Vote NO On Proposition 86, 87, 88 and 89!

**[email protected]**

Proposition 86 increases California taxes by $2.1 Billion fiscally.

There are some reasons why you should vote against this one.

· It's a Special interest tax scheme placed on the ballot by some
hospital bureaucratic Democrats to again rip off taxpayers.

· 40% of the 2.1 billion in new taxes under Prop 86 would go to big
hospital chains

· Sponsors of 86 want us to believe it is all about stopping smoking,
but only 10% of the new tax money gores into anti-smoking programs.

· Exempts hospitals from antitrust laws that are designed to protect
consumers.

I've done lots of work for bureaucrats and I really do not like them.
Do not sanction their confidence by voting for this proposition! Again
vote NO on Prop 86!

Proposition 87 with a $4 Billion Oil Tax increase

Gas prices are way too high, so why increase the tax some more?

· Increases oil taxes by $4 billion at a time when gasoline prices
are way too high
· Creates a new state bureaucracy of 50 political appointees with no
results required
· Reduces available revenues for schools and public safety

Is this another plan made by the Democrats? The Democrats need to be
silenced and so it would be wise not to vote for Prop 87. You see if
this Prop passes, then our dependency on foreign oils will increase. We
do not want to depend so much on foreign oils, so please note no on
this one!

Proposition 88 raises Property Taxes and undermines Prop 13

· This one will create 2 new statewide property taxes it will create
a new parcel tax which is a new 1% property tax. This one will also
undermine Proposition 13 which is very important for California tax
payers. So please vote no on Proposition 88!

Proposition 89 raises taxes to pay for Political ads

· If this measure passes then expect to see some $200 million in tax
increases that are paid for by your dollar! Do you want this? Do you
want this? I sure don't! I already have enough taxes to pay, so why
pay more? Also the Democrats will use Proposition 89 to attack
Republican candidates. Why help the Democrats by voting for Proposition
89? Do not help them, so vote NO on Proposition 89!

Signed,

Democrat Silencer

**karl**

wrote in message
oups.com...
Proposition 86 increases California taxes by $2.1 Billion fiscally.

There are some reasons why you should vote against this one.

· It's a Special interest tax scheme placed on the ballot by some
hospital bureaucratic Democrats to again rip off taxpayers.

· 40% of the 2.1 billion in new taxes under Prop 86 would go to big
hospital chains

· Sponsors of 86 want us to believe it is all about stopping smoking,
but only 10% of the new tax money gores into anti-smoking programs.

· Exempts hospitals from antitrust laws that are designed to protect
consumers.

I've done lots of work for bureaucrats and I really do not like them.
Do not sanction their confidence by voting for this proposition! Again
vote NO on Prop 86!

Proposition 87 with a $4 Billion Oil Tax increase

Gas prices are way too high, so why increase the tax some more?

· Increases oil taxes by $4 billion at a time when gasoline prices
are way too high
· Creates a new state bureaucracy of 50 political appointees with no
results required
· Reduces available revenues for schools and public safety

Is this another plan made by the Democrats? The Democrats need to be
silenced and so it would be wise not to vote for Prop 87. You see if
this Prop passes, then our dependency on foreign oils will increase. We
do not want to depend so much on foreign oils, so please note no on
this one!

Proposition 88 raises Property Taxes and undermines Prop 13

· This one will create 2 new statewide property taxes it will create
a new parcel tax which is a new 1% property tax. This one will also
undermine Proposition 13 which is very important for California tax
payers. So please vote no on Proposition 88!

Proposition 89 raises taxes to pay for Political ads

· If this measure passes then expect to see some $200 million in tax
increases that are paid for by your dollar! Do you want this? Do you
want this? I sure don't! I already have enough taxes to pay, so why
pay more? Also the Democrats will use Proposition 89 to attack
Republican candidates. Why help the Democrats by voting for Proposition
89? Do not help them, so vote NO on Proposition 89!

Did you forget you are in a BLUE state? Why don't you move to Georgia?

Signed,

Democrat Silencer

**karl**

wrote in message
oups.com...
Proposition 86 increases California taxes by $2.1 Billion fiscally.

There are some reasons why you should vote against this one.

· It's a Special interest tax scheme placed on the ballot by some
hospital bureaucratic Democrats to again rip off taxpayers.

· 40% of the 2.1 billion in new taxes under Prop 86 would go to big
hospital chains

· Sponsors of 86 want us to believe it is all about stopping smoking,
but only 10% of the new tax money gores into anti-smoking programs.

· Exempts hospitals from antitrust laws that are designed to protect
consumers.

I've done lots of work for bureaucrats and I really do not like them.
Do not sanction their confidence by voting for this proposition! Again
vote NO on Prop 86!

Proposition 87 with a $4 Billion Oil Tax increase

Gas prices are way too high, so why increase the tax some more?

· Increases oil taxes by $4 billion at a time when gasoline prices
are way too high
· Creates a new state bureaucracy of 50 political appointees with no
results required
· Reduces available revenues for schools and public safety

Is this another plan made by the Democrats? The Democrats need to be
silenced and so it would be wise not to vote for Prop 87. You see if
this Prop passes, then our dependency on foreign oils will increase. We
do not want to depend so much on foreign oils, so please note no on
this one!

Proposition 88 raises Property Taxes and undermines Prop 13

· This one will create 2 new statewide property taxes it will create
a new parcel tax which is a new 1% property tax. This one will also
undermine Proposition 13 which is very important for California tax
payers. So please vote no on Proposition 88!

Proposition 89 raises taxes to pay for Political ads

· If this measure passes then expect to see some $200 million in tax
increases that are paid for by your dollar! Do you want this? Do you
want this? I sure don't! I already have enough taxes to pay, so why
pay more? Also the Democrats will use Proposition 89 to attack
Republican candidates. Why help the Democrats by voting for Proposition
89? Do not help them, so vote NO on Proposition 89!

Did you forget you are in a BLUE state? Why don't you move to Georgia?

Signed,

Democrat Silencer

**karl**

wrote in message
oups.com...
Proposition 86 increases California taxes by $2.1 Billion fiscally.

There are some reasons why you should vote against this one.

· It's a Special interest tax scheme placed on the ballot by some
hospital bureaucratic Democrats to again rip off taxpayers.

