Has there ever been an election, special or otherwise, with such a uniformly unpalatable set of choices? All six special propositions on the May 19 ballot are the result of a deeply flawed Sacramento budget and policy-making process. We've touched on what we believe are the underlying causes before: term-limits, the two-thirds super-majority requirement, our distorted initiative process, insulated legislative districts and an ineffective governor.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, May 8, 2009, 12:00 AM
Posted by Carl, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on May 8, 2009 at 12:55 am
With 'pages of reasons to vote "no" and that it doesn't represent good public policy', the best rationale you can come up with is - 'We don't like this package. We don't believe CA legislators can come up with a better one. Let's hold our noses, and vote Yes.'?? How lame.
Send these propositions to a rousing defeat. There is no reason to have a $42 billion and growing defecit. Send this package back to the drawing board and force a better solution.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on May 8, 2009 at 7:07 am Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
It reminds me of one of something a pro-Measure G person wrote on this site once...
"Like it or not, vote yes!"
Well, fear can indeed sway many a decision. This shouldn't be one of them. If we're voting on propositions out of fear for what would happen if we don't pass them, then those propositions have no business being on the ballot in the first place. It means that those that put them on the ballot didn't do their job.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 8, 2009 at 8:59 am
Being scared and doubting the ability of the legislature and governor to come up with better solutions is NOT a good reason to vote yes on the measures... they are all wrong. The people who thought of these measures don't seem all that competent.
Why don't they, instead, reform all those deals Davis made with the unions? The city of Vallejo had financial issues because of the pensions paid to police, fire chiefs for instance. They get 3 percent (of their salary) for every year worked as pension once they retire, some retire with more than 200K in salary, and that has to change. That is what is making California have budget deficits. You have the unions and Davis to thank for that.
Also cut more expenses: do we really need a county of education? If you call them, there is nothing they can do for you, they say it is all local control. So why do we need a county office of education, on top of a state department of education? The solution is first to cut down all the unnecessary expenses. Walk into any government agency and see the many cubicles with people not doing anything but collecting a paycheck (just walk into any county of education office for example).
For NO on everything except 1F: obviously we don't have good leaders, and they do not deserve a raise.
While not all comments are good (as with any post), it gives you an idea of how California needs to change the 3 point system implemented by Davis. Until that is done, we will have budget deficits. There are public employees like police and fire fighters making more money (in excess of 200K) than some in the private sector -and this is at retirement! Their pension is huge! No wonder California is broke! Davis should be held accountable for what he did before being recalled as governor, and the unions must end.
Posted by John, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on May 8, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Steven, I think a lot more people than were at the tea parties would be voting no and by the way I did not attend the tea parties but have the utmost respect for the rights of the ones who did. Great for them!!!
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 10, 2009 at 6:40 am
I will vote YES on Measure G.
I will vote NO on all other measures (May 19) except 1F.
I was at the TEA party taking pictures and finding out who was there. Not everyone there was republican or right-wing. I spoke with some who were democrats, supported Obama and were disappointed with what the administration is doing so far. Some were independent, some were young with kids and some were older. At least that is what I found in the brief time I was there taking pictures and talking to people.