June Vote - Prop 28 and Prop 29 (purchase, taxes, law)

[NewToCA]

We have two new propositions to vote on as part of the June ballot:

Prop 28 - Current law limits service as an elected official in the State Assembly to 6 years, and the State Senate to 8 years. This proposition changes the law to be a combined total of 12 years, but would allow the full time to be served in either the Assembly or Senate.


Prop 29 - Current cigarette tax is 87 cents per pack. This proposition adds $1.00 per pack to the tax, so the total tax per pack of cigarettes would be $1.87. The additional tax revenue will be used to fund cancer research, smoking reduction programs, and tobacco law enforcement.


Generally, this forum likes to have discussions about proposed changes to California law, so I'm presenting this thread for anyone who wishes to discuss either (or both) of these proposals.

[.highnlite]

I noticed that the anti prop 29 ads used a professional scientist looking person who complains that it will raise taxes and the money raised could be spent out of state. Disingenuous, it does raise taxes, but only on the purchase of cigarettes, and the money spent out of state could easily be cancer research that crosses state lines. The ad seemed reasonable to me until I read who was paying for it, Phillip Morris.

Prop 28, there has been information out that the current state of the legislature is due to term limits.

[BlackShoe]

No and No.

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

No and No.

Thank your for your analysis.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

I categorically vote yes on all limitations to career politicians and no on all bonds, tax increases, etc.

[evergraystate]

28 yes
29 no

[1AngryTaxPayer]

yes and yes

[.highnlite]

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_1104BCRB.pdf

[NewToCA]

I'm likely voting "no" on both measures.

Prop 28 opens up a 12 year window to serve at the same job, doubling the potential time in the Senate. I understand the advantages about being on a job longer, and developing strategic relationships, and I also understand that those serving shorter times are more dependent upon the "experts" who support those organizations. However, I believe that the deals cut through long term service are more of a negative than those other issues.

Regarding Prop 29, I don't favor "sin taxes", and would actually be supportive of repealing the current $.87 tax instead of adding an additional one. Regarding funding research, I view that as a federal issue, and the other non-research stuff I just see as some organizations trying to create their own lucrative jobs.

[BlackShoe]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

No and No.

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Thank your for your analysis.

Rather than post a summary and repeat of the arguements at the editorials will just post the links. Do not always agree with the positions that the OCR takes, but this time their opposition to both propositions seems based on pretty solid logic.
www.ocregister.com/articles/terms-351396-years-prop.html

www.ocregister.com/articles/prop-351754-government-bad.html