· 40% of the 2.1 billion in new taxes under Prop 86 would go to big
hospital chains

· Sponsors of 86 want us to believe it is all about stopping smoking,
but only 10% of the new tax money gores into anti-smoking programs.

· Exempts hospitals from antitrust laws that are designed to protect
consumers.

I've done lots of work for bureaucrats and I really do not like them.
Do not sanction their confidence by voting for this proposition! Again
vote NO on Prop 86!

Proposition 87 with a $4 Billion Oil Tax increase

Gas prices are way too high, so why increase the tax some more?

· Increases oil taxes by $4 billion at a time when gasoline prices
are way too high
· Creates a new state bureaucracy of 50 political appointees with no
results required
· Reduces available revenues for schools and public safety

Is this another plan made by the Democrats? The Democrats need to be
silenced and so it would be wise not to vote for Prop 87. You see if
this Prop passes, then our dependency on foreign oils will increase. We
do not want to depend so much on foreign oils, so please note no on
this one!

Proposition 88 raises Property Taxes and undermines Prop 13

· This one will create 2 new statewide property taxes it will create
a new parcel tax which is a new 1% property tax. This one will also
undermine Proposition 13 which is very important for California tax
payers. So please vote no on Proposition 88!

Proposition 89 raises taxes to pay for Political ads

· If this measure passes then expect to see some $200 million in tax
increases that are paid for by your dollar! Do you want this? Do you
want this? I sure don't! I already have enough taxes to pay, so why
pay more? Also the Democrats will use Proposition 89 to attack
Republican candidates. Why help the Democrats by voting for Proposition
89? Do not help them, so vote NO on Proposition 89!

Did you forget you are in a BLUE state? Why don't you move to Georgia?

Signed,

Democrat Silencer

**grinder**

Check who supports the propositions and who is funding the opposition.

That will tell you everything.

**R. Steve Walz**

**R. Steve Walz**

grinder wrote:

Check who supports the propositions and who is funding the opposition.

That will tell you everything.
-----------
Yup.
Steve

**Cazador**

wrote:
Proposition 86 increases California taxes by $2.1 Billion fiscally.

There are some reasons why you should vote against this one.

· It's a Special interest tax scheme placed on the ballot by some
hospital bureaucratic Democrats to again rip off taxpayers.

· 40% of the 2.1 billion in new taxes under Prop 86 would go to big
hospital chains

· Sponsors of 86 want us to believe it is all about stopping smoking,
but only 10% of the new tax money gores into anti-smoking programs.

· Exempts hospitals from antitrust laws that are designed to protect
consumers.

I've done lots of work for bureaucrats and I really do not like them.
Do not sanction their confidence by voting for this proposition! Again
vote NO on Prop 86!

Here's a more informative and articulate view:

Pete Rates the Propositions
November 2006

86 YES Cigarette Tax Hike to Fund Health Services
87 YES Oil Production Tax to Fund Alternative Energy
88 YES $50-per-Parcel Tax for K-12 Education
89 YES Public Financing of Political Campaigns
90 NO Limiting Regulation of Private Property

Proposition 86: Cigarette Tax Hike to Fund Health Services - YES

I want to tax cigarettes into oblivion. Smoking is a putrid and
disgusting habit that kills over 40,000 people a year in our state, or
more than 100 Californians every day. Smokers who haven't yet died
incur over $8 billion a year in health care charges, straining the
system and driving up costs for everyone. And the tobacco industry has
been unequivocally shown to be run by lying scoundrels, yet remains
immensely profitable; shares in Altria, makers of Marlboro and other
brands, are at an all-time high.

Prop 86 will boost the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $2.60. Woo-hoo!!
It will raise the total cost of a pack to about $6.50. Yippee!! This
will be high enough to discourage teens from starting habits, and it
will reduce the amount current smokers consume. Way gnarly!!

The new tax will initially bring in $2 billion a year. Do I care what
they do with all that dough? Naah. Pave Death Valley. Build a football
stadium in L.A. Buy new cars for all the sixth-grade teachers in the
state. Whatever.

For the record, Prop 86 will fund a wide variety of health care
programs, principally emergency care and children's health coverage.
Other funded areas include nursing education, smoking prevention, and
cancer research. There's also a nifty backfill for Prop 10 in
anticipation of reduced tobacco sales.

Despite my blithe dismissal above, I really would prefer that the money
from Prop 86 go into the General Fund. This is for two reasons. First,
I'm allergic to budget earmarks in general. The Legislature should be
able to allocate funds each year in response to changing conditions.
Taking Prop 86 taxes off the table reduces flexibility we might need
later.

Second, and more important, if Prop 86 is effective, people will buy
fewer cigarettes, causing the $2 billion it rakes in initially to
dwindle dramatically. What will happen to the children who depend on
the health coverage the cigarette tax provides? It will be a sticky
problem. But it's a problem I'm willing to deal with if I can cut
tobacco use. This proposition will significantly reduce smoking in
California, improving the quality of life for you, me, and everyone in
the state.

Indeed, putrid and disgusting.

**Cazador**

Cazador wrote:
wrote:
Proposition 86 increases California taxes by $2.1 Billion fiscally.

There are some reasons why you should vote against this one.

· It's a Special interest tax scheme placed on the ballot by some
hospital bureaucratic Democrats to again rip off taxpayers.

· 40% of the 2.1 billion in new taxes under Prop 86 would go to big
hospital chains

· Sponsors of 86 want us to believe it is all about stopping smoking,
but only 10% of the new tax money gores into anti-smoking programs.

· Exempts hospitals from antitrust laws that are designed to protect
consumers.

I've done lots of work for bureaucrats and I really do not like them.
Do not sanction their confidence by voting for this proposition! Again
vote NO on Prop 86!

Here's a more informative and articulate view:

Pete Rates the Propositions
November 2006

86 YES Cigarette Tax Hike to Fund Health Services
87 YES Oil Production Tax to Fund Alternative Energy
88 YES $50-per-Parcel Tax for K-12 Education
89 YES Public Financing of Political Campaigns
90 NO Limiting Regulation of Private Property

Proposition 86: Cigarette Tax Hike to Fund Health Services - YES

I want to tax cigarettes into oblivion. Smoking is a putrid and
disgusting habit that kills over 40,000 people a year in our state, or
more than 100 Californians every day. Smokers who haven't yet died
incur over $8 billion a year in health care charges, straining the
system and driving up costs for everyone. And the tobacco industry has
been unequivocally shown to be run by lying scoundrels, yet remains
immensely profitable; shares in Altria, makers of Marlboro and other
brands, are at an all-time high.

