Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 10/6/2003 5:55:01 PM EDT
Clearly we need to send less on social programs and more on infrastructure. Be a law mandateing funds be spend a certain way is not the right approach.

Close to 75% of the current budget is those legally mandated items. I dont want to add to that.
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 6:21:25 PM EDT
I've selected Yes on 53. At one time the state spent many percentage points on infrastructure rebuilding. Today, it's under 1%. This mandates they allocated funds for 3% infrastructure building. At one time it was a lot, 10-20%, now it's nothing.
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 6:46:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2003 6:49:05 PM EDT by Pthfndr]
Voting no. Though the legislation specifies 3 percent (approximately 850 million) must be spent on "infrastructure" there is no definition of infrastructure in it. No means of accounting for how the money is spent on "infrastructure". In other words, one legislater could theoretically convince all the others to spend the whole 3 percent on a new state prison in his district, leaving nothing left over for other "infrastructure" needs. Sorry, but we've let legislater's pet project eat up too much of the budget without any over sight already and look where we are.
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 6:50:35 PM EDT
Looks like the only way to be sure funds go where they are supposed to is by mandating them. Look at what they're doing with the highway trustfund account. It is funded by a tax added to your gasoline purchase, earmarked to go for highways and such. Nope, goes straight into the general fund and Govenor Doofus says he {b]is not paying it back to help balance his budget. PRICK! Yes on 53!
Oh yeah link for Gov. Doofus- www.edd.ca.gov/fleclaim.htm
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 7:02:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2003 7:03:30 PM EDT by hawk1]

Originally Posted By Pthfndr:
Voting no. Though the legislation specifies 3 percent (approximately 850 million) must be spent on "infrastructure" there is no definition of infrastructure in it. No means of accounting for how the money is spent on "infrastructure". In other words, one legislater could theoretically convince all the others to spend the whole 3 percent on a new state prison in his district, leaving nothing left over for other "infrastructure" needs. Sorry, but we've let legislater's pet project eat up too much of the budget without any over sight already and look where we are.



pthfndr if you do some checking and not listen to the negative hype, infastructure is spelled out in the prop and it has triggers to reduce or eliminate revenue when the general fund is low. First year transfer is only 1% and will never reach 3% untill 2013 and 2015 and only if we are in surplus. Next time you're in bumper to bumper traffic remember you voted against Prop 53.
More info here ca.lwv.org/lwvc/edfund/elections/2003/id/prop53.html Read it for yourself, then decide...
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 7:59:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hawk1:
Looks like the only way to be sure funds go where they are supposed to is by mandating them.



Which is what they have already done with 75% of the budget. You want to make it 78% after tomorrow?

that will only leave 22% of the budget for Arnold or McClintock to work with. the other 78% will be rammed down his throat.
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 8:00:53 PM EDT
Yes
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 8:21:05 PM EDT
I just saw an ad with Cruz endorsing 53, and the ad was paid for by the Pachanga (sp?) Indian Casino people. This one smells. If Cruz is for 53, I must be opposed to it . . .
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 10:07:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fwaptrout:
If Cruz is for 53, I must be opposed to it . . .



Cruz is for it, but the teachers union is against it. So even our enemies cant agree on this one.

Maybe we should just mandate 100% of the states spending? Take it entirely out of the legislature and govenors hands?

Would any of you be able to balance your budget if your family told you before hand what you had to spend 78% of it on?
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 3:03:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Would any of you be able to balance your budget if your family told you before hand what you had to spend 78% of it on?



That would actually make it easier to balance. You know where and how much you're spending. Cut and dry no shit about it. I'm not saying it's the best way, but considering them sons a bitches would rather pay for higher education for Illegal aliens than spend the money on infrastruction that the money was originally earmarked/taxed for I'm all for it.
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 11:47:31 AM EDT
During the Reagan governership the rate was 20% - now it's 1%.

Yes.
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 12:26:22 PM EDT
Since our legislature (the Caliban) can not find the time or does not have the will to fund our infrastructure I voted yes. They need to be told how to spend our money. This leaves less money for pork and pet projects.
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 9:27:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hawk1:

Originally Posted By Pthfndr:
Voting no. Though the legislation specifies 3 percent (approximately 850 million) must be spent on "infrastructure" there is no definition of infrastructure in it. No means of accounting for how the money is spent on "infrastructure". In other words, one legislater could theoretically convince all the others to spend the whole 3 percent on a new state prison in his district, leaving nothing left over for other "infrastructure" needs. Sorry, but we've let legislater's pet project eat up too much of the budget without any over sight already and look where we are.



pthfndr if you do some checking and not listen to the negative hype, infastructure is spelled out in the prop and it has triggers to reduce or eliminate revenue when the general fund is low. First year transfer is only 1% and will never reach 3% untill 2013 and 2015 and only if we are in surplus. Next time you're in bumper to bumper traffic remember you voted against Prop 53.
More info here ca.lwv.org/lwvc/edfund/elections/2003/id/prop53.html Read it for yourself, then decide...



Hawk1, what I was trying to say is that there is no specified plan on how the money will be spent on the "infrastructure". Look at the definitions on the web page you listed. Roads are only a part of it. I stand by the example I gave because those spending the money are out of control. Maybe after AS has been in office a while and cleaned house etc, I would feel more comfortable voting yes on something like this. But not at this time.

Think about it next time you are sitting in bumper to bumper traffic on a horribly rutted road and look over at that brand new prison complex next to the brand new mental health facility (infrastructure).
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 5:12:11 PM EDT
Seems to be a moot point now. As you know, it got hammered, actually both props got turned down by a wide margin. I must be goofy or something, seems like it makes perfect sense but a larger percentage of people see it the other way. Maybe as Ar15fan said as with the "teachers union is against it" must be because they're more afraid they'll get less of the cash cow.
Top Top