MW Talks Arizona 2002 Ballot Props

MW Talks AZ Nov.5th, 2002 Ballot Props Results
Mr. Wonderful	You Are At: www.angelfire.com/az/nativebob/politicsazprops_nov5_2002.html Looks Best Using MS Explorer! 1024x768 Resolution Set 'View'/'Text Size' To: Medium	Arizona State Flag

Easy Find Proposition Table

Prop.411 (Maricopa County)

Summary: How To Vote !

Proposition 100:

NO
58% to 42%

"Increase Debt Limit for Municipalities"

This proposition would allow for Arizona counties, cities, towns, school districts and other municipalities to increase their present debt limit from 6% (and in some cases 15%) to a maximum of 20%. That would allow these entities to increase the amount of their indebtedness anywhere from 133% to 333%! Not a good idea. Let government live by a strict budget and to cut back on spending, as all American corporations, businesses and individuals have learned to do.

Vote: NO

Proposition 101:

NO
51% to 49%

"State Trust Land Exchanges"

Prop. 101 sign Tatum Boulevard, Phoenix, Arizona

This proposition harks back to 1936, when Congress amended the "Enabling Act" which allowed our State to trade or sell lands held in the public trust. Seems in 1990 the Arizona Supreme Court determined that our Constitution must be amended before any more land can be exchanged. Now it's 2002 and our lightning fast, needing-a-pay-raise-billion-dollar-deficit-legislature is proposing that we finally amend our Constitution. Although the proposal includes all kinds of safeguards about "appraised value" and "public comment" periods I don't trust the bastards. I say vote no.

Vote: NO

Proposition 102:

YES
80% to 20%

"Clarifying SSI Rates for Senior Citizen's Property Tax Freeze"

If approved, this proposition would clear up whether the passed into law year 2000 Proposition 104 that froze the property valuation of seniors whose income was below a certain amount would be based on the 500% of the "individual SSI benefit rate" or the "two or more persons SSI benefit rate." This is a good deal because it lowers the level of income a senior can have to qualify for this property valuation freeze. This income test is a joke anyway, because my mother, God rest her soul, never had income anywhere near today's $32,700 number, but yet had more money than she could ever spend. I know, because when she passed on me and my two brothers split a high six figure dollar amount three ways. Vote yes.

Vote: YES

Proposition 103:

YES
80% to 20%

"Bail and Conditions of Bail for Sex Offenders"

This proposition will add sexual assault, sexual conduct with a minor under the age of 15 and the molestation of a child under the age of 15 to the list of non-bailable offenses. This is done to assure the appearance of the accused at trial, protect against witness intimidation and to provide for the safety of the victim and the community. Although this power can be abused or molested from the bench, I think it's a good deal. I also believe, that, like pet rats who have tasted meat must be put down because they will begin killing and eating their cage-mates, child molesters must also be put down.
Firing squads would be a nice touch. Vote yes.

Vote: YES

Proposition 104:

YES
70% to 30%

"Increasing Spending Limits of AZ School Districts
by Exempting Sales Tax Receipts"

Remember the .6% state sales tax rate increase (Prop.301) that was approved by the apparently not-taxed-enough Arizona voters back in 2000? In a method too convoluted to explain here, passage of this year's Prop. 104 would allow Arizona school districts to exceed their current Constitutionally restrained spending limits by the amount the year 2000 sales tax rate percent increase harvests. Also, to my mind at least, the Arizona educrats (who have not yet brought Arizona education up to the level your Mr.Wonderful enjoyed in the early 1950s and 1960s when we were only burdened with learning and not concerned about condoms, homos and Amnesty International) would promote another sales tax increase so they could throw even more of our money down the failing well that is Arizona public education. Vote no.

Vote: NO

Proposition 200:

NO
86% to 14%

"3% of Net/Net/Net Indian Gaming Income to
Bypass the Legislature"

Prop 200 gambling sign version 1
Is it okay to murder, say a really slimy dude, like for example, "Hustler Magazine" founder multi-millionaire drooler, Larry Flynt, if you're going to take his money and make it available to decent people? No! And the people advertising for this proposition should be ashamed. Their desire is draw the voter's attention away from the fact that this proposition relies on legalized gambling, simply because the revenue, a mere 3% of the net, net, net amount of tribally defined annual gaming profits, rather than being dumped into the state's general account would instead go to fund the Arizona College Scholarship and Elderly Care funds. What horseshit. Number one, the three percent (3%) of the annual profits from Tribal Gaming after the deduction of prizes, labor, all operating, interest, depreciation and amoritization expenses reads like a Hollywood studio's contract to share profits from a film with their partners. Profits which never manage to trickle down to the bottom line. Number two, gambling is just plain wrong. This sneaky proposition would also extend the State and tribal gaming compacts for another 20 years with unlimited non-voter approved 20 year renewals!
As U.S. Senator Jon Kyl states, " . . . gambling is not the solution to socio-economic problems and will ultimately be destructive and detrimental to Native Americans and Arizonans. "
Vote no on Proposition 200.
Prop 200 gambling sign version 2