Prop 86 will boost the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $2.60. Woo-hoo!!
It will raise the total cost of a pack to about $6.50. Yippee!! This
will be high enough to discourage teens from starting habits, and it
will reduce the amount current smokers consume. Way gnarly!!

The new tax will initially bring in $2 billion a year. Do I care what
they do with all that dough? Naah. Pave Death Valley. Build a football
stadium in L.A. Buy new cars for all the sixth-grade teachers in the
state. Whatever.

For the record, Prop 86 will fund a wide variety of health care
programs, principally emergency care and children's health coverage.
Other funded areas include nursing education, smoking prevention, and
cancer research. There's also a nifty backfill for Prop 10 in
anticipation of reduced tobacco sales.

Despite my blithe dismissal above, I really would prefer that the money
from Prop 86 go into the General Fund. This is for two reasons. First,
I'm allergic to budget earmarks in general. The Legislature should be
able to allocate funds each year in response to changing conditions.
Taking Prop 86 taxes off the table reduces flexibility we might need
later.

Second, and more important, if Prop 86 is effective, people will buy
fewer cigarettes, causing the $2 billion it rakes in initially to
dwindle dramatically. What will happen to the children who depend on
the health coverage the cigarette tax provides? It will be a sticky
problem. But it's a problem I'm willing to deal with if I can cut
tobacco use. This proposition will significantly reduce smoking in
California, improving the quality of life for you, me, and everyone in
the state.

Indeed, putrid and disgusting.

Here's the rest:

Pete Rates the Propositions
November 2006

Pete recommends:
1A NO Earmarking Sales Tax on Gasoline for Transportation
1B YES Transportation Bonds ($20 billion)
1C YES Housing Bonds ($2.85 billion)
1D YES School & University Construction Bonds ($10 billion)
1E YES Flood Control Bonds ($4 billion)
83 NO Increasing Punishment of Sex Offenders
84 YES Drinking Water & Flood Control Bonds ($5.4 billion)
85 NO Parental Notification for Minors Getting Abortions (Again)
86 YES Cigarette Tax Hike to Fund Health Services
87 YES Oil Production Tax to Fund Alternative Energy
88 YES $50-per-Parcel Tax for K-12 Education
89 YES Public Financing of Political Campaigns
90 NO Limiting Regulation of Private Property

Proposition 1A: Earmarking Sales Tax on Gasoline for Transportation -
NO

Prop 1A concerns the state sales tax on motor fuel. This is not the
"gas tax". Look in the table. The excise taxes are the gas tax. The
sales tax is not; it's a general tax, and should go to the General
Fund to pay for education, health care, social services, and so on.
Four years ago, however, Prop 42 passed, diverting the sales tax on
motor fuels to transportation.

Price of a typical gallon of gasoline in California
Source: California Board of Equalization

Price Item Earmarked for

$2.00 base price
..18 federal excise tax transportation
..18 state excise tax transportation
..15 6.25% state sales tax transportation
..03 1.25% city/county sales tax general purposes
..01 0.25% county sales tax transportation

$2.55 total price
I opposed Prop 42 because it amounted to a raid on the General Fund by
the road construction industry. Prop 42 forces the legislature to
allocate a predetermined portion of the General Fund to transportation
projects (read: road construction contractors) every year, regardless
of need. This is budgeting by robot, and it leads to perverted spending
priorities. The largest mandate, Prop 98 of 1988, automatically
reserves half the General Fund for education. Okay, maybe education
should be the state's number one priority, with a special budget
set-aside. But what's priority number two? Prisons? Health care?
Roads? A ballot proposition is not the right way to choose. I pay my
legislators to decide whether transportation deserves that funding each
year, or whether it would sometimes be better spent on hospitals,
schools, or homeland defense.

If we divert the sales tax on gasoline to transportation projects, as
Prop 42 requires, perhaps we also ought to divert the sales tax on
running shoes to sports facilities, and the sales tax on electronic
equipment to building Internet infrastructure. You can see where I'm
going with this. Pretty soon there won't be any discretionary funding
for schools, hospitals, and other things we really need. The sales tax
is a general tax. It ought to go into the General Fund so the
legislature can allocate it appropriately among deserving programs,
year by year, as needs arise.

Prop 42 contained a loophole, allowing the state to suspend the motor
fuel sales tax earmark if it would "result in a significant negative
fiscal impact on the range of functions of government funded by the
General Fund." This has happened in two of the four fiscal years
since Prop 42 passed. The suspended amounts will be "repaid" to
transportation projects, with interest, by 2009.

This isn't good enough for the road construction industry, however,
and that's why Prop 1A is on your ballot. Prop 1A will tighten the
loophole, making it harder for the state to suspend the earmark. Under
Prop 1A the sales tax earmark can be suspended only twice in any
ten-year period, and any suspended amounts must be "repaid" with
interest within three years. Further, no suspension can occur unless
all prior suspensions have been repaid in full.

Obviously, since Prop 42 was a bad idea, Prop 1A is even worse. The
state sales tax on motor fuel brings in about two billion dollars a
year. What will we do when we need that two billion over an extended
period to address some future natural disaster, economic downturn, or
terror threat? Prop 1A selfishly says, "No! Go take money from
programs for health, safety, water, and the poor. Our transportation
projects are sacred!"

Sales taxes are levied per dollar, not per gallon. Since the price of
gasoline has doubled, the total amount of motor fuel sales taxes has
jumped by one billion dollars. This has provoked a frenzy of spending
in support of 1A and 1B by business, construction and labor groups
drooling over that huge trough. You can read about it online. As I
wrote about Prop 42, if we pass this measure, it will encourage other
industries to place their own special funding mandates on the ballot.
The result will be an atmosphere where special interests feel they can
buy legislation for their own benefit. You might believe these
interests already own most of the politicians in Sacramento and
Washington. Don't let them think they own us, too.

Proposition 1B: Transportation Bonds ($20 billion) - YES

(Please see My Semi-Biennial Lecture on Bonds for my opinion on bonds
in general.)

Contrary to Prop 1A, Prop 1B is a good measure. How can this be? Both
dedicate chunks of the General Fund to transportation. Both are heavily
backed by the road construction industry. Both will fund road repairs,
new highways, and public transit. What's the diff?

