Prop 21- Don't get sucked into it!

[Kolt45]

If you don't want the state to bring back the "car tax", check this link out:

http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/11/02/ca/state/prop/21/

What most people don't realize is that if this prop is passed, it would be next to impossible to undo. Additionally, if it is passed, what is going to keep our "great state" from increasing the registration fee to $25 next year, then $35 the following year, and so on for the rest of your lives? Think about it. Do you want the state taking more money out of your pockets leaving you less money to spend on fishing?

This prop may look good at first, but if passes, be prepared to pay the piper forever.

[Marty]

California Politician are all messed up – I received my “Voting Guide’s” from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents (what I’m registered as) and each is saying to vote for yes on Prop 21. It is up to the people to run this State.

Vote “NO” on Prop 21

This is the same reason we kicked out Davis – now they come back and put another spin on it!

[mark poulson]

I just posted this in the Vote thread, but I think it probably belongs here.

At the risk of opening myself up to everyone's wrath, I think Prop 21 is a good idea.
Even our great governator, Arnold, says repealing the "car tax" was his biggest mistake while in office.
There is no free lunch.
I lived through the property tax nightmare that brought about Prop. 13, and remember how gutless politicians kept hiking property taxes whenever they needed more money, because they thought they could get away with it.
The people, including me, said "Enough", and passed Prop. 13.
The only thing we didn't count on was how cowardly politicians, instead of raising general revenues through a sales tax, punted, and just said "Oh, no, we don't have any money now", and let our state turn to crap.
Money to support services has to come from somewhere, and, by and large, politicians won't say we need to raise taxes, even if their children are being held hostage. So I think this is not a bad idea. It may not be perfect, but it begins the process of trying to pay for the services we all use, without floating another loan, or bond, and mortgaging/borrowing against our kids' futures.
I have ever confidence in our ability to repeal this "fee" if it is abused, like we did with Prop. 13.
It will involve hard work, and time and money spent, to reverse it if it turns out badly.
But don't sell us short. We did it before and we can do it again.

[Whoopbass]

It was originally suppose to be a $8-10 fee and I was going to vote yes. Then it came out and they jacked it up to $18 so I voted NO. I don't see how its going to pass.

[Marty]

Mark,

There are so many places that the budget can be cut to make up the short fall. Just making the Politicians pay for their own gas and lunch or even better use their own car as the rest of us do would save millions. We in California have more welfare recipients than any other State and we pay over what the federal mandate is – Why?

If we keep giving into every tax and fee they think of why would they ever cut the budget? I really understand where you are coming from but if we (you and me) had less funds coming into our household the first thing we would do is adjust our budget.

Why not Sacramento?

[mr.bass91]

The biggest problem I have with prop 21 is not the 18 bucks. I just don't believe that they will end up using the money for what they say they will which is conservation and preserving our parks. They will end pulling a good chunk of that money into the general fund just like they do to the revenue generated by hunting and fishing license sales. I can just see my 18 bucks going to some lame fund that our liberal politicians feel is necessary like underage girls having abortions without their parents consent. Anyway I am stepping down from my soap box now!

[drew]

I agree. No New taxes. We already pay too much.

The politicians need think about improving the efficiency of the states operations, not more taxes.

The biggest problem I have with prop 21 is not the 18 bucks. I just don't believe that they will end up using the money for what they say they will which is conservation and preserving our parks. They will end pulling a good chunk of that money into the general fund just like they do to the revenue generated by hunting and fishing license sales. I can just see my 18 bucks going to some lame fund that our liberal politicians feel is necessary like underage girls having abortions without their parents consent. Anyway I am stepping down from my soap box now!

[doorman]

Not only is it another tax and fee we don't need.

25 million dollars of prop 21 will go to the MLPA, the same people trying to shut the coasts down to fishing.

[mark poulson]

Mark,

There are so many places that the budget can be cut to make up the short fall. Just making the Politicians pay for their own gas and lunch or even better use their own car as the rest of us do would save millions. We in California have more welfare recipients than any other State and we pay over what the federal mandate is – Why?

If we keep giving into every tax and fee they think of why would they ever cut the budget? I really understand where you are coming from but if we (you and me) had less funds coming into our household the first thing we would do is adjust our budget.

Why not Sacramento?

Marty,
I agree with you that Government, big and small, lives way beyond our means.
They are not isolated, they are insulated from any of the ramifications of their actions.
I think the way to solve that is to pass an initiative that requires all elected officials, from the State on down, to use public services as part of their terms of employment. They work for us, and we should be able to define the terms of employment.
After all, they decide how to fund these services, so why shouldn't they have to use them, too?
Can you imagine what our schools would be like if their kids had to attend through the first four years of college?
Or how good our public transportation system would run if they had to use it?
Or if they had to have the same health care as most of the rest of us?
There is a total disconnect between government and the governed.
I think we should invite them into the same boat that the rest of us are in.
That way, they'd have to bail water, too, instead of standing on the dock we built for them and throwing "lifelines" made out of brick.
No one bails faster than the guy sitting in the sinking boat.

