 HOW
DO I DIFFER FROM OUR CURRENT GOVERNOR?
|
 |
| |
| |
Share
Most of us have opinions that
others may or may not agree with. They vary on topics. We
may agree on a sports team, but we may not on who the best player on
that team is. We may agree on the best make of automobile, but
not on which model. People have been told for ages don't discuss
politics or religion with your friends or family, but without voters
learning the viewpoint of a candidate, how do they know which will
represent them the best? Now you have a chance so see if we
agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or completely disagree.
Here are a
few to start with: The 2005 Special Election.
1.) I, like most
Californians, was
against wasting our money on a special election to promote the
Governor's agenda. The issues that he wanted to pursue could have
waited until this scheduled primary election with minimal added
costs. I voted for one (74) and against three (75, 76, 77) of the
propositions, which the Governor endorsed in the special election.
2.) Proposition 75:
(Public Employees Union Dues Restrictions on Political
Contributions) I voted against this proposition on the basis that
union members already have the option of eliminating the portion of
their dues going to political purposes due to federal law. The
only change that this proposition would create is an inconvenience for
union members who willingly give to political purposes by making them
provide written permission on an annual basis. Singling out
public employees, in this instance, only builds a dividing wall for the
Republican Party.
3.) Proposition 76:
(State Spending and School Funding Limits) It would have given
the Governor (not just our current one, but future Governors also) too
much power that could be special interest motivated. Do we need
to revise our current spending structure? Absolutely. But
before we attempt to adjust our current spending restrictions, we must
audit the various departments to see if our tax dollars are being used
efficiently and correctly. (Example: The increases of money for
our schools over the last few decades hasn't given us an acceptable
increase in test scores or an acceptable decrease in drop out
rates.) We need to analyze the situation , find the problems, and
only then decide if more funding will give us the results we are
striving for.
4.) Proposition 77:
(Redistricting) I agree with taking the power away from the
politicians to change the district boundaries, but I don't think having
a panel of retired judges is best for California. We have seen
for decades, how some judges have been politically biased when special
interests have shopped around for a judge to order an injunction on
their behalf. I feel that with all of the computer technology
that's available, we can create a set of parameters to set districts
encompassing entire cities and their immediate neighboring city(s) when
the population factors are used. We shouldn't have districts
crisscrossing several city or county lines. When cities or counties are
split into several segments, their citizens lose their voices.
Political party affiliation should not be included in the parameters.
Pre-election:
Our current Governor, in order to get his political feet wet, sponsored
Proposition 49 for after school programs. In general it's a good
idea. The problem I had with it, and why I voted against it was,
that it was earmarking future spending as our tax revenues increased
without regards to future needs. Our Governor has complained
about other propositions that put restraints on additional tax revenues
(I do agree with this point.), yet he created the same restraints with
Prop. 49. In an article in the Sacramento Bee (1/15/06) our
Governor was asked about this contradiction. [The article states:
Schwarzenegger said Proposition 49 was not an example of the kind of
auto-pilot spending he decries because it was written to take effect
only after the state's revenues had grown to a certain level. "We
waited four years, and now in this new budget year it will kick in,"
the governor said. "So I think that's the right way to go, that you
wait your turn rather than just forcing your way in and crowding out
other programs."]
With this type of logic, propositions should be passed as soon as
possible just to get on the waiting list for future revenue
increases. It's a poor excuse and a bad idea. What happens,
should our revenues drop and budget cuts have to be made? Do we
then go back to the last proposition funded and cancel the funds for
it? Do we keep going back proposition-by-proposition, until we
are within our budget? Do we decide based upon the merits of each
proposition, and then who do we leave it up to, the governor, the
legislature, the courts, or the people to decide which proposition has
the most or better merits?
Post-election:
The Governor passed a bill allowing hybrid vehicle to use the H.O.V.
(diamond) lanes. The H.O.V. lanes were designed (in theory) to
reduce the number of vehicles on the roadways, expedite traffic,
prolong the need for freeway expansion, and reduce pollution. I
have no idea what the Governor's reasoning was for passing this bill,
but it reduces the effectiveness of hybrid vehicles. From
the information that I've read, a hybrid vehicle is most efficient,
both fuel and pollution wise, when operating at low speeds or stop and
go traffic. By allowing the hybrid to use the H.O.V. lanes, it is
now operating at its least efficient fuel rate and most polluting
rate. (I'm curious about what the environmentalists' views were.)
The Governor has big plans for infrastructure spending, about $220
billion over the next decade (without raising taxes). This would
average out to $22 billion a year for the next 10 years. Our
current budget for the state is in the neighborhood of $110 billion a
year, which our elected officials continue to spend more than our tax
revenues allow now. So how in the world are we going to cut 20%
of the current budget in order to pay for this and not raise
taxes? This doesn't even address the issues of cost overrides,
inflation, or the interest on loans. I'm not exactly sure of the
figures, but I believe the NEW Oakland Bay Bridge was originally
supposed to cost $500 million or so and now the figure seems to be
around $3 billion. This is a 600% increase. Let's
make the Governor's just a 100% increase, it would now cost us $440
billion. Do we need improvements to our infrastructure?
Yes!! But let's go back to the drawing board on his plan.
PLEASE REMEMBER
THIS MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE:
For those of you who feel as I do, that choosing between candidates in
past elections has been the choice of picking the lesser of two evils,
the one you hate less than the other, or picking the one which will
harm you the least, I hope that you realize that you have a real choice
this time. If you don't like your current elected
officials, choose someone different that will represent your positions
and beliefs as close as possible. If you like your current
elected officials, re-elect them for another term. This is not a
popularity contest or the equivalent of a high school student body
election. This election as well as every other election, affects
all of us. Make sure your voice is heard. Exercise your
right to vote on June 6th.
Thank you
for spending your time reading my beliefs on a few issues.
Sincerely,
Bill
Chambers - 2006 Republican Primary Candidate for Governor
|
|
|
| |
|
