Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-29-2012, 2:37 PM Reply   
Here are my thoughts:

Budgetary Background
There are several propositions dealing with the budget, all making claims about needed revenues. I decided to take the raw budget numbers for comparison. Please note that our budget is similar this year to the budget in 2008-09. Fall of 2008 is when the stock market collapsed and that winter the housing market followed. The difference between this year’s (2012-13) budget and the 2008-09 is roughly $2 billion less or 1.4% less, however, education is roughly $7.3 billion less or 15.8% less. I dug through the budget line items looking for a meaningful cause like debt service, ect., but it appears to be a shift in priorities, a little here, a little there.

The question to ask yourself when examining the propositions proposing tax increases is whether we have a cashflow problem or a spending problem. While household budgets are not analogous to government budgets one can make the comparison in relation to priorities. Considering what this state has gone through, to only be single percentage points away from California’s best years, it is clear that priorities in our legislature and executive branches have shifted.

Proposition 30 - No
While the primary argument for this proposition is found in this year’s budgetary threat (trigger cuts) against education spending, we know that the state has more than enough revenues to support education at a much higher level. By making the threat to education while funding other programs at historically high levels the Governor and Legislature are forcing the voters hand. I believe capitulating to these threats without any reforms or limits is a slippery slope and in fact as voters we should be forcing the Governor’s and Legislature’s hand. Proposition 30 bolsters the general fund which in turn increases the Proposition 98 guarantee. However, these are general fund revenues and can be used for any budget line item. I’m not one to take promises or even intent language seriously as a term limited legislature and executive does not have the institutional knowledge to keep deals made prior to their elections. Nothing in this proposition will keep the Governor or Legislature from under-funding education again in favor of other programs, as we have seen over the past few years. Nor does this proposition do anything to increase government accountability or efficiency. If you are inclined to support education funding vote 'No' on 30 and 'Yes' on 38.

Proposition 31 – Leaning Yes
This is a government reform measure. One could argue that if you are inclined to vote for one of the tax increases you should also vote for this proposition as it has some budgetary reforms. I’m still examining the full impacts of this measure but right now am favorable to the arguments of the proponents.

Proposition 32 - Undecided
Six Of One, A Half Dozen Of The Other… Those impacted by this measure will just form “super-PACs.” May impact public employee unions but as evidenced in Wisconsin the unions will weather the storm, incorporate differently and move forward. In my opinion, not much will change other than some creative PAC naming.

Proposition 33 – Yes with hesitation
Ostensibly the same as Proposition 17 from 2010… This benefits Mercury, Progressive, and Liberty Mutual. This will hurt State Farm, Farmers, and Allstate who only break even on their car policies. This might impact your rates if you get a multi-line discount from a major that helps offset their higher car insurance rate. So this may hurt my State Farm discounts but allows the consumer to control their discounts, not the insurance company.

Proposition 34 - Yes
This really depends on your perspective and is not something that can be argued. I will be voting Yes because of my personal beliefs, lack of current implementation which results in a heavy fiscal burden (5 times of the cost of a general population prisoner) and prolonged times of unserved justice.

Proposition 35 - Yes
Heinous crimes deserving of higher penalties.

Proposition 36 - NO
Three-strikes already has provisions stating 2 of the 3 strikes are violent or serious felonies. Not sure I’m inclined to agree with the proponents that only 3-violent crimes should trigger the three-strikes law. Adding a third victim of violent crime is not a way to reform the system. Investment in rehabilitation programs would be.

Proposition 37 – NO!!!!!!!!
USDA’s 100% Organic label already indicates that the product is GMO-free. This is a proposition written by the same lawyer who wrote and made millions on litigation of Proposition 65. Spend the next week looking for Proposition 65 warnings and think if you have ever not frequented a business because of their Prop 65 warning. Coffee, wine, and other widely consumed products trigger the Prop 65 notice. This law would do the same and open up grocers and family-owned businesses to similar lawsuits. Also, as initially stated, there is a Federal Government label that indicates the food is GMO-free, California does not need a separate law.

Proposition 38 - Undecided
While I have not been convinced by the budgetary numbers, if you want to increase education funding this measure sends the increased tax revenues directly back to the programs as advertised. This is a broad-based tax so most tax-brackets share the burden, which is appropriate as education is a societal problem, not just that of the upper-income earners. This measure does a good job at getting the money to schools and children’s programs but still lacks any reforms that I believe are necessary. We know that more-money does not equal better results so changes are still needed to address the outlying issues.