The difference is in the funding models. Where Prop 1A grabs an income
stream forever, Prop 1B is limited, allowing us to reevaluate before
renewing it. Where Prop 1A provides unpredictable funding, varying with
the consumption and price of gasoline, Prop 1B is a known quantity,
exactly $19.925 billion. And where Prop 1A earmarks specific revenues,
Prop 1B gives the legislature the flexibility to pay with any income
source.

The projects funded by Prop 1B are sorely needed. Over one-half of the
bond proceeds will be used to reduce congestion and increase capacity
on roadways throughout the state. Another $4 billion will improve local
and intercity rail and transit services, including new rights of way
and rolling stock. Also included are projects to improve the movement
of goods through ports and highways, enhance the security of transit
systems, increase the earthquake resistance of bridges and overpasses,
and reduce harmful emissions from school buses and commercial trucks.

Proposition 1C: Housing Bonds ($2.85 billion) - YES

(Please see My Semi-Biennial Lecture on Bonds for my opinion on bonds
in general.)

Prop 1C authorizes $2.85 billion in bonds to build reasonably priced
homes and provide assistance to low-income Californians in our absurdly
overpriced housing market. Nearly half the bond will be used to
revitalize existing neighborhoods and inhibit sprawl by subsidizing
"infill" development, higher density near public transit, and parks
near housing.

An additional $590 million from Prop 1C will be directed to the
Multifamily Housing Program, where it will provide low-interest loans
for the construction of affordable rental units. Such units, once
completed, are reserved for low-income renters for 55 years. The MHP
program is key to providing decent living conditions for those near the
bottom of the economic ladder.

$135 million will provide housing assistance for farmworkers, who are
among the most housing-starved populations in the United States. It is
estimated that over half of farmworkers live in "overcrowded," and
nearly one third in "extremely overcrowded" conditions. Prop 1C
offers a way to reduce the squalor.

Another $50 million from Prop 1C will be used for the construction of
homeless shelters throughout the state. The state estimates there are
over 360,000 homeless in California, one third of them in families.
Prop 1C will fund thousands of new homeless shelter beds.

Finally, Prop 1C dedicates $625 million to homeownership programs such
as the California Homebuyer's Downpayment Assistance Program and
CalHome. These provide down payment assistance and low-interest loans
to low- to moderate-income first-time homebuyers. This is especially
needed in a state where "starter homes" routinely top a
quarter-million dollars.

Proposition 1D: School & University Construction Bonds ($10 billion)
- YES

(Please see My Semi-Biennial Lecture on Bonds for my opinion on bonds
in general.)

You may try to build a school
With an axe an' saw an' mule
'Neath the sun until your sweaty hide turns bronze.
But if money's what you need
So construction can proceed,
You'll have to get it done by floatin' bonds.
For it's Bonds! Bonds! Bonds!
With all their "hereby finds" and "whereupons".
There's no other way to pay for
Buildings we can't brook delay for;
Friends, the only way to finance 'em is bonds.

In our sprawlin' Golden State
There's eight million kids who wait
For refurbished or new classrooms, halls an' lawns.
To build every last pavilion
Would take over thirteen billion,
So they've got to ask us voters for some bonds.
Oh, it's Bonds! Bonds! Bonds!
They're the toast of all the trendiest salons!
They will fund modernization
Of temples of education.
To kick off this transformation, vote for bonds.

We must make schools earthquake-safe
To protect each little waif,
An' it can't be done with wizards' magic wands.
College buildin' must expand
To meet increasin' demand,
An' the only way to do it all is bonds.
Yes, it's Bonds! Bonds! Bonds!
We've evaluated all their pros and cons!
Vote for Proposition 1D
On the day that follows Monday.
Let's build better schools for students with these bonds.

Proposition 1E: Flood Control Bonds ($4 billion) - YES

(Please see My Semi-Biennial Lecture on Bonds for my opinion on bonds
in general.)

No Katrinas here.

Over half the state gets its water via the Delta, where aging levees
put the water supply at risk. The Army Corps of Engineers has
identified 180 levee sites in California with serious erosion. We may
not get a hurricane, but we certainly will get earthquakes, fires and
heavy rains. Scared yet? Prop 1E will pour $4 billion into reinforcing
these levees and other flood control systems, offering protection from
natural disaster and peace of mind. Ahh, that's better.

Proposition 83: Increasing Punishment of Sex Offenders - NO

News Flash! On September 21, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 1128 and
SB 1178, tough new laws clamping down on sex offenders. Nearly all of
Prop 83 was included in the two bills. So disregard your ballot
pamphlet on this one.

There are just two remaining major differences between the bills the
Governator signed and Prop 83. First, under the newly-signed laws, sex
offenders identified as high-risk will have to wear electronic
monitoring devices while on parole. If Prop 83 passes, all registered
sex offenders, even low-risk ones, would be electronically monitored
for life.

This is unnecessarily harsh. A low-risk offender may have been
convicted of a nonviolent, lewd act decades ago, yet will still be
monitored with a GPS device until he dies. Don't we have better ways
of spending our law-enforcement dollars?

Second, under the newly signed laws, those convicted of sex offenses
against a child may not reside within a quarter-mile of a school (a
half-mile if the offender is high-risk). Prop 83 would expand the
bubble for low-risk offenders to 2,000 feet around every school and
park, and drop the requirement that the victim be a child.

The San Jose Mercury News has created a map showing what parts of the
city would still be available to sex offenders under Prop 83. After
carving out 2000-foot bubbles around all schools and parks, only a few
small islands remained. Prop 83 would virtually bar sex offenders from
legally residing in urban areas. How will these people find jobs? How
will they rebuild their lives? These 2000-foot bubbles will drive sex
offenders underground or out of state, utterly defeating our clumsy
attempts to keep tabs on them.

The laws the Governor signed prohibit sex offenders from loitering near
schools and parks. That's what we really need. Limiting where someone
can live is harassment; limiting what he can do is crime prevention. In
view of the new laws, Prop 83 is completely unnecessary, and may
actually do more harm than good.

Proposition 84: Drinking Water & Flood Control Bonds ($5.4 billion) -
YES

(Please see My Semi-Biennial Lecture on Bonds for my opinion on bonds
in general.)

Prop 84 is a big, sloshing barrel of bond money for water quality,
rivers and lakes, flood control, urban parks, beaches, state parks, and
wildlife habitat. It's an environmentalist's delight, and a boon to
outdoorsmen across the state.

