PROP. 23  - Vote "Yes", emphatically!

Perhaps there is no vote that you will make in 2010 that is more critical than this one.  By approving Prop. 23, we can stall the implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.  This will save anywhere from 1 million to 2 million jobs depending on whose estimate you use.  With state unemployment offically above 12% and probably more like 20%, we can ill afford to allow this horribly wrong-headed Act to take hold in the state. As the OC Register stated, "we prefer permanent repeal of the 2006 law, but for now we urge at least a delay of its disastrous economic effects and infringements on private sector freedoms." Vote "Yes" on Prop 23.

NOTE:  UCAPS members should be aware that the tactics used by those who wish to see this Proposition defeated (and thus unleash the full range of draconian regulations on California's busnesses and workplaces to no real purpose) have duplicitously advertised that their positon will "save jobs". This is so much nonsense and shows not only the lack of concern that politicians (and the public service unions who will also benefit from expanded government) have for the welfare of the private sector but also the disdain that they have for the intelligence of those of us who make our living there.  Furthermore, they claim that suspension of the GWS Act will unleash a wave of uncontrolled pollution.  Again the disingenuousness here is deliberate and stunning.  Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - the only substance that  the GWS Act attempts to control - is not a pollutant.  We all exhale it every day to grateful plants that rely on it and absorb it happily.  It makes up less than four one hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere and even the most optimistic reductions from California businesses would not even be measureable on a global basis.  Also, the predictive models used by Global Warming proponents that project slightly higher future termperatures based on our current small increases in CO2 output have been universally dicredited as bogus, innacurate and self-serving.  Even if you believe that these small CO2 increases are man-caused and that they will raise temperatures and that this in turn will be harmful to anyone or anything, the California GWS will likely and paradoxically increase actual pollutants throughout he world.  This is because as we  create a handful of quixotic "green" jobs here in California, we will drive away millions of our existing jobs to places like Mexico and China where there have far less stringent regulations in all ecological arenas. Lastly, proponents of the  foolish Global Warming Act claim that Prop 23 is backed by the greedy self interest of large oil corporations.  While it is probably true that they do not wish to have more government intrusion into their businesses, as with any tax or new regulation, they  will simply pass the costs on to their customers and adjust or move their businesses to accomodate the new situation.  In the end it is the private sector workers who will suffer and bear the full awful affects if we do not pass Prop 23.  Vote Yes on Prop 23 !

Prop. 24  -  Vote "No"

Prop. 25  -  Vote "No"

Voters will be tempted to vote yes on Prop 25 becasue it will virtually eliminate budget impass.  But this will give almost complete control over the budget to Public Union controlled tax-and-spend legislators - primarily Democrats.  Unrealistic budgets will be passed and acted upon containing raises and new benefits for public union members to be sure.  Against a shortfall of revenue this will create a new "crisis" that can only be "fixed" by increased taxation.  Responsible legislators will be painted as obstructionists and held accountable for all of the mess that follows.  You can count on it. Also, while bills enacting broad tax increases will still require a 2/3rds majority, experts believe that many new fees and taxes will be easily enacted within the budget bills themselves. UCAPS (and all) voters will also lose their right to put referendum measures on the ballot to reject any new fees or fee increases imposed within the budget. This proposition will also make it easy for legislators to increase their travel and expense accounts by a simple majority vote.  This Proposition was sponsored and heavily backed by Public Service Unions.   Vote "No" on Prop 25.

The remaining Propositions are of somewhat lesser importance to UCAPS goalls and objectives but voting as follows will certainly help:

Prop. 20  -  Vote "Yes" -  extends Prop. 11 (enacted in 2008) to inlcude congressional representatives districts.  Prop 11 was supposed to end gerrymandering which enables political parties and the  public service unions to draw district bounaries so as to keep state seats in friendly hands.  It remains to be seen if Prop 11 will be successful at ending this practice and re-drawing districts fairly  - but no harm in extending it as this proposition intends.  Vote "Yes" on Prop. 20.

Prop. 21  -  Vote "No" -  Just a ruse to divert Park funds into the general fund so that they may be used to satisfy Public Union salaries, benefits and pensions.   Vote "No" on Prop. 21.

Prop. 22  -  Vote "No" -  An internal fight between an agency that ought to be abolished and the general fund needs of Sacramento.  Vote "No" on Prop. 22.

Prop. 26  -  Vote "Yes" -   Let's not make it easier for our governments at all levels to substitute "fees" for "taxes" in order to  circumvent the 2/3rds requirement.   Vote "Yes" on Prop. 26.

Prop. 27  -  Vote "No" -   Refer to Prop. 20 above.  This one seeks to overturn Prop 11 from 2008 so that gerrymandering can continue.   Vote "No" on Prop. 22.

  Print a Summary of UCAPS Voting Recommendations