[JT-Madera]

Mark

I was going to vote yes on the Prop until I begin thinking how unfair it is to those of us who have multiple vehicles. I have two, my daughter has three and how many of you have multiple cars, trucks and RV's. So I will be paying 18.00 dollars per and if they start raising the "fee"s" every year I will even pay more.. But how about the guy with only one car being able to use the same parks for less, just because he only has one car.. So I'm going to vote "NO"

JT

[flipit]

Im lost. I thought this was the bass fishing forum.

[lobinaloca]

Good post, to the top

[salt pharmer]

Turns out, prop 21 will be used to fund the MLPA's. So if you want stop inshore recreational ocean fishing vote yes on 21. Save your salt brothers, NO ON 21 Phil

[j10b]

No offense meant but when you argue with Mark about something, remember he voted in 08 to prove he wasnt a racist. Or thats what he put in his posts, he voted to prove it could be done.

So don't be surprised what he "agrees" with to provide "more" services.

[mark poulson]

No offense meant but when you argue with Mark about something, remember he voted in 08 to prove he wasnt a racist. Or thats what he put in his posts, he voted to prove it could be done.

So don't be surprised what he "agrees" with to provide "more" services.

Do you have a real name, or is this just a case of keyboard courage?

I'll leave it to those who know me to decide if I'm a racist.
Actually, I think all of us are prejudiced in one way or another. Maybe you didn't grow up in a society with tons of prejudices, but I did.
Hopefull, as we grow up, we learn to recognize it and keep it from clouding our judgement about issues, and our opinions of others who are different from us.
I think, if you read my posts, I said I was excited to have an intelligent black man as a major party Presidential candidate to vote for.
If you think that means I was trying to prove I wasn't a racist, you need to reread what I said.
I was also amazed that it happened in my life time. I really didn't expect to see it happen.

Now, what who I voted for in 2008 has to do with Prop 21, I can't see.
We can't keep passing our debts on to our kids and grandkids. It's time to pay for what we want, instead of passing bonds and making more debt for future generation.
If paying $18 more once a year really bugs you, try thinking of it as a little less than $.05 a day. Five cents.
If we borrow more to balance the budget, like our legislature has done since Ronald Reagan was President, it will cost us more than twice as much as we borrow in the future.
And it will make our State's economy look like a poor risk for industry looking at moving here.
Liberal and conservative experts agree on this. It's just the elected politicians, who have to pander to special interests to get elected and re-elected, who keep using borrowing to balance our budgets so they don't have to stand up and tell the uncomfortable truth, and face the wrath of the voters.
There is no free lunch.

[pharmer]

Wow Mark, no offense Mark but that's the wost logic I have ever heard. If you believe that the politicians (Repubs and Dems alike) will balance the debt or even stop spending by allowing them to increase taxes, your unbelievably naive. This tax has nothing to do with balancing debt, it's about needing more money to spend. The MLPA's are a great example. We could have easily reduced catch limits like our lakes have, and no further cost's would be accrued. Instead, we pass an act that stops Inshore recreational fishing (not gill netting or long lining or commercial fishing) that is going to cost 40 million a year and then try to pass a tax to pay for it saying it's for state parks. Mark you know I like you personally, but I think you need to take a class in logic. Phil Brown

[mark poulson]

Phil,
I thought gill netting, long lining, and commercial fishing were under the same restrictions as recreational fishing.
Do you have a link I can go to to read up on the whole issue?
I don't agree with restrictions on recreational fishing at all. That's like saying peeing in Castaic is damaging the water quality in Los Angeles....a drop in the bucket.
I do think that we, as a State, need to raise revenue. If our tax money is being squandered, that should be stopped. But what we really need here is to bring back industry with decent paying jobs, so the general tax base is bigger, and I don't see that happening any time soon, if at all. In fact, the way robotics are advancing, I don't think there will be jobs for most people in the not so distant future.
In the mean time, I think the car tax is needed to help stop the run away borrowing that has gotten us into this mess.
And there are a lot of things, like restrictions on recreational ocean fishing, that need to be repealed, but I don't think not passing Prop. 21 is going to accomplish that.

[tbob]

This proposition is being used to fund the MLPA's, in fact the real reason this proposition is probably on the ballot is to divert 3% of the total amount of money raised toward Ocean Protection Agencies ( which I assume means the organizations that back the MLPA). Throughout this ordeal in which fishermen have been manipulated by the likes of the Pckard Fund and the RLFF fund ( look them up on the internet if you want to really worry yourself to death this weekend), the one thing that has saved us is that there isn't enough money in the DFG funds to enforce and monitor all these closed areas.

This tax will raise hundreds of millions of dollars, and the state park system doesn't even need he money. The 3% alone will amount to something like 20 million dollars every year that goes directly to ocean enhancement. It is all right there in your voters phamplet. I suggest everyone read it, and I would urge everyone to vote against it for simply that reason. You are being conned, and the state parks do not need the money, but even if they did I would still vote against this bill as it is an anti fishing bill disguised behind a state park initiative that many of us might otherwise support.

[Ringer]

I can't believe a state can go into a $20 billion a year deficit from overspending and entitlements, has business fleeing the high tax and regulations, and someone is going to give them another pot of money to spend! You think you can grow business by passing new taxes that have no benefit to them? If you give politicians more money they will just spend twice as much. Nuts. If you want to pay more then force them to write in a clause that they will agree to dollar for dollar cuts in state government. Better yet let them figure out how to live on what they already take in.