Remember studying for a test in school? If you wanted to do well, you didn’t wait till the last minute, hoping to cram in as much knowledge as the time you had left. The same is true for voting. Ideally, you give yourself time to research candidates, and more important, issues. The latter is where the Left plays sneaky tricks to get you to vote their way.
The headline for each proposition is carefully crafted to ensure you don’t know how much it will cost nor understand the impact on your taxes. Even the paragraph that follows is not all that helpful; it will be skewed to attract your vote. As painful as it is, you need to read deeper into the actual text to understand what you are voting on. A perfect example was the proposition in CA that granted people nearly unlimited rights to abortion, even, as the baby is being delivered. Most thought the bill had some restrictions; it did not. Many taxpayer nonprofits offer guides to propositions; it is worth seeking them out to get a better sense of the impact.
Not only do these propositions often impact your prosperity, they also often limit your rights. Look at who is supporting them and who is against them. This is often useful information as to who stands to gain…and who is going to lose out. A perfect example of dangerous spending are bonds. Typically, bonds are like credit cards to our government agencies. They are carefully crafted to let them spend the money as they see fit, while highlighting causes you might care about, like building safer schools. Too often, the money is misspent. And very often, the bond payoff periods are long, meaning the interest accrues, costing us all more money. While you might not start paying immediately, your tax money will pay for all of it eventually.
In general, in CA it is wise to vote no on everything, BUT, in some cases, the government twists things around, so a No is a Yes. Watch out for this.
In El Cerrito, CA, many bonds were issued to help the schools. “For the children” is always the argument. But they kept needing more and more money, as it was misspent, not for what people wanted, but for the city officials and teachers’ union desires.
Proposition 5 – A Good Example
ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
“Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. Accountability requirements. Fiscal Impact: Increased local borrowing to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, and public infrastructure. The amount would depend on decisions by local governments and voters. Borrowing would be repaid with higher property taxes. Supporters: California Professional Firefighters; League of Women Voters of California; Habitat for Humanity California Opponents: California Taxpayers Association; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Women Veterans Alliance”
What they don’t tell you is that A. the prior vote had to be 2/3, meaning that people needed to really believe the bonds were needed. Still, many were passed, but once you lower the threshold, people who pay little tax have no problem voting for it. B. There is nothing in the bill to control how long it would take to pay off the bond, making it more expensive. C. And as we’ve seen with other bonds in CA, rarely is the money spent as promised. D. Finally, Newsom continues to build housing for the homeless and illegals, rather than for working citizens. That only attracts more of them and there is no data showing that Housing First works.
If this passes, you will see increases in property taxes and local sales tax. In a recent prior election, my home town passed a sales tax which is in addition to the state sales tax. It is becoming less affordable to live here with such high taxes. Retired folks probably can’t afford more property tax, which is why Prop 13 was so popular. This is a way to erode it.
If local governments want to build housing, they need to attract developers to build it, not do it themselves. We know how bad government-planned housing is. Let’s not double down on it. It is also clear that the word “infrastructure” will be very loosely interpreted to do almost anything they want to do. It would likely grow the government even past the unwieldy, costly government CA has now.
They claim there will be oversight, but remember, the people overseeing it will have skin in the game. They won’t deny any spending. They won’t challenge waste or inappropriate uses of the word “infrastructure.”
Finally, I always like to look at opponents. I am a member of Contra Costa Taxpayers Association and a supporter of Howard Jarvis. When taxpayer associations oppose a proposition, it is a sure thing that it should not pass.
Read the Bill
Famously, (or infamously), Nancy Pelosi declaimed about Obamacare, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Seriously? What we all found out was that the bill didn’t lower the cost of healthcare at all. It made insurance more affordable for the poor, but passed costs onto working people.
Be responsible. Read the bills and propositions or don’t vote on them. There is no money tree, no free money. If they want to spend, our governments will take the money from you. There is no other source.
Unfortunately, the average person will rely on, you guessed it, the MSM to make their decisions if they even know what the issue is before they’re standing in the voting booth. The wording is always deceptive as you noted so, and again as you mentioned, I like to see who’s sponsoring this prop. That’s usually enough to tip the scales for me.