Proposition 39 - No
The single sales factor formula for out-state employers is certainly something that is coming. However, the rate-payers spend about $1.3 billion annually on energy efficiencies, the legislature just set-forth a plan to spend up to $88 billion in Cap-and-Trade revenues for energy efficiency and offset projects. The California Energy Commission energy efficiency regulations have kept per capita power consumption in California flat since 1974. More money for energy efficiencies is a misnomer supported by an investor in these technologies.

There are better uses for the single sales factor and even Republican votes with the appropriate legislative deal. This measure is unnecessary and not the best deal for Californians in my opinion.

Borrowed from a friend who staffs a State Senator, “…the myth that there are no Republicans willing to discuss tax reform is utterly false. Exhibit A – Assemblymen Fletcher and Smyth voting for higher taxes on business (SSF). Exhibit B – The GOP 5 (6? 4?) from 2011 and the suite of proposals they offered in order to discuss the Governor’s tax proposals. Exhibit C – 2009 when the Legislature passed $13 billion in “temporary” taxes with the key votes of Republicans. With regard to the GOP 5 in 2011, it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who walked away from the table. It was more important to the Democrat leadership to blame Republicans and try and win a 2/3 majority of the Legislature than it was to sit down in, albeit what was likely to be frustrating and difficult, negotiations. Strong opposition from organized labor for what was being proposed by both Governor Brown and the GOP 5 probably didn’t help either.”

Proposition 40 – Yes
Approves the new Senate districts that were drawn by the Citizen’s Redistricting Commission. Opposition has been withdrawn after losing their appeal in the State Supreme Court.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-30-2012, 10:31 AM Reply   
I usually vote no on every one. I don't think I like the idea of tying up budgets or make law based on the vast majority of the people reading it for maybe 5 seconds while at the voting booth.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-30-2012, 10:56 AM Reply   
I would urge you to spend a few moments and deviate from all 'no' votes. Specifically on 40 which supports citizen drawn districts and was an attempt to recover the power we took away from the politicians in 2010.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-31-2012, 9:39 AM Reply   
That one I will. I guess I have to say my "no" vote is not an absolute. I just have to read overwhelmingly that a "yes" is warranted. I remember one item from a previous year and the way it was written almost made the "no" vote a yes.
Old    Rich (theloungelife)      Join Date: Jun 2012       10-31-2012, 10:04 AM Reply   
I think on 37, you are missing a key point. There are 3 types of food that currently exist in our grocery stores. Organic (non gmo, no chemicals, grown a certain way etc), then there is conventional (non-gmo, but has normal pesticides), and GMO (GMO + pesticides). Currently there is no way to distinguish between between conventional and GMO. Saying that everyone should just buy Organic, if they don't want to buy GMO, is basically telling all the poor people (who can't afford Organic), Sorry, but you have no choice. Is that really fair? People should know what is in there food.

On top of all that there are many farms that can't afford an organic label, even if they practice organic farming. It is ongoing and expensive to keep that label. Conventional farms will be able to sell their good as conventional food, vs being grouped in with GMOs.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-31-2012, 11:07 AM Reply   
Rich, I'm not missing the point at all. There is a label to tell you that something is GMO-free, if a company wanted to differentiate they could without this legal requirement. No need to make California an island and line the pockets of the same attorneys making money on prop 65, which is background noise at this point as those warnings are everywhere.

If your arguments about farmers were correct the farm bureau would be in support but they are in fact opposed. Not to mention your argument about poor people as most of the NGOs that shepard those constituencies are opposed including the NAACP along with almost every ethnic chamber in the state. Not to mention the 7 Nobel Prize winners opposed because the arguments in support are not weighted in science. This is one of the worst con-job on voters in years. Here's the full list of opposition: http://www.noprop37.com/about/ I think that's a broad enough coalition to make one realize this is BAD public policy.

