Propositions 20, 22, 27, No on D v. UT 10.27.10, No on K

'False' and misleading mailers: one from Howard Jarvis' Prop. 13 - there are sneakie members, probably at least rhinos, if not worse, in that org.!  And "California Voter Guide" by a 'non partisan candidates selected independent of party affiliation' ----ya, Right!!  

This game playing via candidates, their-possibly good hearted 'junkers of signs', and campaigning off the reason for "Remember in November" which is becoming more and more important with each passing day> because if Repub. Candidates - all levels - don't acknowledge the first 9/12/08 Mall, the second 8/28/10 Mall, and all the election results - including Joe Miller in AK with all that the Left Socialists have performed against California's future in Sac.; then ignoring the root cause will be slower to correct. 

Interestingly, two things: 1)At the last National Ch. meeting, the person or group that presented the 'questions to ask candidates re viewpoint including Declaration & Constitution' to secure the Republican positions with platform, is glaringly REQUIRED with the new CA and probably many other States leaning toward the other word for Disaster: "Democracy" they like to call the US.* That is actually an easy way to raise a Red Flag for any candidate!

2) Many of the Propositions are illustrations of themselves, of the Progressive side (ie #23:don't repeal, just make our exhaled air a little less prohibitive. NEVER MIND and Do Not Discuss the absent quality & ignored facts of the Science of GW):

Proposition 22 and K here in San Marcos:  22 protects Cities and Counties-BUT does NOT change the slush fund called 'Redevelopment' which is invisible to the bond and taxpaying Citizen of CA. Proposition K is a working example of what will occur with the so-called repairing schools - which must be used for this purpose - Bond.  Ya, right again! Because once in the Redevelopment Slush - no one will know for sure.  SideBar:  Another Reason for No on 22 &K - notice the sponsors!  Now tell me where the funds are going!!!!  Bonds are always Loans Against Future Revenue. Haven't we learned enough Yet!!

Another thing, what Kevin, Carl and every attendee at the Monday, July or Aug meeting of SD City Council, Learned:

JUST HOW IMPORTANT AN INDIVIDUAL'S OPINION OF HIS/HER SERVICE FIRST MEANS; WITH HOW EASY IT IS FOR A UNION TO GOVERN IN PLACE OF THE ELECTED INDIVIDUALS. I sat behind the Union Attorney - tall, handsome guy that could hardly leave the room after the vote which would have 'not allowed Proposition D' come to the public because the use of the money was part of the debate.  Someone should get the  video of the entire event --- even the 2nd vote in which Lori Zaphf's opponent changed Back To Conform To the White-knuckled, jaw bitting, attorney for the Unions---who did say in the Monday disallow vote - that Mayor Sanders & Donna's(?) commercial would be the result!!!  All Candidates and Public Servants with the General Public should see these two events.  They Make up the entire, repeating, world of union administration.  Do you see yesterday's UT?  2nd page - Rt. Column: "Reach an agreement with labor unions on a program to allow private companies to bid against city workers for certain services, and ALLOW(!!!!!) THE CITY TO SEEK BIDS. Completed (As a taxpaying, American Citizen; would love to see the Socialist, fraudulent users of money's idea of ALLOW).

To make it shorter, by the time a Constitutional (both) Conservative gets to #4, steam is reallying boiling; but then we arrive at the infamous #8, which 'compromises Peter to Pay Union Paul' all $$$$$$ on the stock market being run by, just the presence, of "America's Financial Stability Act" which all but removes the individual investor from the market---another tragedy of forgotten importance with time; and adds to the risk of any retirement $$$ becoming anything But revenue neutral. Further, creates what could be another slush fund, if the City uses or borrows the money or its interest --- much like Social Security and all with accountability!!  

The Most Important Question of All:   When is Government (City, County, State, Federal) going to begin to recognize that Unions are Fraudulent with Taxpayer Money? That #4, higher hourly pay, greater retirement than some CEO's make, the ability - like Brown's potential: governor, mayor, AG, Gov with all those retirements funds!!!??? 'We ther People' do Not Compromise or report our business to any Union under any circumstance - they are not elected or even approved by taxpayers!! They're force against  any union member; of conformity of union dues determined by union admin. while writing political commercials for their candidates - who are coincidentally of left, bend socialism at this point, is also a misrepresentation of both person and function of the unions? These candidates act as the same lemmings and rubber stamps as does Obama's lemmings: Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Waxler (Van Nuys)-Waters, and other CA Congressmen-ladies.  And Article IV:2,4, Amendment IX, XIV with CA Article I:7(b) which states 'Citizens of US are citizens of state wherein reside and are entitled to all privileges and immunities of every citizen. Union members and admin. have both privileges and immunities - no one else on the Globe, has with retirement guarantees, amounts, stacking, and hourly wages well beyond anything in the private or other American Citizens.  American Working Citizens have no protection against a too large Federal and State Government, City and County which do not practice accountability and all of whom barrow on a regular basis against the 'future proceeds of all taxpayers regardless of level of wealth'!

