Tuesday, March 1, 2011

The Charter Amendments on March 8th

This is going to be a long post for me...

No on "G" - Pensions

Simply put, "G" is a charter amendment that shaves a little bit of pension money off of the cost of new people hired in the future. They would only get a 40% pension at age 50 with 20 years of service instead of the normal 50%. The new hires in the future would also have to pay about 2-3% more towards their health benefits.

Sounds like a good idea, right? Wrong.

It still allows people with high yearly service totals to retire with 90% pensions!!

Let me be clear about one thing... There are no - repeat "no"- city employees who deserve to earn a 90% pension at taxpayer expense. Even 75% would be generous.
The pension structure is a time bomb that will destroy this city.

"G" is a cute idea, but doesn't go nearly far enough.
And it is brought to you by Villaraigosa, Garcetti, Perry, Parks, Zine, etc....
You know, the Rocket Scientists who helped put the City $400 million in the red.

Vote No on "G" - Pensions


Vote "No" on H - Fundraising Restrictions

The fact that this measure was so eagerly supported by the Green Party members was troubling to me... because they can't win an election to save their life. Of course they would want some big government program to decide who can and cannot donate money and where it goes.

Totalitarianism, wheee!

I've always felt that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional because it trampled on the rights of people to contribute politically based solely on the fact that they had more money than other people. It was a Socialist idea, and I'm glad the Supreme Court crushed major portions of it recently.

Actually, "H" is just a big pile of baloney. It's a bunch of high-minded, do-gooder liberals who always think they can "save" everyone from everything. Eric Garcetti and Jose Huizar are going to save us from corrupt campaigns and dirty money??

Shit... they don't enforce the laws they have now!!

Alarcon is under indictment, yet the cowardly other 14 Council members refuse to censure or remove him. Our City Ethics Department is about as useful as toilet paper, as Villaraigosa openly wipes his ass with their rules as he accepts hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from companies who do business with the City. But in this morally bankrupt city, he walks away without a scratch.

What makes you think another "do-gooder" rule will change anything??

It won't.

Vote "No" on H - Fundraising Restrictions


Vote "No" on I - DWP Rate Payer Advocate

Again, "I" is another "do-gooder" crusade to save the poor little citizens from the big terrible DWP!

Look, the problem is not that we don't have a Rate Payer Advocate.
The problem is that the DWP has become a lawless, rogue agency.
Quality management starts at the top, and when you have criminals like Villaraigosa, Alarcon, Huizar, and Cardenas openly looting the treasury and giving the middle finger to the voters.... it sends a signal to every other agency that this type of behavior is tolerated.

Do you think if those guys worked at FedEx that they would have a job the next day?

The answer is not a Rate Payer Advocate.
It would just be some useless schmuck chosen by the Mayor anyway.

The answer is better leaders, who will terminate large numbers of DWP employees.

Vote "No" on "I" - DWP Rate Payer Advocate


Vote "No" on "J" - DWP Budget & Transfers

I have never been in favor of "reactionary" legislation, and "J" is exactly that.
"J" is a temper tantrum by the City Council because the DWP extorted the City Council for a rate increase last year by threatening to withhold a money transfer.

What should have happened is that a powerful and courageous Mayor should have had several DWP executives arrested on charges of extortion and perp-walked into jail with TV cameras rolling.

Instead, we have boot-licker Antonio Villaraigosa in charge.
Yeah. Good luck with that.

Again, the issue is lack of leadership. Not the lack of rules.

Vote "No" on "J" - DWP Budget & Transfers


Vote "No" on "L" - Libraries

Oh no.... How can Phil Jennerjahn hate on the poor little libraries?
The answer? I don't. I just see things for what they are.
Look at the top photo of the old, decrepit Pac Bell telephone booth.
When was the last time you used one of those?
Eventually, you are going to be saying the same thing about libraries.
The second photo is a Kindle, which allows you to carry an entire library in your backpack.

The way we acquire and use information is constantly changing ...and we have to adapt and change with it.

Most people nowadays can surf the internet on their phone. They can Google information in just seconds.
They can read books on their iPhones with a Kindle application.
They can purchase books wirelessly, download them, and start reading them immediately.
Not everyone is hip to this style of information yet, but more and more people are headed in that direction.

Instead of spending more money on libraries, the City should be spending less.
City leaders should shut all the libraries except for the Downtown Branch... transfer all the books there.
Sell off or donate duplicate books. Lease out the land from the unused libraries.
That would solve a lot of problems right there.

Because libraries aren't going to make it.
Think I'm wrong? The Post Office and the newspapers might disappear.
And they made billions in income in the past.
What chance do you give a library to survive?

Vote "No" on "L" - Libraries


Vote No on "M" - Medical Marijuana Tax

This is the City saying it gets to grab 5% of all the sales money from Medical Marijuana.

This is troubling in many ways. First off, it is a bit unconstitutional as it singles out a particular industry for unfair treatment. Regardless of how you feel about Marijuana issues, the City or State should not have the right to come storming in the front door and saying "I get to take your money!".
It is a troubling, extremely disturbing Socialist ideology that allows government leaders to believe these things.
That they can confiscate, without debate, the assets of others in a free society.

One of my strongest Libertarian beliefs is that in a free society, if you are not harming anyone, then the government has no right to take any action against you. I certainly don't like the fact that a lot of my fellow Californians like to use marijuana, but that is their business. It is not my business to be their lifestyle police.

I have always been alert to the dangers of creeping totalitarianism.
A government that has the right to declare Marijuana to be illegal has the right to declare that corn is also illegal. Or tomatoes. Eventually, you see the foolishness of this policy. It is a violation of Natural Law to declare a naturally occurring substance to be illegal.

Dropping an extra tax on something just because you don't like it is unfair and an unreasonable use of government power.

Even District Attorney Steve Cooley and Lee Baca are against it.

Vote "No" on "M" - The Medical Marijuana Tax


Vote "No" on "N" - Campaign Finance

This is one of the few Charter amendments that might actually make sense.

The City is asking for voters to bail them out of trouble.
The City has several campaign finance laws that are unconstitutional and open the City up to liability and being sued by a candidate or other campaign.

The problem here? The City never should have had those laws in the first place.
Bailing them out only encourages them to trample on your freedom at another place and time.

I'm not inclined to save them from their own stupidity or to encourage other reckless legal behavior.
I'm voting no.

Vote "No" on "N" - Campaign Finance


Vote "No" on "O" - Oil Production Tax

This is just another Socialist money grab by the Socialists on the Los Angeles City Council.
In a free-market economy, companies that get burdened with extra taxes generally pass those costs on to the consumer. You would have to be an absolute idiot to vote for this Proposition O.

Of course, The Hamburglar and The Cat Whisperer support this plan.
That should tell you everything you need to know right there.

Vote "No" on "O" - Oil Production Tax


Vote "No" on "P" - Emergency Reserve Account

This is just more unnecessary meddling by the liberals on the City Council.

It is already their job to manage the City in such a way that there is always some money left for Emergencies. To formalize a certain percent means that they will eventually raise taxes to take that money from you if they fail or fall short. Keep them away from decisions like this.

Vote "No" on "P" - Emergency Reserve Account


Vote "No" on "Q" - Employment Provisions

It seems reasonable the the City would try to cut down on their hiring costs.
Actually , they need to cut down on their hiring.
I vote to force them to go on a diet.

Vote "No" on "Q" - Employment Provisions


In conclusion, to keep things fairly simple, just vote no on every amendment.

Remember, if a politician thought it up, it is probably not a good thing for you.