Do you honestly think this measure will not impact the cost of food? If you care about what you eat there is more than enough information in the marketplace to inform those decisions.
Old    Rich (theloungelife)      Join Date: Jun 2012       10-31-2012, 11:30 AM Reply   
The label that tells you if something is GMO-Free is "Organic". I personally have never seen a "Gmo -free" non organic label. The reason you don't see these is because any type of certification costs money, which many, especially smaller, farms can't afford, hence many conventional farmers not affording an organic label, even if applicable. Many of the larger farms are using GMO roundup at the minimum, which is why they are against the bill. Although I have no proof, I would almost guarantee that Monsanto has boots on the ground, influencing most of the listed associations.

I understand the island theory, but many believe that California will be an awakening and other states will follow, even if slowly.

I guess I come from the side that thinks the food system in America is totally F'd right now and most of the "food" people eat is anything but food. This proposition is a way to wake people up. GMOs are a start, among other major food issues, which need to follow. There is a reason American life expectancy is #38 in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ife_expectancy). I think food is part of it. The current system is cheap, but low in quality.

If I had to sum up the "other side", I would reference Michael Pollen in this article, which I think is worth a read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/ma...anted=all&_r=0
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-31-2012, 7:37 PM Reply   
More hog wash from the green movement. Convince people they need something so some rich person can make a little more money. That is typical California. Just like the Cap and Trade they just passed. Just like those stupid gas can snouts that leak all over the place but someone sure got the government to mandate them so someone could get rich. Say no to more initiatives that line the pockets of a select few off the middle class backs.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-01-2012, 9:46 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by theloungelife View Post
The label that tells you if something is GMO-Free is "Organic". I personally have never seen a "Gmo -free" non organic label. The reason you don't see these is because any type of certification costs money, which many, especially smaller, farms can't afford, hence many conventional farmers not affording an organic label, even if applicable.
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me... Look at the supporters of 37 and it is all organic farmers, organic food manufacturers, organic grocers, ect... Your argument is small farmers cannot afford the label that indicates GMO-free but you then argue that this proposition is needed. You basically acknowledge that a mandatory label will increase food costs and have no issues with that.

And the island effect isn't exactly working. I negotiate these policies in this state and can tell you not many states are following which has lead the the economic leakage of energy intensive jobs.
Old    Small Light (stephan)      Join Date: Nov 2002       11-02-2012, 1:17 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
I usually vote no on every one. I don't think I like the idea of tying up budgets or make law based on the vast majority of the people reading it for maybe 5 seconds while at the voting booth. Unless of course, it dictates who can legally marry.
There, fixed it for you. Sorry to bring up old ish, just found your post to be particularly hilarious.
Old    Jeff Ryckebosch (jeffrycke)      Join Date: May 2012       11-02-2012, 2:29 PM Reply   
Wow, you must have a ****LOAD of time on your hands to type all that about the California propositions on a Wake World thread. I can tell you as a teacher in California, that people voting NO on prop 30 would devastate California school districts. I love that most people, especially the Repubes, know soo much about what goes on in the classroom, or the financial make up of California school districts. The state has been cutting education since I started in 2001. We already have 36 students per class, I have no paper, no pencils, no ANYTHING for projects (construction paper, glue sticks, etc.) and haven't for years. Now, our district was forced to prepare for a 6 million dollar cut if 30 doesn't pass. Well if we are already on a skeleton budget, what gets cut? Well, PE, Band, all electives (which are barely any anymore), and hundreds of jobs. And all of this right at Christmas time. Now, being that you are so knowledgeable about all this, maybe you can inform parents why their kids are sitting in the middle of aisles because there are 45 kids in a classroom that only fits 35 desks, getting sneezed on by Johnny do nothing, because there is no where else for him/her to sit, and there will be no better option because the entire state will be in the same boat. Maybe you can tell all those teachers kids why they have no Christmas presents, and why their parent has no job anymore? And I'm sure you'll have a solution for the 1000s more people on unemployment and welfare in this sate, because they paid tens of thousands of dollars to get a degree and a credential, and have NO job! No on 30 is not a good idea for the future of this state or it's education system, regardless of what political rhetoric you shove up peoples ass, or you've had shoved up yours.
Old    Jordan Maxymek (Jmaxymek)      Join Date: Feb 2012       11-02-2012, 2:37 PM Reply   
Prop #37 is a MUST PASS. Perhaps those voting no don't care to know what goes into the food you consume in order to function, but many others do. I think if people knew what could happen to their body consuming genetically modified foods, they would re-think their dietary habits and their votes. The effects of GMOs go FAR beyond just the food consumed, causing increased resistance to pesticides in GMO fields, snowballing into destroyed soil and extremely unhealty crops. Also, a study conducted in France a little while back confirmed tumors and cancers were directly linked to Monsanto GMO crops. The NO ON PROP37 website highlights a ton of farming companies, none of which I saw were small scale or family-run non-GMO farmers. There were also Plumbing and Electrical unions on that coalition... They would not be affected by this law. I read the quick facts, and contrary to the articles below, they said the foods were completely safe. That is now clearly not true.