The largest piece of Prop 84, $1.5 billion, will be dedicated to the
delivery of safe drinking water for a rapidly growing population. This
is an obvious necessity in our arid region. The $928 million for
rivers, lakes and streams will be used for Bay, Delta and coastal
fishery restoration, Salton Sea restoration, various river parkways,
the California Conservation Corps, and various local conservancies.

Weighing in at $800 million, the flood control part of Prop 84 will
improve emergency response to levee breaches, and also improve
floodplain mapping to reduce potential losses from future floods. It
will also supplement the levee reconstruction funds from Prop 1E. $580
million will fund local and regional parks and urban greening projects.
$540 million goes to protect beaches and coastal waters from pollution.
And so on.

With a few tiny exceptions (find them if you can!), the projects funded
by Prop 84 meet my criteria for long-range, tangible acquisitions and
improvements that are appropriate for bond funding. In particular, a
long-term investment in safe drinking water makes sense for California.

Proposition 85: Parental Notification for Minors Getting Abortions
(Again) - NO

Prop 85 is essentially identical to last year's failed Prop 73. I
recommended a "no" vote then, and I recommend a "no" vote now.
Here's a rerun of the rating I gave last time, with a few minor
changes.

Prop 85 is about minors who become pregnant. These teenage girls are
already under the ordinary pressures of adolescence in our
high-intensity culture. Now they face the embarrassment of revealed
sexual activity, a strained relationship with the presumptive father,
and God-knows-what from their parents. On top of all that is the
life-changing decision of whether to terminate the pregnancy, carry it
to term and raise the baby, or give it up for adoption. It's a
dizzying prospect.

Most girls in this situation can count on their parents for steadfast
support and sound advice. But many cannot. Domestic violence is a fact,
and adolescent pregnancy is intricately intertwined with it. According
to a 2001 report by the Center for Assessment and Policy Development
and the National Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Parenting and
Prevention,

Evidence suggests that no fewer than a quarter of adolescent mothers
experience some form of interpersonal violence in the year surrounding
their pregnancy, with some studies reporting rates of 50 to 80 percent.
Prop 85 would require physicians to notify a parent or legal guardian
and wait 48 hours before they perform abortions on girls under 18. If a
girl is fearful of her parents, Prop 85 allows her to go to juvenile
court, where a temporary guardian and attorney will ask a judge to
waive parental notification.

Now put yourself in the shoes of a pregnant 17-year-old who needs this
waiver. You're in desperate trouble. You may already have experienced
violence. You can't let your parents know. Will you go to Juvenile
Hall for help? Is that the key to safety? It just isn't plausible.

Prop 85 will cause many scared adolescents to go outside the system to
avoid notifying their parents. They'll go to neighboring states if
they can (as now happens where there are notification laws, according
to a USC study). Or they'll pursue back-alley abortions, with the
attendant risk of medical complications and death.

Or they'll give up and carry the baby to term. This, of course, is
the outcome supporters of Prop 85 are after. Because at its core, Prop
85 is a Pro-Life law, intended to prevent as many abortions as
possible.

Prop 85 is a roadblock to safe, legal abortion. It will lead to more
domestic violence, more back-alley abortions, and more unwanted
pregnancies carried to term. There is no upside. Vote no.

Proposition 86: Cigarette Tax Hike to Fund Health Services - YES

I want to tax cigarettes into oblivion. Smoking is a putrid and
disgusting habit that kills over 40,000 people a year in our state, or
more than 100 Californians every day. Smokers who haven't yet died
incur over $8 billion a year in health care charges, straining the
system and driving up costs for everyone. And the tobacco industry has
been unequivocally shown to be run by lying scoundrels, yet remains
immensely profitable; shares in Altria, makers of Marlboro and other
brands, are at an all-time high.

Prop 86 will boost the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $2.60. Woo-hoo!!
It will raise the total cost of a pack to about $6.50. Yippee!! This
will be high enough to discourage teens from starting habits, and it
will reduce the amount current smokers consume. Way gnarly!!

The new tax will initially bring in $2 billion a year. Do I care what
they do with all that dough? Naah. Pave Death Valley. Build a football
stadium in L.A. Buy new cars for all the sixth-grade teachers in the
state. Whatever.

For the record, Prop 86 will fund a wide variety of health care
programs, principally emergency care and children's health coverage.
Other funded areas include nursing education, smoking prevention, and
cancer research. There's also a nifty backfill for Prop 10 in
anticipation of reduced tobacco sales.

Despite my blithe dismissal above, I really would prefer that the money
from Prop 86 go into the General Fund. This is for two reasons. First,
I'm allergic to budget earmarks in general. The Legislature should be
able to allocate funds each year in response to changing conditions.
Taking Prop 86 taxes off the table reduces flexibility we might need
later.

Second, and more important, if Prop 86 is effective, people will buy
fewer cigarettes, causing the $2 billion it rakes in initially to
dwindle dramatically. What will happen to the children who depend on
the health coverage the cigarette tax provides? It will be a sticky
problem. But it's a problem I'm willing to deal with if I can cut
tobacco use. This proposition will significantly reduce smoking in
California, improving the quality of life for you, me, and everyone in
the state.

Proposition 87: Oil Production Tax to Fund and Alternative Energy -
YES

By now it's searingly obvious: We must burn less oil. Take your pick
of the reasons why:

Foreign policy. If we didn't need to import so much oil, we might be
able to extricate our country from that messy situation in the Middle
East.
Economics. We don't want to compete with China for the world's oil
supplies. By 2030 China's rapidly industrializing economy may require
as much imported oil as the United States does today (see
http://www.iags.org/la020204.htm). That kind of demand-side pressure on
the world oil market cannot be good.
Health. Those who suffer from asthma or other breathing problems detest
all the "unhealthful air" days when they have to stay indoors. Less
oil burned would mean less smog.
Environment. There have been too many crude oil spills, refinery
accidents, underground tank leaks, and other destructive events. If we
used less oil, maybe we'd have fewer petroleum industry-related
problems.
Pocketbook. Who likes to pay $3.00 for gasoline? If we could all figure
out a way to use less oil, maybe it wouldn't cost so much to drive a
car.
An Inconvenient Truth. The planet's very survival may depend on
reducing carbon emissions. Plus, if we don't cut greenhouse gasses,
we'll have to listen to Al Gore saying "I told you so" for the
rest of our lives. Nobody wants that.
The best way to reduce oil consumption is to use less gasoline in our
cars. Driving significantly less would do the trick, but, sadly, it's
unrealistic. Californians must go to work, school, shopping and
activities, and the car is the only way for most of us to do it. For
better or worse (actually, it turns out, just for worse), cars are
inextricably embedded in the California lifestyle. It will take decades
to change that.

