marijuana Legalization
CRI--Prop 19: NO
Analysis: On Education- Employers, including public schools, would be at risk of violating the Federal Workplace Act of 1988, which mandates the necessity of a drug-free workplace. By violating the Workplace Act $9.4 billion of public school federal funding, should Proposition 19 pass, is threatened and potentially lost.
On Public Safety- The measure purposely omits any definition of being under the influence of marijuana. Unlike alcohol, no testing exists to determine the amount of marijuana intoxication in the body. A person may legally drive, should Proposition 19 pass, when the only test which determines whether an individual has consumed marijuana or not comes back positive.
According to language Health and Safety Code Section 11300 Subsection C (iii) would read "nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis...consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated." It is important to note the Proposition would prohibit someone from actively consuming marijuana while driving but not prior to driving. Such provision would prevent employers who require employees to operate moving machinery from taking action against marijuana-intoxicated workers.
On Business- According to California Chamber of Commerce: "The Board of Directors voted to oppose the measure because it would drive up costs and significantly undermine the ability of employers to protect the safety of all employees in the workplace. If this measure were approved, employers, including the State of California, would be faced with the burden of proving that an employee who tests positive for marijuana is "actually impaired" from performing the job before taking any adverse action against the employee. This process would delay disciplinary actions used to protect workplace safety and drive up costs due to increased litigation. In addition, the CalChamber Board voted to oppose the act because it threatens state and federal contracts and grants. If passed, this initiative could result in employers losing public contracts and grants because they could no longer effectively enforce the drug-free workplace requirements outlined by the federal government."
Full Text: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i821_initiative_09-0024_amdt_1-s.pdf
Proposition 20- Constitutional Amendment: Redistricting of Congressional Districts
CRI--Prop 20: YES
Analysis: In 2008, California voted to approve an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission comprised of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 4 of neither. The initiative only applied to the State Assembly and Senate districts as well as Board of Equalization. Proposition 20 would expand the work of the voter-approved commission to include members of Congress. Every 10 years, after the U.S. Census, congressional and state legislative districts are redrawn. This proposition would place California voters in charge; remove the power from politicians who behind close doors draw district lines to benefit their friends in Congress. For example the Los Angeles Times and Orange County Register previously exposed 32 Members of Congress and other politicians who paid a political consultant approximately one million dollars to redraw district boundaries to guarantee their reelection.
Full Text: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i825_initiative_09-0027.pdf
Proposition 21- Vehicle License Fee Increase
CRI--Prop 21: NO
Analysis: In a nutshell, Proposition 21 increases the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) by $18. Such a fee disproportionately affects lower income families. Last year the legislature raised the VLF from 0.65 to 1.15 percent. Proponents of Proposition 21 are asking for state park funding via the fee increase. Ironically, the San Francisco Chronicle and The Los Angeles Times, not your typical conservative publications oppose the measure.
In part, California's chronic budget deadlock is a result of budget inflexibility. Various measures such as Proposition 21 have passed the legislature or the ballot thus tying precious moneys to a certain program. For example, should Proposition 21 pass half a billion dollars collected from the fee would go to exclusively fund state parks. This means the money cannot be shifted away from state parks and used for higher education or other more pertinent programs.
California needs budget flexibility not another fee locked to a certain program let alone an additional tax on California taxpayers.
Full Text: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i869_initiative_09-0072.pdf
Proposition 22- Diverting Taxes
CRI---Prop 22: NO
Analysis: Proposition 22 is another example of ballot box budgeting. The initiative constrains government flexibility to tackle a financial crisis. This measure imposes unwarranted restrictions on the ability of politicians to make difficult decisions when deciding how to allocate sparse resources. Additionally, the measure unequivocally protects redevelopment funding, which historically was instead used for "corporate welfare, crony capitalism, and eminent domain abuse."
Full Text: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i860_initiative_09-0063_amdt_1-ns.pdf
Proposition 23: Suspends AB 32
CRI--Prop 23: YES
Analysis: Liberal Sacramento politicians are great at some things: increasing taxes, mandates, and creating a hostile environment for families and job creators. California's Global Warming Solutions Act or also known as AB 32: raises taxes/fines, creates new rules and regulations, and creates a hostile environment for families struggling to make ends meet.