Article on Monsanto GMOs and their cancerous effects:
http://www.infowars.com/monsanto-lau...ocancer-study/

Quick GMO Myths and Truths:
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-02-2012, 4:18 PM Reply   
Jeff, wow. I do not think you read everything clearly or objectively so let's dissect this...

1.) This is a quick summary produced for family as my career is in public policy. Took me a few minutes to extract personal positions to post after spending billable hours to produce detailed analyses of these measures that I sent to various clients and stakeholders. Figured my perspective is informed and might bring information to fellow wakeboarders in California beyond what they can easily find.
2.) Appreciate your pejorative for Republicans, I have never registered for a party but obviously your vitriol for my position lends itself to putting me into a peg that is easily attacked.
3.) I understand the rhetoric that is being put out there by both sides, I think my brief statement is one of budgetary priorities and not an attack on education or education funding. I also will likely vote for Proposition 38 to spite the politicians for building in trigger cuts to help support their desire to increase taxes in this state as opposed to responsibly budgeting with the revenues they had. My position is one based on the change in priorities and a signal that California should not constantly endure the politicians going to the tax trough when they have more than enough resources available to them to fund the priorities. Education is one of those. However, while other states and jurisdictions are providing value in their services and finding ways to do more (or at least the same) with less, California insists that revenues are the only solution to every problem. At the same time we've appropriated billions in Cap-and-Trade revenues over the next 7 years, increasing special fund budgets, therefore requiring fee increases, and continue to create new programs all while defunding education. Life is not fair and you cannot have it all, it is time our politicians realize that and pick their priorities better.
4.) If you went beyond the rhetoric you know there is room in our state budget to have funded education to a minimum of a flat level without increases in taxes, especially considering the lost revenues, high unemployment, and underemployment. You probably also know that there are states with similar per pupil funding levels far exceeding our test scores, which would indicate that more can be done within existing budgets. I would vote for taxation if there was reform with it but that's not the case here.
5.) This Governor and Legislature cannot politically survive (unless CTA and others let them) the trigger cuts and will take corrective action within our current budget, which I argue is sufficient enough to increase K-12 funding by about $6.5 billion in this budget year while funding most other programs at 2008-09 levels.
6.) I will continue to work on and support policies that benefit Californians regardless of the outcome of more ballot box budgeting that put us in this bind in the first place.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-02-2012, 8:59 PM Reply   
Hey Small Light you jack ass. I didn't vote on it. There fixed.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-02-2012, 9:13 PM Reply   
Jeff,

Don't care. The state spends over 15 billion a year on illegals. The teachers union got people to pass maximum class room sizing to support the explosion of illegals in the system. The people tried to pass a measure not allowing illegals to have benefits so we can afford proper education and other services. From what I understand the state is already mandated 40% of the general budget is spent in the school system. The teachers from what I have seen make more than everyone else in the country. Talk to the union. They have set this all up for the education system. Let them pay for it. Can't have your cake and eat it too. You want to know why the state is broke and there is no money for schools? See Jordan's post about wanting more money in product cost so people can fain that they really know what is in their food and how to deal with it. Just like people voting for minimum cage sizes for chickens. More cost for consumers.

