Comments on: Trick or Treat? Proposition 31 is reverse of Prop. 13

By: R.J.S. JR.

R.J.S. JR. — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 23:43:38 +0000

I AM VOTING NO ON THIS PROP 31 BECAUSE I HAVE DONE MY RESEARCH. MOST VOTERS DO NOT TAKE THE TIME TO UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT AND FUTURE IMPLICATIONS [VOTERS CAN BE APATHETIC AND LACKING THE KNOWLEDGE NEEDED TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT EFFECT THEMSELVES AND FUTURE GENERATIONS]. I AM GLAD THAT ORGANIZATIONS LIKE CALWATCHDOG, HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, AND COUNTLESS OTHERS ARE THERE TO HELP THOSE WHO NEED INFORMATION TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR FORUM AND YOUR TIME…SINCERELY, A SO-CAL MODERATE REPUBLICAN [FISCAL CONSERVATION] PS–>JUST ONE LAST THOUGHT: IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND A PROPOSITION, ABSTAIN YOUR VOTE [LEAVE BLANK] -OR- VOTE “NO”…DO NOT BLINDLY SUPPORT A PROP THAT MAY INCREASE YOUR TAXES AND / OR MAKE CHANGES THAT WILL EFFECT YOUR GRANDCHILDREN’S GRANDCHILDREN…JUST ONE MAN’S OPINION!!!

By: John

John — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 22:55:45 +0000

“The $25 million circuit breaker funding clause in Prop. 31 will only work with a responsible Legislature that does not use budget gimmicks.” – Isn’t that the point of the initiative? To stop the status quo of bad budgeting. Your argument against Prop 31 is a perfect example of why we should ALL vote FOR PROP 31!!!!

By: Stanley K.

Stanley K. — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:29:25 +0000

Calwatchdog readers should refresh their memories and read what is REALLY at the heart of the murky and mysterious Prop 31. When they do I’m betting they will want to VOTE NO:

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/08/30/prop-31-would-regionalize-state-revenue-sharing/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/316404/californias-prop-31-revolution-will-not-be-publicized-stanley-kurtz#

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/10/16/katy-grimes-dissects-prop-31/

By: Zabrae

Zabrae — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:00:17 +0000

I was a founding staff member of CA Fwd and the CA Fwd Action Fund. While there, I was the Deputy Director of CA Fwd, and the Executive Director of the CA Fwd Action Fund. I left both organizations in April and am no longer affiliated with them in any professional capacity. I am very familiar however with the substance of Prop 31. Therefore the one thing I’ve done related to it is try to address inaccuracies in reporting on the measure when that occurs. I do not get paid to do so. –There is a lot in this measure, and I understand a certain amount of misinformation is inevitable — but i do think the measure deserves a fair shot. See background on the two plus year public deliberations upon which the proposal was built here: http://caforward.3cdn.net/3d873da84c136dc965_irm6iv4vi.pdf. (and endorsements here: http://www.accountableca.org/endorsements). Happy to talk further to anyone about this, email is zabrae@yahoo.com. Thanks, zv

By: Stanley K.

Stanley K. — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:58:29 +0000

Commenter above identifies herself in a number of places on the internet where info about Prop 31 is posted as “Zabrae Valentine · Deputy Director at California Forward.”
California Forward is the sponsor of Proposition 31.

By: Zabrae

Zabrae — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:41:03 +0000

Let’s absolutely fault Prop 31 for all of the things that aren’t in it: For example, in addition to not including provisions related to bond financing, Prop 31 also doesn’t do anything to bring about world peace, which is unconscionable.

The “Pay as You Go” proposal has been being discussed publicly for over three years, in the bright shiny light of day. It’s simple, and fiscal realists should love it. Currently, when State Govt enacts popular new programs without any way to fund them, popular old programs get gutted after the fact to pay for the new ones, without any public oversight. PayGo simply requires that lawmakers have a plan to pay for those new programs up front so that it can be a part of the decision to approve the new program. And you bet this applies to tax cuts too: In the same way that lawmakers must have a plan for where the money will come from for new programs, they also must have a plan if they want to reduce revenue currently available for existing programs– they have to say what services they are going to cut as a result, or similarly how that revenue will be replaced. Pay-Go simply requires that lawmakers engage in a full discussion of the impacts of fiscal proposals up front — rather then only showing the pretty half initially, and dealing with the gore of the impact later, when hopefully no one is paying attention (or its too late to make constructive changes).

By: Ulysses Uhaul

Ulysses Uhaul — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:02:56 +0000

Your one disturbed puppy!

By: Bill - San Jose

Bill - San Jose — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:29:22 +0000

“The $25 million circuit breaker funding clause in Prop. 31 will only work with a responsible Legislature that does not use budget gimmicks.”
// insert wiseguy remark here re: responsible legislature //

Nice article and thanks for pointing out what I hadn’t recognized.

By: Rex the Wonder Dog!

Rex the Wonder Dog! — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 02:55:07 +0000

Nice pic of Teddy, if he would only smile 😉