If driving less isn't an option, maybe we can drive cars that consume
less oil. Yes, this means cars that get high gas mileage. But it also
means something else entirely: cars not powered by oil. That's
right-cars powered by alternative energy.

Prop 87 will create a $4 billion program to research, develop, and
subsidize the adoption of alternative fuels and the vehicles that use
them. Over the course of ten years, alternative fuel systems will be
proposed and investigated, and the most promising chosen for
deployment. Program money will then be used to build out any required
infrastructure (e.g., fueling stations) and to assist in the purchase
of vehicles.

Here's how it might work. Let's say you have developed a prototype
system that uses clean, renewable tidal energy to isolate hydrogen from
seawater, and I have developed an efficient car motor that runs on the
clean-burning hydrogen you produce. If we can convince the board
established by Prop 87 that our systems are best, we will get up to
$400 million to build production and distribution facilities for the
hydrogen and a factory for the vehicles. Then Prop 87 will make up to
$2.3 billion available to help people buy your cars and my fuel.

The target of Prop 87 is to reduce California's use of petroleum by
25% by 2017. Whether we can actually do this is anybody's guess.
I'm skeptical we can reach that goal, but even if we get only halfway
there, it will be a huge improvement.

The candidate technologies identified in the measure are hydrogen,
methanol, natural gas, 85% ethanol blends, and 20% biodiesel blends,
although the door is left open for other possibilities. When evaluating
a fuel, the amount of petroleum it takes to produce it (the "full
fuel cycle") is considered. This will reduce the prospects for corn
ethanol, which takes a lot of fossil fuel to produce, and presumably
will knock out any vehicles that plug into wall sockets, since most
electricity comes from oil-burning power plants.

Prop 71 of 2004 (embryonic stem cell research) required the state to
negotiate rights to any intellectual property resulting from the
research it funded. Prop 87 contains similar language, but it's
laughably weak. Arrangements must "assure that such research is not
unreasonably hindered by those intellectual property agreements."
(Article 4, Sec. 26055(a)) So don't hold your breath waiting for the
state to reap major royalties from research funded by Prop 87.

To pay for the program, Prop 87 will impose a new tax on oil extracted
in California. This "severance tax" will be temporary, expiring
after $4 billion has been collected, which could be anywhere between
ten and thirty years, depending on the price of oil, how much is
extracted, and the interpretation of the ambiguously worded section
specifying the tax rate.

Can the oil companies afford this tax? Of course they can, especially
if they pass it on to consumers, which they will, despite some
well-intentioned but essentially unenforceable language in the
initiative that purports to prevent it.

How much will a gallon of gas go up? A penny or two. Let's do the
math. California annually consumes roughly 15 billion gallons of
gasoline. If the new tax collects $300 million per year, oil companies
will have to crank up the price of each gallon by just two cents to
offset it. That's noise compared to gasoline price fluctuations
we've seen lately.

And two cents a gallon is definitely a small price to pay to decrease
our dependence on foreign oil, forestall an oil showdown with China,
reduce air pollution, shield the environment, protect our pocketbooks,
and maybe, just maybe, help save the planet.

Proposition 88: $50-per-Parcel Tax for K-12 Education - YES

Prop 88 will levy a new, statewide property tax of $50 per parcel. It
seems ridiculous to tax all parcels the same amount. Should a small
vacant lot in Barstow be charged the same tax as a mansion on five
acres in Hillsborough? Of course not. Property taxes should reflect
property value. It's only fair.

Ha ha, fooled you! Property taxes in California don't reflect
property value! Instead, they reflect length of ownership. This is
because the famous Prop 13 of 1978 permanently pegs each parcel's
assessed value at its most recent sale price, adjusted by only 2% a
year. A parcel's real value may skyrocket, but the property tax will
barely increase. The result is that longtime owners pay just a fraction
of the tax paid by newer neighbors, even if their parcels are
identical. Property taxes in California are not fair. They're not
even in the same time zone as fair.

Viewed in this light, the $50 parcel tax added by Prop 88 will actually
make property taxes more equitable. Here's how. Someone who just
bought a $250,000 condo pays $2,500 in property taxes. When Prop 88
adds $50, it's only a two percent increase-just noise. A neighbor
who bought an identical unit in 1975 for $35,000 currently pays just
$634 in property taxes. Adding a $50 parcel tax cranks up the property
tax a whopping eight percent. More telling, Prop 88 reduces the ratio
of the two property tax bills from 3.9:1 to 3.7:1. I'd like to see
something even lower, such as 2:1 or (gasp) 1:1, but Prop 88 still
represents progress.

Prop 88 will pour $450 million a year into our K-12 schools. It will
increase the budget for textbooks and other instructional materials by
25%, and the budget for school safety by 15%. The money allocated to
class size reduction would be sufficient to reduce fourth grade classes
throughout the state from 29 to 25 students. This is very good stuff.

You might be thinking, "Do we really need a new parcel tax? I don't
like new taxes." Yes, we need this new tax. Prop 13 has severely
limited our ability to tax our most valuable natural resource-land.
The accumulated equity in residential and commercial real estate is a
vast ocean of unearned wealth, exactly the type of asset we should be
taxing. Yet it is beyond our reach because of Prop 13. The authors of
Prop 88 have cleverly exploited a loophole in Prop 13 to impose this
new parcel tax statewide by majority vote. It will tap into an enormous
vein of affluence, make the property tax fairer, and provide needed
funding for schools. We do need new taxes like that.

Lest you worry about poor, old Aunt Hilda on her fixed income, Prop 88
exempts senior citizens and the disabled from the new tax.

If you've read about Prop 88, you'll know it is opposed by the
California PTA. I must say the PTA's position paper on this measure
is one of the most selfish and poorly-reasoned things I've seen in a
long time. In essence, the PTA opposes Prop 88 because the PTA is in
the middle of its own study on educational funding, and doesn't want
Prop 88 to steal its thunder. The other arguments-that Prop 88
won't do enough, that voters will think they've solved the whole
problem, and that parcel taxes are traditionally local-are specious
and irrelevant.