Taxpayers are compromised through our city, county, state and federal representatives bowing to fraud of union retirement funds, union non-participation in  'PPAA';  and probably a member of the Commission for 'Financial Stability'!

Proposition 20, even 27, is the very Heart of America expressed in Both the Declaration and the Constitution. It is also the very basis ..or the lack of...all the above.  I think some founders reached out from heaven to put their hand on this glorious idea. It is just like them: An idea designed to promote political interests by the left, a form of Democracy, but prevented & limited, by its own rules:  

             The Citizens Redistricting Commission (www.wedrawthelines.com) will eliminate gerrymandering with an attempt to balance opportunities for vote by 'We the People' according to population as even as possible. This by having an open selection process run by State Auditors Department, citizens be the decision-makers with input by state legislators; & when passed Congressional Districts included. It is suppose to be nonpartisan and balanced as possible.

              In February 2010, days after the selection process started and would have 3200 applicants, my self included; the Speaker of the House of Representatives voiced her opposition by placing a re-worded, old redistricting guidelines, continued by legislators, on the ballot.  Stating Nothing will be accomplished by having citizens do what the legislators do!  Such is her continued opinion of the American People, teaparty or not - republican,democrat, libertarian, independent, green, decline to state! Hopefully, Congressional Rule Breaker, disrespectful, ignorant of history Pelosi is looking at her ending days.

Here is the founder's expression of their "glorious idea":  We Draw The Lines and Legislative Drawing of the Lines share a common American Promise: Service with Integrity because Religion and Morality - God and His Lessons of Man in The Bible are the Way, the Truth, and the Light in all things.  Ideas which emit from lessons; and avoidance of "unintended circumstances'" because of avoiding the previous instances in the lessons of history. Both 20 and 27 abound with the resonance of the founders!  Their idea will be lost on the writers of #27 - because it is a reflection of "My seat is Much More Important than My Service To My Country, the Seat Represents".

     But 'We Draw the Lines" has a genuine Opportunity in Proposition 20: This because the 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats, 4 from other smaller, but representative parties are "We the People"; and include the 3 judges from State Auditors Department with input from any Californian interested in following the process.  This is an example of a Functioning Democracy at its Very Best.*  Nonpartisan, probably not; but a much improved chance for success because the Commission candidates do address their own integrity in applying the principles of Redistricting. To make the founder's contrast clear,  Redistricting Commission also represents the underlying problem of Democracy that the founders attempted to warn US(A) about:  Human Nature, special interest, and the 4th Book of "DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA" by Alexis de Tocqueville: "Of certain peculiar and accidental causes which either lead a people to complete centralization of government, or which divert them from it.."  and "What sort of despotism democratic nations have to fear..".  Not may have to fear, but have to fear!  The safety from this fear lies in each, single individual is 100% responsible for his own respect and belief in God; or whatever he defines as being the Truth of his Actions. No one else exists. It is each person's own Service with Integrity.

*Because of 'the misuse of Democracy at the State and Federal level where the Republic of Representative Government is the leader and Republic is badly misunderstood versus the Redistricting which Is An Example of Good Democracy. Maybe it could serve to make the differences more clear?

The Problem with All 3 of the 11, 14, 25 is the Same....

NUMBERS! With its opposition: SUBSTANCE: Content or Essence of Proposition - Bill - Act;  and of the Individual Candidate or Office Holder, regardless of level of 'Federated Form'of governing. That Individual's core, as in his/her ethics, service, religion applied to the issues, pro-con arguments, resources for thoughtful decision-making,  and as service to the Nation of  'We the people' First. Then that Individual's accountability to the elected or appointed role and position, because the Party Membership describes the Ethics and religion viewpoint of the whole via Platform and actions taken over time; and then the Candidate-Office Holder's 'Issue at hand' to determine the merits of the Legislature or Congress which is the Republic of our Nation: Duty, Honor, Country!