A yes vote on Proposition 23 would temporarily suspend this costly draconian Act until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or less for 4 consecutive quarters. It is estimated AB 32 will increase energy costs by billions of dollars, which will ensure additional loss of jobs, higher utility and electricity costs for all, and according to Sierra Research up to $3.7 billion in higher gasoline and diesel prices.
Full Text: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i902_initiative_09-0104.pdf
Proposition 24: Raises Taxes
CRI--Prop 24: NO
Analysis: According to Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, "Proposition 24 repeals recently enacted changes in the tax code that were designed to somewhat ease the tax burden on California businesses. Proposition 24 raises taxes on California in three ways. First, Proposition 24 ends a practice called "elective single sales factor" that allows businesses to choose between basing their tax burden on sales or property and payroll, giving them the ability to use whichever formula results in a lower obligation. Second, Proposition 24 ends a tax credit designed for research and development that allows companies to shift tax credits between profitable and unprofitable operations. Because research units do not usually earn profits directly, the ability to shift credits between units assists research and development units. Finally, this proposition ends the practices of "net operating loss carryback," a tax procedure that allows businesses to use previous tax years operating losses to reduce their liability in a current profitable year."
California is ranked by numerous publications as one of the nation's worst state to do business. The reasons: one of the highest business tax rates and regulatory demands. The recent regulatory and tax changes were intended to incentivize business to come to California. Shockingly, these changes were part of a budget agreement between Republicans and Democrats. Most of the changes would take effect come 2011; however, certain anti-business forces attempted to roll back these provisions during the legislative calendar and are now attempting to do so at the ballot.
It is important California families vote no on Proposition 24 because a more convoluted regulatory and tax system only drives away business that would otherwise settle in California and hire folks in your community.
Full Text: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i855_initiative_09-0058_amdt_1-ns.pdf
Proposition 25: Lowers Threshold to Simple Majority for Budget
CRI--Prop 25: NO
Analysis: Currently and according to California's Constitution the budget must be approved by 2/3 of the legislature in both chambers. Proposition 25 would eliminate the 2/3 requirement and reduce it to a simple majority. Supporters argue the budget would likely be on time because it requires fewer "yes" votes; however, Proposition 25 would grant an excessive amount of power to those who would like to see it enacted.
The proposition would eliminate our constitutional right to use the referendum system to correct budget bills. For example, if Proposition 25 was law then voters would not have the opportunity to go to the polls like we did in May 2009 to vote down several tax hikes.
According to Cal-Tax, the state's largest and oldest organization representing taxpayers, the measure increases the likelihood of state tax increases. Additionally, given the simple majority requirement, the legislature will be less likely to clamp down on inefficiency or waste. To view Cal-Tax's analysis click here.
Full Text: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i854_initiative_09-0057.pdf
Proposition 26: Requires a 2/3 Vote for Fee Increases
CRI--Prop 26: YES
Analysis: In order to raises taxes, special taxes, or taxes enacted by local governments, California's Constitution Article XIIIA, Section 3, Section 4, Article XIIIC Section 1, and XIIID Section 2 requires a 2/3 vote from the legislature, 2/3 voter-vote for special taxes and majority voter-vote for locally-levied taxes. State officials and legislators have for years disguised tax increases as fees thus circumventing current law. Say, state officials have a new program they'd like to implement. Yet, they do not have the votes necessary to raise taxes in order to pay for the program. They will simply bypass the 2/3 vote requirement by imposing a "fee" on a good or service used profusely by consumers.
Proposition 26 would close the loophole by requiring a 2/3 vote for any fee increase.
Full Text: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i891_initiative_09-0093.pdf
Proposition 27: Eliminates Voter-Approved Citizen Commission on Redistricting
CRI--Prop 27: NO
Analysis: Proposition 27 seeks to overturn 2008's Proposition 11 which established the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. Instead of having the commission draw state legislative or Board of Equalization districts it would return the power to the elected officials in Sacramento. The proposition includes what many refer to as a "poison pill" provision, which would eliminate this year's Proposition 20 if 27 passes with more votes.