There's one PTA argument that almost holds water:

The statewide parcel tax could impair a local school district's
ability to persuade two-thirds of the voters to approve a local parcel
tax. In effect, the state-imposed tax could usurp the ability of local
agencies to develop a local funding source.
I might buy this if local agencies were actually capable of developing
this funding source. But most local parcel tax measures fail due to the
two-thirds vote requirement. In last June's election, all six local
parcel tax measures failed; last year 18 of 28 died on the ballot.
Also, local parcel tax measures tend to pass only in more affluent
areas where the need for additional funding is less acute. Prop 88 will
apply to the whole state, and direct funds where they'll make the
biggest difference.

Proposition 89: Public Financing of Political Campaigns - YES

Politicians spend too much time and energy raising money. It distracts
them from their real jobs and distorts their priorities. It can make
large donors more important than constituents. No one enjoys asking for
money, but to win elections candidates must buy expensive media
exposure, so a-fundraising they must go.

Prop 89 will break this cycle by implementing "Clean Money" public
financing of political campaigns. This system has enjoyed great success
in Arizona and Maine. It will affect ballot propositions as well as
elected state officers and legislators, so you know I'm paying
attention.

How would you go about freeing candidates from perpetual fundraising?
You could try imposing a spending cap. After all, the less money
candidates can spend, the less they'll have to raise. Sadly, this
approach was ruled an unconstitutional infringement on free speech in
the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo. The courts, however, have upheld
spending limits if they are a requirement for receiving public campaign
financing.

This is exactly what Prop 89 will do. Candidates who accept Prop 89's
public financing must agree to limit their campaign spending to a cap
based on the type of election and office they're seeking, from
$250,000 for a primary Assembly race to $15 million for a general
election for Governor.

Now, what would you do if privately funded opponents threatened to
swamp clean-money candidates by outspending these caps? Prop 89 raises
the publicly funded candidate's spending limit up to five times the
original figure (four times for Governor) to match the opponent's
spending. Spending limits also rise if an independent committee
Swift-Boats a candidate. So that Assembly primary candidate could have
his cap bumped from $250,000 to as high as $1.25 million.

To discourage privately funded campaigns from attempting to overwhelm
publicly funded candidates, Prop 89 seriously tightens contribution
limits. Maximum individual contributions to privately funded Assembly
candidates will shrink from $3,300 to just $500; for Governor they
dwindle from $22,300 all the way to $1,000. Small contributor
committees will be allowed to give just $2,500 to candidates at any
level. And for the first time political parties will have their
contributions capped, from $20,000 for Assembly races to $750,000 for
Governor. This will certainly help level the playing field.

Even further, Prop 89 prevents individuals from contributing more than
$7,500 in total to all state candidates and related committees. It
prohibits any fundraising more than 18 months before a primary
election, and prevents candidates from contributing to each others'
campaigns. And it prohibits contributions from state lobbyists and
contractors. This is especially relevant in the wake of the Abramoff
scandal in Washington.

Prop 89 imposes harsh penalties on publicly funded candidates who
exceed its spending limits, including fines, jail, and removal from
office. This actually happened in Arizona, where earlier this year
state Rep. David Burnell Smith was ousted for overspending his limit by
more than 10%. Prop 89 will have teeth, including proven power to
rectify tainted elections.

So far so good, but that cap of $15 million is still a lot of smackers
for my gubernatorial nominee to solicit. How much of that will be
public money? Prop 89 answers: All of it. That's right: This measure
doesn't just reduce the amount of fundraising a candidate needs to
do; it virtually eliminates it.

Let that sink in for a minute. Politicians not needing to raise money.
What will they do instead? Well, instead of cultivating major donors,
maybe they'll pay attention to the voters. Instead of playing up
wedge issues to bring in cash from the fringes, maybe they'll focus
on what's important to the majority. Instead of playing special
interest politics, maybe they'll work for the unspecial
interests-the people, in all their inconsistent diversity. Maybe.

Now you're probably thinking, "Gosh, that's a marvelous vision,
but it sounds awfully expensive." Well, it won't be cheap: $150
million a year, on average. Prop 89 will raise that dough by adding
0.2% to the corporate income tax rate. The new rate will still be lower
than it was from 1980 to 1996. Hardly any small businesses will be
affected. The tax increase will bring in $200 million per year,
probably far more than needed. If the new revenue outpaces what
campaigns need (plus a prudent reserve), Prop 89 stipulates that any
excess be turned over to the General Fund for general use. This
relief-valve feature is wonderfully sensible; I wish all propositions
that earmark revenue streams would adopt it.

Okay, we have a reliable source of clean money, tight contribution
limits and reasonable spending limits. Are we done? Not yet. See that
$250,000 you can get just by running for Assembly? Everybody's gonna
want it. How will we prevent every Tom, Diego and Harriet from running
for office and claiming that quarter-mil?

Under Prop 89, anyone seeking public financing must gather token $5
qualifying contributions to prove they're not just after the dough.
The number of contributions required ranges from 750 for Assembly to
25,000 for Governor. Qualifying contributors must identify themselves,
and cannot support more than one candidate for a given office. This
will prevent everyone in the district from running.

Of course, gathering all those qualifying contributions will cost money
itself. To pay for it, candidates may accept private "seed money"
donations as high as $100 per donor, up to a total of $10,000 for
Assembly or $250,000 for Governor. All seed money must be spent (and
all qualifying contributions collected) before the campaign season
starts, 90 days before the primary election.

Lest you think Prop 89 is a plot to exclude independent and third-party
candidates, the measure contains provisions allowing such candidates to
receive as much as one-half the amount major party candidates receive.
This would be a huge step forward. And if a third-party nominee for
Governor somehow grabs 10% of the vote, all the party's candidates
will become entitled to full funding.

"All right," you say. "I think I've just agreed to give
millions of dollars to sleazeball politicians. What's to prevent them
from spending it all on mudslinging, negative advertising?" Nothing,
I'm afraid; we cannot legislate attitude. But Prop 89 does prevent
those who go negative from hiding behind the smokescreens of their
stink bombs. All clean-money candidates must engage in at least one
debate for primary and two for general elections, giving opponents an
opportunity to confront them on their tactics.