Every special little bill that lines the pockets of someone that you pass, the more the middle class will get squashed.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-02-2012, 9:21 PM Reply   
Also, that cap and trade bull crap is going to kill people with increased PG&E bills and increased food costs. All so a few land owners can make millions by selling these fake carbon credits to the exchange. It will do nothing for pollution because they can be bought for credits and they will just pull the money from the consumers. Net tax gain for the state. Land owners now get filthy stinking rich for sitting on the land that they were not allowed to develop. (give away to the Sierra Club?) Middle Class loses another $3000 plus a year to pay for it. It is a direct tax by the very nature. Screw these guys. I will oppose every single thing they stand for.
Old    Melissa (psych3060)      Join Date: Sep 2002       11-04-2012, 1:22 PM Reply   
If 30 does not pass, the ramifications for San Diego Unified are unthinkable. We stand to loose up to 17% of our pay as our union and district agreed to up to 19 furlough days this year should 30 not pass. This is devastating in two ways for me. One as an employee I stand to loose up to a months worth of pay at almost 6500. As a parent, my kindergartner stands to loose up to a month of instructional time in an era where all we do is measure learning on assessments. 19 less days means a month of non-instructional time while the standards only stand to raise the bar with the introduction of the Common Core Standards. For those of us in SDUSD, if prop 30 doesn't pass, we will have paid more in child care than we would have with a .25% tax increase. But those who are so far removed from the classroom and public education don't seem to care.
Old    Melissa (psych3060)      Join Date: Sep 2002       11-04-2012, 1:29 PM Reply   
Just curious what union negotiated maximum classroom size? In SD, the union continually negotiates to hold class size to 1:24 in K-3 and 1:34 in 4-12 and over half our student population is hispanic (though not necessarily illegal), so you need to do some fact checking. Also a beginning teacher in San Diego makes between 38-47K, which last time I checked, was not more than the majority of the country. Also just an FYI, being a teacher does not automatically make you a card carrying union member.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-05-2012, 9:37 AM Reply   
deltahoosier,

Where did you get the $15 billion on undocumenteds? And the CTA negotiating immigration policy? I've been working in and around the Capitol for the last 8 years and am not aware of any deals along those lines. If you're reaching back to the CTA opposition of Prop 187, I still don't see the compromise on class sizes.

I can go in depth on Cap-and-Trade as environmental compliance is my forte. That being said you're a bit off and conflating multiple policies. Nothing is as simple as it seems. While there will be an increase cost on your utility bill we won't see other increases until closer to 2015 when industrial sources, natural gas, and transportation fuels come under the Cap. The 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) will be similarly expensive and is the cost you will see first.

Melissa,

My understanding is Common Core will actually reduce some costs as the testing will be handled by a multi-state conglomeration. Additionally, common core means our math and english text books will be multi-state thus reducing the costs of a California specific curriculum. I understand some growing pains as the teachers need to spend some time developing new lesson plans. And the upfront cost of adopting the new standards, cirriculum, texts, ect...

Also, why the support for 30? The rhetoric tells you 30 is about education but in reality 30 is about the general fund. You increase revenues to the general fund in order to increase the prop 98 guarantee. Whereas, 38 sends all the revenues to education?
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-05-2012, 9:42 AM Reply   
Also, something like 100 districts throughout the state are running local parcel taxes to fund schools. One of the local districts (Davis) has a parcel tax on the ballot that only goes into effect if 30 or 38 do not pass. I thought that was a great way to garner support.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-05-2012, 9:57 AM Reply   
In 2003 there was a study that estimates the cost of illegals in the school system to be around 9 billion a year. Then add in the the additional billions with 33% of the prison population being illegals. I can only venture in 2012 that number has skyrocketed. The class size prop came about due to the explosion in population that was heavily fuel by the states support for illegal immigration. They go hand in hand. Then if you look at the teachers association and the share the wealth internationals (aka leftist) in the state legislature, you are all in bed together. One begets the other. Population as an opportunity to legislate the need for more teachers. THe teachers support illegal immigration. it is a win, win.

Cap and trade. I would love to hear more about this free give away to wealthy land owners and to the state so they can continue their love affair with supporting illegal immigration and other leftist causes. Everyone knows the people of the state do not want to be taxed more. Again the crony capitalism of the green movement is in full play. State gets to continue their spending ways while continuing crushing the middle class (basically the areas out of the cities)
Old    Melissa (psych3060)      Join Date: Sep 2002       11-05-2012, 10:04 AM Reply   
Mic, all I know is that our union negotiated a stupid contract with the district last year in an attempt to save 1500 certificated positions and the direct result was that 30 must pass in order to maintain the current school year. If it doesn't then what I said above holds true...up to 19 furlough days, which means a month of no pay for me and and month of no school for my son. Certainly not happy about it either way. Like I said before, just because you hold a certificated job within a school district doesn't mean you are pro-union.