Having elected officials draw the boundaries to their own districts is cause for consternation. If passed, Proposition 27 would re-establish a conspicuous conflict of interest practice carried out by politicians seeking to benefit from redistricting
Full Text: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i905_initiative_09-0107.pdf
Congressman John Campbell's Recommendations
November 2, 2010 Ballot Proposition Positions
Proposition 19: Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
John Campbell—Prop 19: OPPOSE
"Although I often take a libertarian approach to issues such as this, I believe this initiative is badly drafted and the mechanics of legalizing marijuana are extremely difficult. Proposition 19 contains a number of public safety dangers: for example, there are no correlative tests between marijuana and driving skills as there are for alcohol."
Proposition 19, which will legalize various marijuana-related activities, is more about the promotion of marijuana usage and not about liberty. This measure would significantly undermine business employers hiring practices; under current law, an employer may legally discriminate against a tobacco user, but Proposition 19 would exempt marijuana users. If this measure were approved, employers would be faced with the burden of proving that an employee who tests positive for marijuana is "actually impaired" from performing the job before taking any adverse action against the employee. And if an employer allows employees cigarette smoking breaks and/or certain areas in which cigarette smoking is allowed, they would have to allow marijuana smoking as well.
Proposition 20: Redistricting of Congressional Districts – Voters FIRST Act for Congress
John Campbell—Prop 20: SUPPORT
"I support this measure because it would extend the successful Proposition 11 provisions from 2008 to give the Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC) the additional authority to draw new boundaries for U.S. congressional districts in 2011. I believe it is an inherent conflict-of-interest if legislators draw their own districts (or districts in which they may run) as they currently do."
In 2008, Proposition 11 changed the process that is undertaken once every ten years of re-drawing the geographic boundaries of the state's 120 legislative districts and four Board of Equalization districts from the State Legislature to a non-partisan 14-member commission (CRC). The only flaw in Proposition 11 was it did NOT include congressional districts (largely due to opposition from Speaker Nancy Pelosi); Proposition 20 would correct this flaw and the drawing of congressional districts would be included under the jurisdiction of the CRC.
Proposition 21 -- Vehicle License Fee for Parks Act
John Campbell—Prop 21: OPPOSE
"Proposition 21 will impose ANOTHER mandatory "car tax" in the amount of eighteen dollars ($18) annually on every vehicle for parking at selected state parks. Last year, Sacramento nearly doubled your car tax from 0.65% to 1.15% - Proposition 21 would raise it AGAIN. Sacramento simply can't tax us out of our current budget crisis."
Sacramento needs real budget reform and must stop spending money we don't have. Pension reform, smaller government, a spending limit and a "rainy day" reserve would be useful reforms to relieve California's rising debt - Proposition 21 offers NO real budget solutions. Use of the State Parks should be paid by the actual user – not EVERY motorist in the state.
Proposition 22: Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act
John Campbell—Prop 22: SUPPORT
"The State government shouldn't be raiding financially responsible cities in order to solve a State spending problem. The State is continuing the irresponsible practice of taking and borrowing local taxpayer dollars and dedicated transportation funds: the 2009/10 state budget borrowed and took approximately $5 billion in city, county, transit, redevelopment and special district funds despite the fact that voters have overwhelmingly passed ballot measures to keep local funding at the local level. This initiative would put a stop to this."
Proposition 22 would prevent Sacramento from taking local taxpayer funds currently dedicated to cities, counties, special districts and redevelopment agencies. It would also revoke the State's authority to borrow local government property tax funds. Proposition 22 decreases pressure for local tax and fee increases at the local government level that become needed when the state takes local revenues and local governments are forced to look for new revenues.
Proposition 23: Initiative to Suspend AB 32, the Global Warming Act of 2006
John Campbell—Prop 23: SUPPORT
"Moving ahead with AB32 at this point in time will have no meaningful effect to slow global warming, but it will cost Californians billions in higher taxes and more expensive energy at a time of record-high unemployment and a severe recession."