In addition to candidates for state office, Prop 89 also limits
contributions on ballot propositions. Under Prop 89, corporations would
be limited to $10,000 to support or oppose any measure. This will
certainly reduce the incidence of corporate special-interest
propositions such as those we've seen recently from pharmaceutical,
Indian gaming, and transportation construction industries. But Prop 89
has no similar provision for unions, nonprofit advocacy groups, or any
other organization. This part of Prop 89 seems to be payback for last
November's failed Prop 75, which would have limited use of union dues
for political purposes. I can't say I like this kind of one-sided
limitation. However, I'm sure the corporations are savvy enough to
work around it.

And in any event, it's not enough to dim the brilliance of the whole,
complicated mess of a public campaign finance system I describe above.
I assure you, this thing is working beautifully in Arizona and Maine.
Really. And though it's manifold, each of those folds makes perfect
sense. Prop 89 has the power to create an entirely new political
dynamic in California, one where fundraising makes less of a difference
and voters matter again. We should jump at the opportunity.

Proposition 90: Limiting Regulation of Private Property - NO

It's appropriate that Prop 90 is on the ballot so close to Halloween.
The initiative wears the costume of an angel. But underneath lurks a
real monster.

First, some background. In 2000 the city of New London, Connecticut, in
dire need of an economic boost, approved a redevelopment plan for the
middle-class neighborhood of Fort Trumbull. The centerpiece was a major
new research facility for Pfizer pharmaceuticals; also included were a
resort hotel and conference center, a new state park, and office,
retail and residential space. To make room for the project, the 115
existing property owners were offered buy-outs. When 15 owners refused,
the city invoked eminent domain and condemned their lots.

Eminent domain requires that property be taken for public use. The 15
holdouts in Fort Trumbull sued the city, arguing that their property
was being taken not for public use, but for the private use of the new
owners (principally Pfizer). The case made it all the way to the U. S.
Supreme Court, which ruled last year, 5-4, in Kelo v. City of New
London, that the city could condemn the property. Justice John Paul
Stevens's majority opinion stated, "The city has carefully
formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable
benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and
increased tax revenue." (Emphasis mine.)

This has caused quite a stir. Before the decision, eminent domain was
used only to raze blighted or hazardous areas, or to make room for
public works such as schools and roadways. Now the government can
condemn perfectly viable property and sell it to new, private owners,
solely to jack up the tax base.

Imagine the implications for California, where Proposition 13
suppresses property taxes far below their potential. For example, say
your town wanted to pump up its property tax revenues. Under Kelo, it
could condemn, rebuild and resell a few hundred homes and businesses,
particularly those with longtime owners (and therefore artificially-low
assessed value). Tax revenue from the freshly reassessed property would
jump all right, by tens of millions of dollars. Your town would be
allowed to do this because, according to the decision, increased tax
revenue is a sufficient benefit to the community to justify eminent
domain. Would your city fathers be able resist that huge payoff?
Don't bet on it.

Prop 90 will amend the state Constitution to prevent such abuse of
eminent domain. Under Prop 90, government will be allowed to take
property only to build public facilities, or for private facilities
offering public services (e.g., a private toll road or prison), or to
correct a public nuisance on a specific parcel. As the measure says,
"Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use" [p.
188 of your Prop Book, sec. 19(a)(1)] in order to boost tax revenues.

This is very angelic. And I could support Prop 90 if stopped there. But
it doesn't. Prop 90 also monstrously requires that the government
fully compensate property owners every time a new law or rule causes
"substantial economic loss." In other words, the government must
reimburse you not only if it takes away your property, but also if it
merely reduces its real or potential value.

What does that mean? It means you'll be entitled to compensation if
your neighborhood is rezoned from two-story to one-story, even if you
have just a one-story house. You'll be entitled if a new noise
abatement regulation makes your planned discotheque less popular, even
if you haven't yet opened it. You'll be entitled if a new
anti-pollution law makes your oil refinery less profitable, even if you
haven't yet built it. According to the initiative, government must
compensate you whenever a new law reduces "the highest price the
property would bring on the open market" [sec. 19(b)(7)].

The cost of Prop 90's compensations will be so high that it will
effectively paralyze land use planning, environmental regulation, and
zoning in California. Don't believe me? Look north, to Oregon. Their
Measure 37, passed in 2004, is nearly identical: when rules reduce the
value of property, government must compensate the owner or waive the
regulations. A recent New York Times article gives the result:

Since the measure was approved, Oregon property owners had filed 2,755
claims covering 150,455 acres, according to [Portland State
University's] Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies, which is
tracking the measure's impact. If all the claims were paid, state
officials say, it could amount to more than $3 billion in compensation.
But not a single claim has been paid, the institute reported.
Instead of paying property owners, local government agencies have
routinely chosen to waive the regulations, clearing the way for
numerous developments in rural areas.
These developments have included a gravel mine near a neighbor's home
and a power plant inside a national monument. The unpaid ransom in
Oregon was $3 billion, monstrous enough. California's population is
ten times Oregon's, meaning it might take $30 billion to avoid
waiving new land-use regulations here. Yikes!

Prop 90 will make land use regulation in California so expensive that
it will simply cease. We will become powerless in the face of sprawl,
pollution, traffic congestion, noise, and everything else we regulate
today. If you think the rights of owners to milk every penny of
potential profit from their property trumps all these, vote for Prop
90. But if you want to live in a California that can continue to
protect its environment and its neighborhoods, vote down this monster
in phony angel wings.

**(-:W H O S O E V E R:-)**

Cazador wrote:
Here's a more informative and articulate view:

Pete Rates the Propositions
November 2006

So is Cazador (Spanish to English translation "Hunter") Peter L. Stahl
or has Cazador lifted this article from Peter L. Stahl's website
without giving credit to Peter L. Stahl?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Review: The Proposition (** 1/2)	Steve Rhodes	General	0	June 10th 06 01:10 AM
Max Varazslo up for kook award (Was: VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, November 2005)	Bill Baker	Solutions	0	December 2nd 05 05:05 AM
House Passes Child Medication Safety Act ... Vote is 407 to 12 in important step toward protecting children	Ilena Rose	Kids Health	1	November 20th 05 05:16 AM
OBs leaving Oregon? (Vote yes on 35?)	Todd Gastaldo	Pregnancy	0	September 20th 04 04:37 AM
Single Father's Survey - Vote Now!	stone1	Child Support	0	March 11th 04 01:18 PM