And common core my reduce cost, but it still puts extreme pressure on young minds and if their school year is cut to bare minimum, it is hardly easy for them to achieve.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-05-2012, 10:35 AM Reply   
deltahoosier,

I think you're talking about forestry offsets but that holds the land for 100-years of non-development. In most situations it would be more financially beneficial to harvest those lands for timber. You might be able to cast criticism at the fact that we can have a cap-and-trade without an auction, thus reducing costs of the program to strictly compliance needs, note the acid rain program that only auctions about 3% of the allowances in the program in order to send a price signal and be publicly transparent. Also, RECLAIM in southern california is a freely allocated cap-and-trade for SOx, NOx, and other precursors to smog. I can understand your anger over costs and the pressures on the middle class, the economic impacts of all these policies is a big concern to me.
Old    Terry Redfearn (TerryR)      Join Date: Aug 2010       11-05-2012, 2:44 PM Reply   
Mik,
Except Cap and Trade is not an environmental issue. It is a polictical greenhouse gas issue based on emotion not science.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-05-2012, 3:35 PM Reply   
Terry,

Cap-and-trade is a policy solution that is widely supported as an economically efficient way of regulating emissions as opposed to traditional command and control regulations. In the case of 15% of the emission reductions required in AB 32 those are greenhouse gases, USEPA Acid Rain Program is a cap-and-trade that does not regulate greenhouse gases but rather regulates SO2, which is a localized air pollutant not a greenhouse gas. I do not have the luxury in my line of work nor is it a political reality in California to discuss not regulating GHG emissions. So while I might be willing to discuss where you're coming from the facts remain, the legislature passed AB 32 in 2006, the governor signed it, and a ballot initiative to overturn that law was overwhelmingly rejected in 2010. SO what I'm looking at is how to make the mandates we have cost less as the arguments about whether to or not to have been had...
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-05-2012, 6:22 PM Reply   
Mik.

Does not matter. It is a give away to someone from the legislature to the green movement. The reason it was not repealed is because the useful idiots have not felt it in their pocketbooks yet. Food and fuel will go up again and everyone's PG&E will go up significantly. It works great. Start the process prior to the pain then turn the screws. It is a easy call for all the rich people who live near their jobs in a fairly even weathered climate near the coast. The rest of us who have to drive for a living to work and live in the colder in the winter and hot as hell in the summer areas will be screwed. All again for the states need to support illegals and other bull crap policies.

At the end of it, I don't care who gets to bid on what. It does not mater. It is based on a lie period. The only people who pay are the middle class.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-06-2012, 10:24 AM Reply   
deltahoosier,

If you don't raise any revenues through the auction there cannot be a giveaway. That being said they appropriated those funds this year, something I was very vocal and actively opposed to. Also, not everyone has PG&E but it will affect all utilities be it Southern California Edison, LADWP, SMUD, ect... However, the bulk of those costs are not from cap-and-trade but rather from the other direct regulations promulgated under AB 32. RPS as mentioned is a huge expense that is already being built into your bills and will continue to be built in.

And everyone who drives a car, consumes products, and flips on a light switch will pay. This goes well beyond the middle class, lower class, uppers class, schools, small and big businesses alike. Everyone will feel their percentage of the cost.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-06-2012, 11:02 AM Reply   
Feel free to fire off a letter before Nov. 14th to stop the first auction, again no auction - no revenues - no giveaway to the environs...


Here's a petition:
http://www.cafuelfacts.com/ad/fs/s:s...0zgfs9sbs695nf
Old    andy zarlengo (colorider)      Join Date: Jun 2001       11-06-2012, 7:37 PM Reply   
Good luck,and hoping for the best for my California friends. My state is more focused on a stupid ****img marijuana bill then any education bill. Ridiculous.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-06-2012, 7:43 PM Reply   
Thanks for the link.

Point is, We the tax payers are all going to pay for the state needing more funds for illegals and other idiotic programs. Does not matter who gets the money. Someone is going to get rich off this and we the tax payers are going to pay for it. At the end of the day, it always comes back to the people paying taxes and supporting the economy.
Old    dennis engle (deneng)      Join Date: Feb 2005       11-08-2012, 12:14 PM Reply   
Wow this is a great post. Both sides make great valid points. I think it all boils down to we can't support the world and that is why we have
the laws protecting our borders in the first place...

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:23 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us