$42.7 billion in bonds are on the November ballot
State government is asking voters to borrow a staggering bundle of cash on the November ballot – $42.7 billion – plus a property tax increase of $50 per parcel.
Spending is out of control and this burden of crushing debt, if adopted by voters, will strap a financial anvil to the feet of taxpayers in this state for generations to come.
For the most part: “Just say NO!”
It’s inconceivable that our legislators, rather than prioritizing needs and fixing problems, are back like spoiled children asking for more.
Our recommendations:
YES ON 1A
Proposition 1A. Transportation Funding Protection
(Legislative Constitutional Amendment – Majority Approval)
Should the California Constitution be amended to further protect the state sales tax revenues for transportation purposes from general-purpose use and require any funds borrowed to be repaid to the transportation fund?
YES ON 1B
Proposition 1B. Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security
(Legislative Bond Act – Majority Approval)
Should the state sell $19.9 billion in general obligation bonds to fund state and local transportation improvement projects to relieve congestion, improve movement of goods, improve air quality, and enhance safety and security of the transportation system?
YES ON 1C
Proposition 1C. Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006
(Legislative Bond Act – Majority Approval)
Should the state sell $2.9 billion in general obligation bonds to fund housing for lower-income residents and development in urban areas near public transportation?
YES ON 1D
Proposition 1D. Kindergarten-
University Public Education Facilities
(Legislative Bond Act – Majority Approval)
Should the state sell $10.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund repair and upgrade of public schools, including kindergarten through grade 12, community colleges, and state universities?
YES ON 1E
Proposition 1E. Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention
(Legislative Bond Act – Majority Approval)
Should the state sell $4.1 billion in general obligation bonds to finance disaster preparedness and flood prevention projects at the state and local levels?
NO ON 83
Proposition 83. Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions, Monitoring.
(Initiative Statute – Majority Approval)
Should California amend existing laws relating to violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters to increase penalties and monitoring?
YES ON 84
Proposition 84. Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements.
(Bond Initiative Statute – Majority Approval)
Should the state issue $5.4 billion in bonds for a wide variety of projects related to water safety, rivers, beaches, levees, watersheds, and parks and forests?
NO ON 85
Proposition 85. Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy.
(Constitutional Amendment – Majority Approval )
Should the California Constitution be amended to require notification of the parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion?
NO ON 86
Proposition 86. Tax on Tobacco
(Constitutional Amendment and Statute – Majority Approval)
Should the state impose an additional tax of $2.60 per cigarette pack to fund new and expanded health services, health insurance for children, and expand tobacco use prevention programs?
NO ON 87
Proposition 87. Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers
(Constitutional Amendment and Statute – Majority Approval)
Should California establish a $4 billion Clean Alternative Energy Program to reduce California’s oil and gasoline consumption by 25 percent through incentives for alternative energy, education, and training?
NO ON 88
Proposition 88. Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax
(Constitutional Amendment and Statute – Majority Approval)
Should the California Constitution be amended to levy an annual $50 real property tax on most parcels with the funds allocated to five K-12 education programs?
NO ON 89
Proposition 89. Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Limits
(Initiative Statute – Majority Approval)
Should eligible candidates for state elective offices receive public campaign funding that is supported by new taxes on corporations and financial institutions, and should expenditure limits be imposed on those candidates that do not receive public campaign funding?
NO ON 90
Proposition 90. Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property
(Initiative Constitutional Amendment – Majority Approval)
Should the California Constitution be amended to require government to pay property owners for substantial economic losses resulting from some new laws and rules, and limit government authority to take ownership of private property?
