Gay Patriot Header Image

Californians Reject Big Budget Measures

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 11:31 pm - May 19, 2009.
Filed under: California politics

UP-UP-UP-UPDATE:  As I head to bed at 12:30 PST (3:30 GayPatriot blog time), these are the returns with 87.8% of precincts reporting:

N  1A “Rainy Day” Budget Stabilization Fund 1,269,865 34.5% 2,401,086 65.5%
N  1B Education Funding. Payment Plan. 1,388,394 37.9% 2,273,903 62.1%
N  1C Lottery Modernization Act 1,308,063 35.8% 2,342,675 64.2%
N  1D Children’s Services Funding 1,268,490 34.7% 2,380,759 65.3%
N  1E Mental Health Funding 1,238,505 34.1% 2,392,099 65.9%
Y  1F Elected Officials Salaries 2,714,146 74.3% 943,497 25.7%

The “Yes” votes comes first, followed by “Yes” percentages, then the number of “No” votes, with their  percentages on the first five measures in bold.  

(Back to original post.)

With just over 17% 21% 22% 23% 31% 34% 44% 48% 58% of precincts reporting, measures 1A-E are going down to defeat, with “Yes” breaking 40% only on Measure 1-B.  

63.3% 63.5% 63.7% 64.0% 64.3% of Golden Staten Voters are rejecting 1-A. (UP-UP-UPDATE:  This percentage has remained pretty constant throughout the evening, it doesn’t look like there’s any new news to report.)  Voters are rejecting Propositions 1-B, 1-C, 1-D and 1-E with 60.5% 60.8%, 62.5% 62.9%, 63.3% 63.8% & 63.9% 64.4% respectively.

Measure 1-F to hold the line on elected officials salaries is passing handily.

This is a victory for those who prefer spending cuts to tax cuts and should send a lesson to legislators in Sacramento–as well as state capitols across the nation.  And even in Washington, D.C.

UPDATE:  From perusing the Secretary of State’s website, I only find one county where the measures are ahead . . . . it’s the home county of the Speaker of the House.  With 73.5% of precincts reporting, even voters in San Francisco are rejecting the measures.

UP-UPDATE:  All measures (save 1-B and 1-F) failing even in liberal Alameda County where Oakland is located.

Maggie Gallagher Asks a Great Question

In response to the vitriol directed against Carrie Prejean, she wonders:

Why didn’t [the] Human Rights Campaign step forward to defend Carrie from mistreatment? It would have been such a brilliant move — in one fell swoop, gay marriage advocates could have allayed growing fears. Are they really all about love and tolerance, or are they — as many Americans now experience them — a movement that increasingly dehumanizes those who disagree with it, calling them “bigots” because that’s a word that means “your views don’t count.”

She’s onto something.  Can you imagine Joe Solmonese might have impressed those outside the narrow circle in which he travels, if  he had said,

While we disagree strongly with Miss Prejean’s viewpoint.  We appreciate her civil expression.  Just as gay people shouldn’t be maligned for being open about our sexuality, so should supporters of traditional marriage not be maligned for being open about their viewpoints.  A healthy debate about gay marriage benefits us all.

But, somehow, I don’t think Joe will listen. I already offered some advice which neither he nor any of his confrères (or consoeurs, as the case may be) seem to have followed it.

American Idol Showdown: Perez Hilton v. USA

Just wondering… if allegedly-gay Adam Lambert loses American Idol, how long will it be before Perez Hilton (and the gay minions) declare it is because Americans are homophobic and want to deny Adam his rights?

PS – I have no idea, and don’t care, if Lambert is gay. But P.Hil has been pushing that meme to the hilt.

Another Earthquake?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:50 pm - May 19, 2009.
Filed under: LA Stories

On Election Day?  Just felt everything shaking.

Pentagon: No Plan To End DADT

I’m blogging from the Ft. Lauderdale airport and a report just came over Twitter from a gay media organization. I’m hoping one of my co-bloggers can find out more.

But the gist is that the Defense Department says there are no plans to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

GP readers: Feel free to link the articles in the comment section if you find out more…

So… “Hope and Change”?

Or more empty Obama promises to The Gays?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Voting “NO” in California; Defying the Powers That Be

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:03 pm - May 19, 2009.
Filed under: California politics,LA Stories

While the Governor whom I once so enthusiastically supported, having given generously to his reelection campaign in 2006 hobnobs in Washingon, D.C. with the president, I did a very un-LA thing and walked, yes, walked the three blocks to my polling place to vote against the ballot measures he strongly supports.

I saw that walk as representative of this day of electoral defiance.  I defied the powers that be in our state capital by voting, “No,” on measures 1A-E and defied LA custom by walking a distance greater than two blocks.  Some Angelenos even drive to their next door neighbor’s.

At about 2:40 this afternoon (5:40 GayPatriot blog time), I was the 85th voter in my precinct, indeed, I was the only voter at my polling place during the time I was there.  Low turnout in my precinct is a good sign, given how far left my neighbors lean.  Let’s just hope it’s a little higher in the “redder” regions of the state.

Californians: Vote “No” on Props 1A-E Today:
Higher Taxes and Bigger Budgets Not Answer to Current Crisis

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:00 am - May 19, 2009.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,California politics

As we Californians head to the polls today to vote on ballot propositions related to the state’s finances, Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore remind us how the Golden State lost its luster:

Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair? No. Dozens of academic studies — old and new — have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.

(Via Instapundit.)

Basically these economists argue–and have the data to prove it–that when a state increases taxes, particularly on the “rich,” the more those wealthy individuals flee the state for one with lower taxes, sometimes taking their businesses with them.

After Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in the 2003 recall to reform a state government that had grown by leaps and bounds under then-Governor Gray Davis, the incumbent Governor did little to undo the damage that Democrat had done.  Between 1999 when Davis took office and 2003 when citizens started organizing to recall him, the state had hired nearly 40,000 new full-time employees.  The latest figures (from 2007) show only a modest decline in that number.

While friends who work for private companies across the state report receiving pay cuts, state employees have not experienced similar salary reductions. Because of their influence, the public employee unions have succeeded in preventing the state from treating them as would a normal enterprise facing decline revenues;  they all but control the government in Sacramento.

Voting “Yes” on these propositions would do nothing to lessen their stranglehold on the California legislature.

We don’t need higher taxes to ensure essential services.  We just need fewer bureaucrats to administer them.   Indeed, these very bureaucrats, in administering the regulations passed by our nanny-state legislature, help stifle the innovation and entrepreneurial activity which once made California the envy of (and model for) the nation.

The more they regulate, the less productive are those who generate the revenues necessary to pay their salaries.

Higher taxes will only drive away those who have not already fled for states with a smaller tax burden.

By voting “No” on Measures 1A-E today, California voters will send a strong message to our elected officials in Sacramento.  We don’t like the way they’ve been running this state.  And we don’t want pay to fix their mistakes.

So, let’s see real budget reform instead.  And let’s see state our bureaucrats face the same challenges as do their private sector counterparts.  And our state legislators make the tough choices that families across the state have had to make in these tough economic times.

ADDENDUM:  Mark Tapscott offers a more detailed explanation of why Prop. 1-A is such a bad thing.