Patrick's Rants



10/30/2010

November 2 Is Just Around The Corner

Filed under: Politics — site admin @ 7:36 pm

For my local readers, a rundown of the Arizona Propositions:
Prop 106: Proposed amendment to the constitution by the legislature relating to health care services.
A “yes” vote will have the effect of attempting to usurp federal law, tie the cash strapped state up in federal court for decades and be ultimately ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. This proposition is supported by people who don’t care about health care costs and figure that kids can take care of their own health needs. Remember – when more people are in the pool each person’s share is lower. Would we run auto insurance this way?
A “no” vote saves an awful lot of fiscal and legal pain for the state.
My vote: NO.

Prop 107: proposed amendment to the constitution by the legislature relating to preferential treatment or discrimination prohibition.
A “yes” vote would attempt to usurp federal law and attempt to reverse the civil rights act allowing for de facto discrimination based upon sex, race, color ethnicity or national origin under the guise of not discriminating against white males. Of course, “it exempts reasonably necessary qualifications based on sex, existing court orders and actions that would result in the loss of federal funds.” Which basically means the law is an unenforceable piece of dreck. Are we really ready to say that discrimination against minorities and women no longer exists?
My vote: NO

Prop 109: proposed amendment to the constitution by the legislature relating to hunting and fishing. This needs the descriptive title repeated

Establishes the right of Arizona Citizens to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife lawfully; grants exclusive authority to the legislature to regulate hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife; establishes lawful hunting and fishing as a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife

Really!? Seriously!? The same legislature that sold off the buildings (to lease them back) to balance the budget? That one is the one we want to have control of hunting and fishing? Currently Game and Fish operates by selling hunting and fishing licenses and receives funds from a federal tax on fishing tackle and hunting gear. Game and Fish receives no state funds and is self sustained. Fishing licenses pay for state trout stocking – the urban fishing program pays for stocking waters that participate in the urban fishing program. The legal right of all Arizona citizens to hunt and fish – perhaps without requiring a hunting or fishing license and without regard to scientific species management – would decimate the animals in this state. Where would the funds come from to stock feisty trout if I can just show my driver’s license to justify fishing? The rape of our wildlife would only be seconded by the rape of Arizona Game and Fish. Isn’t this the way conservatives (say they) want things? If you don’t buy hunting and fishing gear and your hunting and fishing license you don’t support hunting and fishing. This is the way it should be. As a renewed fisherman, I support Game and Fish and applaud a self-sustaining, self-supporting and enjoyable system.
My vote: NO

Prop 110: Proposed amendment amendment to the constitution by the legislature relating to state trust lands.
Allows the sale of lease of state trust land without auction or advertisement in order to protect military installations and operations. Provides for voter-approved exchanges of state trust land after public notice and hearing if the exchange is related to either protecting military facilities or for land management purposes. (emphasis mine)
A “yes” vote will allow the state to sell land to the federal government without auction, without having to compete, without having to pay a fair price on land owned by all citizens of Arizona. A fiercely independent state wants to roll over and let the feds pay pennies on the dollar for state trust land? Puhlease. Somebody has some land they want to swap under the second part of this amendment, personally benefiting from their position that the citizens have entrusted to them.
My vote: NO

Prop 111: proposed amendment to the constitution by the legislature relating to the executive department.
I’m a little mixed on this one. On one hand if you liked Janet Napolitano and her democratic views you were chagrined at the promotion of Jan “I only care about special needs funding because my son is special needs” Brewer. This amendment would change the name of “Secretary of State” to “Lieutenant Governor”. It would clarify the promotion path and require them to run on the same ticket. Just like changing “speaker of the house” to vice-vice-president would clarify the promotion path of speaker of the house. It would also mean that the Lieutenant Governor would have to spend more on advertising and benefit the advertising outlets. Really, do you have any idea who is running for Secretary of State?
My Vote: MEH.
Prop 112: Proposed amendment to the constitution by the legislature relating to initiative petitions.
A “yes” vote would reduce the amount of time to collect signatures for a petition from six months to four. Meaning that petitions that are a stretch would have less likelihood of getting the light of a vote. And that the goofy legislature propositions like those listed above would dominate the ballot.
My Vote: NO (Just cause the state legislature should not have the sole right to place propositions on the ballot)

Prop 113: Secret employee ballots. Well I don’t know enough about the ramifications of this initiative to make a decision. Ballots should be secret. What’s the change?
My vote: “NO”

Prop 203: Proposed by initiative petition relating to the medical use of marijuana
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of authorizing the use of marijuana for people with debilitating medical conditions…
To me, this is about a national grass roots effort to change illicit drug laws. This movement has been ongoing for at least 30 years, but the supporters presumedly fired up a fatty and just never got around to collecting all of the required signatures. Even if this passes there are still a number of federal law that take precedence, laws related to commercial driver’s licenses for example. A yes vote would allow doctors to recommend marijuana for patients where nothing else works for pain and nausea. Forget about the fact that it’s illegal at the moment. Oxycontin is available by prescription and it’s a much stronger drug. Remember what happened when prohibition was in effect? Alcohol was illegal and wars were waged on the streets of the US. The same thing is happening in Mexico right now. Regulated marijuana would reduce the price, clean up the potential “additives” and bring this business to inside our state borders. And Arizonans have voted yes to medical marijuana more than once already – our legislators have not listened.
My Vote: “Yes” – again.

Prop 301: Transfers the remaining balance of money in the land conservation fund, established by voters in 1998 ans the “growing smarter act,” to the state general fund.
A “yes” vote rips off this voter established fund and puts the money in the general fund to be spent how the legislature chooses.
My vote: “No”

Prop 302: Terminates the early childhood development and health board and programs established by voters in 2006… requires money to be deposited in the general fund. A “yes” vote rapes the fund established by the voters and allows the legislature to spend the money how they wish and play games with state funding.
My vote: “NO”

Props 401 through 404 – Flagstaff bonds. I’m for maintaining and improving streets, court houses and fire and police communications. The bonds were planned to phase in as other bonds are paid off so no increase in taxes is supposed to take place. Incidental to maintaining and improving infrastructure, buildings and communications is the jobs created or maintained by spending in these areas.
My vote: How could it be anything but “yes”?

Discussions? As an old teacher of mine used to say, “smoke if you got ’em”.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress
Comments, opinions and drivel © the poster. Satire protected under Fair Use. Opinion protected under First Amendment (see: Constitution of the United States)
Nothing on this site should be construed as tax, legal, or investment advice. If you need any of those things, seek out a professional whom you can pay for such advice. Posters cannot be held liable for your failure to perform your own due diligence.