Even if you believe this is a problem, it's a global issue and must be addressed as such. The California Air Resources Board acknowledges this, stating in its AB32 Scoping Plan: "California cannot avert the impacts of global climate change by acting alone." Unfortunately California is acting alone, recklessly pursuing multibillion-dollar climate-change programs while other states and other countries protect their economies from precisely the type of economic disruption associated with AB32 by taking a dramatically less aggressive approach.
Unless AB 32 is suspended, here are some examples of what AB32 will cost consumers:
– Up to 60 percent higher retail electricity rates (Southern California Public Power Authority);
– 8 percent increase in natural gas costs (California Air Resources Board);
– $3.7 billion in higher gasoline and diesel costs (Sierra Research);
– Possible $143 billion auction tax to offset AB32's higher energy prices and job losses (CARB Economic Allocation and Advisory Committee).
Proposition 24: Repeal Corporate Tax Loopholes Act
John Campbell—Prop 24: OPPOSE
"At a time when we're trying to pull California out of a deep recession and put people back to work, Prop. 24 imposes tax increases on the very businesses that create jobs. California employers and small businesses will be hit with nearly $2 billion dollars in higher taxes which will further stifle job growth throughout the state. That means more small businesses closing shop, more employers expanding into other states, fewer jobs, and fewer long-term tax revenues to fund the general fund."
I oppose Proposition 24 because it repeals recently enacted tax benefits such as: the elective single sales factor, net operating loss (NOL) carry back, and tax credit sharing. It would additionally repeal the recently enacted expansion of the NOL carryover from 10 to 20 years. The California State Franchise Tax Board estimates show 120,000 businesses would pay higher taxes under Proposition 24.
Proposition 25: Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority.
John Campbell—Prop 25: OPPOSE
"I strongly oppose this proposal because it eliminates California's two-thirds vote requirement for passing a budget, so that a bare majority of the Legislature could vote to raise a number of taxes on California families disguised as fees."
This proposition is a direct assault on Proposition 13. Current law requires a two-thirds vote to raise taxes; the fine print of this measure will allow Sacramento politicians to pass new taxes disguised as fees by a bare majority vote and include it in a budget-related bill so that it takes effect immediately. Proposition 25 will only make it easier for politicians to increase spending and debt – the opposite of what California needs right now. With a $20 billion budget deficit this year alone, California has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Proposition 26: Supermajority Vote to Pass New Taxes and Fees Act
John Campbell—Prop 26: SUPPORT
"I support this measure because it closes a loophole in the law that allows the State Legislature to raise, by a majority vote rather than the required two-thirds vote, taxes on products and services simply by calling them "fees" instead of "taxes. This is the opposite of Proposition 25."
We need to stop Sacramento from using this loophole and get them to control their wasteful spending instead. The recession has forced families to cut back. Now, we need to force the Legislature to cut spending and live within its means just like regular families do. We shouldn't be paying more in hidden taxes to fund big government. This measure would overturn the 1997 decision of the California Supreme Court, Sinclair Paint Company v. Board of Equalization, which upheld the Legislature's ability pass mitigation fees by majority vote.
Proposition 27: Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting
John Campbell—Prop 27: OPPOSE
"In 2008, the voters of California passed Proposition 11 (with my support), which ended the practice of legislators drawing their own districts and instead moved the power to an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC). Proposition 27 reverses Proposition 11. I strongly oppose this initiative because it's the exact opposite of Proposition 11 and would eliminate the CRC and return the power to draw election districts to the politicians in Sacramento. Proposition 27 was placed on the ballot by special interests to confuse voters with Proposition 20. Don't be fooled!"
Voting ‘No' on Proposition 27 will preserve voter-approved Proposition 11, let the independent CRC continue drawing fair election districts and keep the voters in charge. Voters had good reason to take redistricting power out of the hands of legislators. They have an obvious conflict of interest in the process - and they exploit it. The result is a contorted map, with legislative districts carved and stretched in ways to assure the outcome of future elections. ‘No' on Prop. 27 means districts will be drawn fairly and in a transparent process, keeping communities intact and ensuring voters have a real voice in elections.
