VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 -- WHY YOU CAN'T TRUST MAILERS
I urge my readers to read, for themselves, the actual propositions and check how the impartial California Legislative Analyst has described each one of the propositions.
Right versus wrong...
To me, it is simply a battle of right versus wrong: I do not want our government to take private property from a private individual and give it to another private group so that they can develop it for profit -- all with the promise of increasing tax and fee revenues to the government. Under this scenario, no citizen's property is safe from an unconstitutional land grab by the politicians and their special interests.
Specifically at issue is the wording of "public use" which, to me, connotes the proper use of the eminent domain process to build roads, schools, fire and police facilities; infrastructure facilities which benefit us all versus "public purpose" which would allow government to simply grab an individual's land for anything that may benefit the government -- political speak for whatever brings in more tax and fee revenue and helps our political friends and contributors.
Following the money...
While both parties make claims and counterclaims about who is actually behind these propositions, it is helpful to understand what is really going on.
Make no mistake about it... both propositions are backed by millions of dollars in contributions, mostly from large contributors with a horse in the race. While smaller contributions from "believers," as they are known in the political fundraising trade, are the ones featured in the media.
Allegedly "fat cat" mobile home developers and apartment owners are behind proposition 98. And on the other side, the groups backing proposition 99, you have heavy contributions (about 2-1) from the labor unions, ecology groups. developers and far-left liberal organizations who stand to benefit from the government's land grab. The backers of proposition 98 are trying to protect their private property from being purchased at ridiculous prices by the government or being further controlled by government with restrictions on how they use their property or what prices they can charge others to lease their property.
Many times, we find donors who have no interest in the race making major "quid pro quo" contributions: you support my cause now and I will support your cause later. In this same category we find donations by public relations firms, law firms, lobbyists and others who do business with one side or another -- and consider the expenditure a normal cost of doing business -- a form of political advertising if you will.
Hiding behind "trustworthy" names and committees ...
Both groups hide behind "noble" and "trustworthy" names that are designed to portray wide community support and beneficial reasons.
Unfortunately, the truth is much more sordid. In the case of many of the proposition 99 committees with their high-minded sounding names, we find the commercial advocacy group of Baker, Castillo & Fairbanks.
Why you can't always trust advocacy flyers...
Which brings me to today's rant. The hidden agenda behind the campaign. Not only must the average citizen be wary of "quid pro quo" support deals by politicians and the sycophantic friends, but now you must also watch third-parties who are entering the battle -- who are actually advocating for or against something quite different than what they claim.
Today's example involves a story from the Sacramento Bee which explains why a politician is being targeted by a group portraying themselves as something other than what they say they are...
From the Sacramento Bee...
"'Education leaders,' er, tribes hammer Hancock"
"A group billing itself as 'Education Leaders for High Standards' has sent thousands of campaign mailers blasting Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, for trying to 'weaken academic standards' on the eve of her contested Senate primary."
"But more than 90 percent of the funds for the mailer came not from "education leaders" but from a coalition Indian gambling tribes, most notably the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians. The tribe has battled with Hancock to open a casino with slot machines in her East Bay district."
An apparent example of "quid pro quo" intimidation advocacy...
"If these tactics can defeat me, it sends a message to other legislators that they question or oppose gambling interests at their own risk," said Hancock in an interview."
The educators...
"The California Tribal Business Alliance donated $99,000 to the "independent expenditure" mailer campaign. That committee, in turn, was funded by five $75,000 donations from gambling tribes and $244,000 from the Lytton Band, which operates the San Pablo Lytton Casino in Hancock's district."
"Another $10,000 for the mail was contributed by EdVoice, an education advocacy group funded by prominent business leaders. "I just think that what's happening right now is the Loni Hancock folks are trying to make the messenger the issue, not the message," said Paul Mitchell, EdVoice's political director."
For the record, I despise the far-left liberal politics of those that are running and believe that Indians, as well as others, should be interested in supporting the finest education for California's legal citizens. However, all groups should be upfront about who they really are and what they really want. Unfortunately, it is not always the political way.
For those wanting to see an accurate portrayal of how political business is often executed, you may want to watch Aaron Sorkin's "Charlie Wilson's War." Sorkin, while a liberal, has a fine writer's eye for detail and story-telling.
Transparency in politics...
But my point is: the casual voter seeing the "Education Leaders for High Standards" may be mislead into voting for a candidate or issue which has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand.
Perhaps the citizens should demand that strict "truth-in-advertising" laws be applied to campaign literature.
What can YOU do?
Study the propositions for yourself.
Decide whether you support Proposition 98's "public use" or Proposition 99's business-as-usual "public purpose" grounds for confiscating private property from individuals.
Do you believe in the far-left Marxist doctrine of the "collective" trumping the rights of the "individual?"
VOTE YES ON 98, VOTE NO ON 99 if you believe, as I do, that the government should be held to a higher standard when interfering in its citizen's lives.
-- steve
Quote of the day: "
Your true value depends entirely on what you are compared with." -- Bob Wells
A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…
The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius
Reference Links:
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 -- STOP GOVERNMENT PROPERTY GRABS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 -- OVERCOME PROP 99'S "LANGUAGE OF LIES"
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS