Anyone read the analysis of the 2006 ballot proposals?

[Artyboy]

I'm finally sitting down to read it. I still have mixed feelings on some of these. Here's how I'm probably gonna vote on election day, though.

Amendment 38: Petitions - I like the idea but I don't like the way that they're trying to go through with it. It'll make it too easy to push things through so no.

Amendment 39: School spending requirements - I'm really mixed on this one. I do think that we need to crack down on school spending and analyze where all of our money is going. I'm probably going to vote yes.

Amendment 40: term limits for judges - It's fine how it is so no.

Amendment 41: Standards of conduct - A big yes on this one. I hate lobbying and I despise the fact that money buys political influence. I'll support anything that discourages this kind of behavior.

Amendment 42: CO minimum wage - It's about time that they did this. Maybe it'll even encourage some of the low lifes that sit at home and suck up welfare to go out and get a job, too, if they can get paid a little more (wishful thinking).

Amendment 43: Marriage - I'm voting against defining marriage as only a union between a man and a woman. It shouldn't matter if it's two men, two women or a man and a woman as long as all parties involved are consenting adults.

Amendment 44: Marijuana possession - Pot is harmless. We're not making it legal to distribute or sell. We're just taking the first step towards government regulation of it. If drinking is legal then pot should be legal, too. Pot doesn't impair people's driving. Pot doesn't make people get violent. Pot can't poison you. Why the hell is it still illegal?

Referendum E: Property tax reductions for disabled vets - Most definately

Referendum F: Recall deadlines - It looks good on paper but it would be just as easy for them to use this law to expidite the process as it would to keep someone in office for as long as possible. This one gets a no vote.

Referendum G: Obsolete constitutional provisions - Get rid of them.

Referendum H: Limiting a state business income tax deduction - I'll definately vote for this one even though it really doesn't do that much.

Referendum I: Domestic partnerships - I have no problem with "domestic partnerships". People should be able to live their lives however they want as long as they're not hurting anyone. I'd rather just see it recognized as a marriage, though.

Referendum J: School district spending requiremnts - I'm in favor of this. We need to know where our money is going. It also gives voters the power to exempt their district from the 65% rule if it's necessary.

Referendum K: Immigration lawsuit against federal government - I'm strongly in favor of this one. It might not accomplish much but if enough states say "enforce the damn laws" then maybe they'll listen.

[Merl]

My issue with the minimum wage was the automatic increase for inflation. Yes not having it in there brings this issue back every few years but there are no guarantees.

I found it very funny the the analysis for referendum J shows spending is at average of 83% for the items listed. why bother on that one. anyone have a breakdown of spending by each item listed? would show better if something is out of sorts.

[Marlin]

85% of the people that are working for minimum wage are kids that still live at home with mommy and daddy, The other 15% in My opinion, are too lazy or, too stupid to improve thier postion in life. It has nothing to do with welfare, Most of them just don't want to go to work anyway.

[Scott]

85% of the people that are working for minimum wage are kids that still live at home with mommy and daddy, The other 15% in My opinion, are too lazy or, too stupid to improve thier postion in life. It has nothing to do with welfare, Most of them just don't want to go to work anyway.

I couldn't agree with this more, which is why I am so against it. Even if it's a family new to America (legally) and are just starting out, if they have an ounce of motivation then they won't be there long. I see it as a way to motivate those who want and seperate those that don't. I also thought about the inflation issue as Merl mentioned.

As far as Referendum J is concerned, I'm torn on that one. My mother being a school teacher/administrator gives me a little more respect of the views of the school's side of this. At the same time, I do see excessive spending of money on things that don't benefit my children's learning. I see my children's school spending money on new desks for teachers and new carpeting, etc. while at the same time they're asking the parents for money for their computer lab costs and school supplies to share with the class. I always refuse them both telling them that being part of Jeffco (one of the richest school counties in CO), they should have the funding. And that they would also have the proper funding if they budgeted a little better and let things like new desks every other year for teachers/secretaries/lunch people go out a few more years.

[Aardvark]

..and why the frak do I get 3-4 huge arsed flyers in the junkmail telling me to vote no on 2? It's the junk-flyers saying something about bureaucraps restricting the Police and Fire Dept from doing their jobs. Doesn't say how, or why or anything useful, except 'vote no'. Damnit all, tell me what it's about or quit junkmailing me with trash paper!

[Asha'man]

I'm voting in favor of term limits for judges. Gets the liberal retards out instead of giving them the chance to legislate from the bench until they die or retire, and my feeling is that there are more of them than there are decent ones.

[Merl]

I'm voting in favor of term limits for judges. Gets the liberal retards out instead of giving them the chance to legislate from the bench until they die or retire, and my feeling is that there are more of them than there are decent ones.

umm, might want to rethink that
it'll let whichever party wins pack the court. then when thier limits come up whoever is in power gets to pack it again. then when thier limits come up...

[Artyboy]

I'm voting in favor of term limits for judges. Gets the liberal retards out instead of giving them the chance to legislate from the bench until they die or retire, and my feeling is that there are more of them than there are decent ones.

umm, might want to rethink that
it'll let whichever party wins pack the court. then when thier limits come up whoever is in power gets to pack it again. then when thier limits come up...

Exactly. That's why I'm against term limits for judges.

You guys make a good point on the minimum wage. The way I look at it, though, around here it's damn near impossible to find a job that pays minimum wage. I even saw McDonald's advertising that they were hiring people at $7 an hour.

..and why the frak do I get 3-4 huge arsed flyers in the junkmail telling me to vote no on 2? It's the junk-flyers saying something about bureaucraps restricting the Police and Fire Dept from doing their jobs. Doesn't say how, or why or anything useful, except 'vote no'. Damnit all, tell me what it's about or quit junkmailing me with trash paper!

That pisses me off, too. I don't mind getting them because I'm willing to read in between the lines and find out what the stuff really means. I've seen so many "this is how you should vote" cheat sheets that don't even explain the issue or twist them so you'd be stupid not to vote the way they want you to. What really sucks about it is how many people out there look at those check sheets and think "great now I don't have to find out for myself". They should really come up with a way to make that shit illegal or at least limit it.

[Gman]

You don't expect these folks to actually give you the information to make an informed decision, do you? Just look at the entire pitch for 38. They make you think that the right to petition is going to be taken away from you. It's actually trying to take one of the most liberal petition/referendum systems and take it to yet another level. How many people do you think really read the blue book compared to just getting their information from the TV?

Raising the minimum wage just increases costs and reduces peoples purchasing power due to higher prices. Liberals don't understand markets. They think that raising the tax on cigarettes by $20 a carton will increase revenues. They don't understand that the increased prices will change behavior and fewer people will spend the money and the result is reduced tax revenue. They're still harping about the 'tax cuts for the rich' (never knew I was "rich" before). In the meantime, the reduced taxes have boosted the economy and the government took in the most tax revenues in our history while reducing the deficit ahead of schedule. They must think we're stupid and/or have no memory.

http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/004268.html

[oddthomas]

Amendment 43: Marriage - I'm voting against defining marriage as only a union between a man and a woman. It shouldn't matter if it's two men, two women or a man and a woman as long as all parties involved are consenting adults.

The problem with Admendment 43 is that the term Marriage has been defined and historically used for thousands of years as the union between man and woman, e.g. two physically different sexes. And because of that it has been embedded into not only secular documents but non-secular and legal as well. That assumption and perspective is deeply buried and intertwined such that it includes both physical sexes male and female.

Based upon that, my feeling is leave the term Marriage as it is and if the same-sex crowd want to have an equivalent term then more power to them but pick a different label than Marriage. If you use the same term then you open yourself up to inheriting a non-sensical perspective since some of the inherent description and implied rules are no longer applicable or at best are incorrect. To that end I suggest that rather than rewriting and inhereting the non-sensical parts of the marriage definition to simply create a new one designed for same-sex unions.