NUMBERS are simple and short: in polls, surveys = decision regarding directions for legislation, issues, who might be in 1st or 2nd place. In Candidates during Primary = simply the greater NUMBER of First and Second Place voter's votes with the Candidate not required to state party affiliation or ethics-accountability, or the 5W's& H of his/her SUBSTANCE. In Propositions, simply who spends or yells the loudest without regard for the Ethics or SUBSTANCE.  #14 does not recognize the Political Party's Process for determining and Role in informing Voters of the SUBSTANCE of a Candidate, Issue, Proposition.

Proposition 14 is the form of Democracy which at the State and Federal levels of government often result in confusion, redistribution of money or business; redo of old thoughts: Social Justice; more government power because the NUMBERS Cannot and Shall Not address or substitute for SUBSTANCE.  That's is the reason the Health Act, The re-do of the Supreme Court's decision that a corporation is an individual and therefore can donate or interact in an election to help a candidate who would not become an Obama-type; or that a government 'watchdog' is much better at business than business is at its own ethics!

Most important Next Tuesday, July 20, 2010, NUMBERS, unless Democrats (not about Party - but ends up that way because Republicans Will Not compromise Justice and the Court of Last Resort to politics), not SUBSTANCE may Seat a Justice on the Supreme Court who is without SUBSTANCE demonstrating her belief in other than the United States Constitution, and therefore the ethics and religion   expressed in the Principles written in The Declaration of Independence. Because of this President's politics and nominee, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Act" may not be found UnConstitutional because should she pass without SUBSTANCE; she shall support The Progressive Political Party before the United States of America.

Numbers without SUBSTANCE are very misleading, incorrect, and depose the SUBSTANCE of our 234 year old Republic Government.

Comment Before Article from "FOX AND HOUNDS":

Do 11 and 14 Add Up to 25?

By Joe Mathews

Journalist and Irvine senior fellow at the New America Foundation. He is co-author of California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It (UC Press, 2010).

Wed, July 14th, 2010

Prop 25, the November ballot initiative to permit budget bills to pass with a majority vote instead of 2/3, also represents something of a referendum on two recent voter-approved measures, Prop 11 and Prop 14.

Prop 11, the redistricting reform initiative passed in 2008, and Prop 14, the just-approved top-two primary, were pushed through in hopes of creating a legislature that would be more effective, representative, and ultimately trustworthy.

But do voters, having changed how legislative districts are drawn and candidates are elected, feel better enough about the legislature to give them more room to maneuver?

Prop 25, by making it easier for legislative majorities to pass a budget, calls that question.

Longtime readers know I'm sympathetic to Prop 25's goal of removing the 2/3-supermajority requirement from the state's budget system. (I'd like Prop 25 even more if it removed the supermajority requirements for taxes, as its opponents claim it does -- claims that seem dubious when one reads the plain language of the measure).

And I think that the state's reform community has been right about one thing: creating a more effective and more representative legislature through political reform must come before we make changes to the budget system.

However: as a matter of politics and of reality, I fear that Prop 11 and Prop 14 have not done enough to change the system and give voters the confidence in the legislature they need to go ahead and approve something like Prop 25.

Part of the trouble is that the reforms in Prop 11 and Prop 14 have yet to take effect. The other part of the trouble is that the two measures, for all their virtues, are unlikely to make big changes in how our legislature operates. The intense partisanship of both parties and the sorting of Californians into like-minded communities will make it extraordinarily difficult to produce more competitive legislative districts. And there's little evidence that Prop 14's change in primary rules will produce more than a few moderates-and it's far from clear that electing more moderates will fix the legislature.

Prop 25, in a way, suffers from the same disease as Prop 11 and Prop 14-it's a fine, but not quite good enough to change much measure. In fact, by making it easier to pass spending while keeping the 2/3 restriction for new revenues that makes it so difficult to raise taxes, Prop 25 could make deficits worse.

What would be a better approach? Begin with a deeper change in legislative elections, by scrapping our current system of single-member districts elected in first-past-the-post plurality contests. Replace it with a system of multi-member districts that represent the distinct regions of California and elect at least some of those members proportionally, so that everyone has representation and so that the parties compete everywhere.

Once those sorts of reforms make the legislature more representative, then you move on the supermajorities - and not just the budget two-thirds rule, but similar rules that limit the legislature's room to maneuver on tax hikes, education spending, local government funding and transportation.

For now, don't hold your breath waiting for 11 and 14 to add up to 25.

• About Fox & Hounds
• Contact Us
• Advertise
• Privacy Policy