Thursday, October 12, 2006

If it makes you feel good it must be bad for you . . . No on the Numbers and Letters (and number/letters)





So, first I’m going to refer everyone to the Bell Action Network analysis of the ballot issues and voting guide.

DHP agrees with their analysis and will inject her own opinions on their “neutral” positions.

If it feels good, it must be bad (or JUST VOTE NO!) . . .

First, we all know to vote NO on Amendment 41 (So Called Ethics). Be sure to check out the website to see who else agrees with us . . . PS, League of Women Voters, Colorado Non-Profit Association, and the OBGYN Society (?!) are among them.

Vote NO on Referendum E: Property Tax Exemption for Disabled Veterans: Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reward disabled veterans who own property with a tax exemption? Well, since we have TABOR, any money you take out of property taxes is money you take out of public school financing. I like public schools and know they struggle under TABOR. Also Referendum E is CONSTITUTIONAL and is only on the ballot as a referred measure because it is politically incorrect for a legislator to vote against such a referendum. JUST VOTE NO!

Vote NO Referendum F: Recall Deadlines: Do we have a problem with Recalling Elected Officials? I haven’t seen one. Why make it harder? This is a solution in search of a problem. JUST VOTE NO!

Referendum G: Obsolete Constitutional Provisions: Who cares, vote however you like. I’m JUST VOTING NO.

Vote NO on Referendum H: Limiting a State Business Income Tax Deduction (Immigration-related): Ok, anytime we reduce taxes we take money out of important programs like Medicaid, Public Education, Low-Income Housing, Public Safety, you name it. Also, this lovely referendum came out of the “special legislative session on immigration” and is punitive and unnecessary. Another solution in search of a problem. JUST VOTE NO!

Vote NO on Referendum K: Immigration Lawsuit against Federal Government: Our tax dollars are better spent on good social programs and services rather than forcing our Attorney General to sue the Federal Government for reimbursements of the money the state spends on enforcing immigration laws (which, according to the Department heads is next to nothing). I’m damned tired of vilifying hard working people who make sure my lawn is mowed and my food is harvested. JUST VOTE NO!

Just for Denver Voters:
Vote NO on 1A:
School Vouchers ('nuf said)
Vote NO on 1B: Again, what problem are they trying to solve?

So, to wrap up, JUST VOTE NO!*
*Except on Referendum I (and Amendment 44 if you think you tax dollars should not be spent on prosecuting mere pot smokers, at least it A-44 is statutory instead of constitutional).

8 comments:

rebeckspe said...

I've now spent two days filling out my absentee ballot and reading and re-reading the instructions. I cannot figure out for the life of me how one could vote for a write-in candidate in any of the elected offices.

Am I retarded or is something really really wrong here? Did we give up our right to fill in my mother's name for City Dogcatcher?

codown2earth said...

I was very disappointed by the ProjectNow voting guide. Too many YESs!

codown2earth said...

rebeckspe- No disrespect to my neighborhood foodie, but I don't understand WHY you would want to write in a candidate. They aren't going to get elected. (Just ask the FL R's trying to organize a write in campaign around Foley.)

DenverHotPants said...

Yes, ProgressNow knee-jerked liberal on so many issues with out giving them thought. It will also not come as a shock that the major funder behind A41 is on the board of ProgressNow. Hmmmm. Can you say "undo influence"?

rebeckspe said...

In response to cd2e, personally I wouldn't want to write-in a candidate in this election, but thought it was one of those basic rights - that we can write in Daffy Duck if we want to, and didn't see a way that it could be done on the absentee ballot.

However, I also don't vote for a candidate just because I think he or she can win.... I admit it does help tho.

creamycrafter said...

Thanks for all this info. Very helpful. If I was in charge of a TV or radio network I'd give you a slot...like a sunday night Hallmark special to broadcast this info. I guess a blog will have to do.

waltzeswithdogs said...

just fyi - Amendment 44 makes position of a small amount of pot non-prosecutable. However, purchasing and using laws remaing the same. That is one of the reasons I think its kind of dumb. You may posess but not buy or smoke. Bad law that way.

waltzeswithdogs said...

excuse my fingers, that's posession not position. My brain went one way - my fingers another.