Vote: NO

Proposition 201:

NO
80% to 20%

"Slot Machines at Horse and Dog Racing Tracks"

Once again, another attempt by the legalized gambling backers to move slot machines into smelly, stinky, and just plain sad confines of the live horse and dog racing clubhouses. The phony "Arizona Joe" campaign promises us 300 million tax dollars and that ironically, by allowing slot machines into Arizona dog and horse tracks, we would somehow be stemming the spread of gambling in Arizona! They tantalize us with the offer of 40% of the "gross gaming revenue" from the tracks slots and up to 8% of the same from gambling on Tribal lands. But the revenue still comes from a formally illegal pastime, gambling! I love how the "Ballot Format" on page 72 reads for "A YES vote: "A YES vote . . . go to the state general fund and to programs including K-3 reading; prescription medication for seniors . . . " HOWEVER IT omits the stated NUMBER ONE and TWO beneficiaries of this revenue as listed in the "Text of the Proposed Amendment" which are: " . . . to fund racing and agricultural programs"! This proposition would also extend the State's tribal gambling compacts for another 10 years.

As U.S. Representative, Jeff Flake writes on page 71 in his "Against 201" comments,
" . . . for those who cannot find enough ways to wager their money against horrific odds, Nevada is close enough."

Mormons! Gotta love 'em! Vote no on this prop.

Vote: NO

Proposition 202:

YES
51% to 49%

"State Cut of Indian Gambling Only to Specific Agencies"

Prop 202 sign Tatum Boulevard, Phoenix, Arizona

As with Propositions 200 and 201, this initiative also extends the State and tribal gambling compact, in this case for up to 23 additional years. The backers of this slyly worded gambit are betting on drawing the attention of voters to the fact that by revenues from indian gambling bypassing the legislature and going directly to stated beneficiaries, " . . . problem gambling, class reduction size, teacher salary increases, . . . " that Arizona citizens will forget where the revenues are coming from. They're coming from gambling. A formerly illegal activity run by the mob. This revenue is coming from greed and excitement driven individuals tossing their income away at reservation casino's spending their dollars that should be spent on utilities, food, clothing, rent, mortgages, health care, prescription drugs and such.
As U.S. Representative John Shadegg states on pages 106 and 107:
"Propositions 200 and 202 both will hasten the transformation of Arizona into a network of reservation gambling enclaves, with virtually all of the resultant social, cultural, and law enforcement problems being exported to the state for processing, cleanup and occasionally incarceration." Vote no on 202.

Vote: NO

Proposition 203:

NO
57% to 43%

"Decriminalize Marijuana, Medical Marijuana and More"

Grant Woods You can tell that the individuals supporting this poorly worded proposition have been pulling on the hooka with the hash filled bowl on a little too regular basis. Mr. Wonderful, after spending an enjoyable and fearful one and one-half years on a federal grand jury for the District of Arizona, came to the realization that the only reason marijuana sale and possession remains a criminal offense, is so that 'up and coming drug dealers' can have a means to fairly easily generate their own seed money, so they can move on to the easier to conceal, higher profit margin and very much more dangerous and truly addicting speed, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin trafficking. Keeping marijuana a criminal offense also helps to artificially maintain marijuana prices ten to twenty times as high as they would naturally be in Adam Smith's world. Tempting yet another generation of drug smugglers to step up and attempt to score the easy buck. And regardless, it is probably easier for an under-age loser young person to score cannibus sativa than it is to buy legal made in the USA tobacco stuffed cigarettes. The legal tobacco cigarettes that supposedly are killing hundreds of thousands of American's each year. Killing. I cannot advocate the use of marijuana any more than I can the drinking of alcohol, but I don't believe individual user's lives and futures should be destroyed over the conviction for possession or sale of this fairly harmless and non-addicting psycho-active-vegetable. However the pot-heads who penned this proposal (liberal billionaire George Soros being one of them) should probably switch to twisting 'Virginia Slim' sized joints rather than the Bob Marley sized blunts they appear to be huffing on currently. This thing is more full of shit than a coffee shipment* from Antarctica: "Marijuana registration cards for the under-18 set?" "Distribution by the State of free marijuana?" and on and on explains a few of the oddball fixes this prop provides. Toss a no vote down on this proposition faster than you would a flaming joint made of oregano and banana scrapings.
( * for those of you who are uneducated in the ins and outs of the coffee business human feces (shit) is often mixed in with coffee beans to fool the wholesale buyers into believing all that brown stuff is 100% coffee beans! )

Vote: NO

Proposition 300:

YES
76% to 24%

"Increasing the Amount School Districts have to Spend"

Prop 104/300 combo sign, Tatum Boulevard, Phoenix, Arizona

One can tell that this proposition is a very bad idea just by reading who is presenting the "Arguments FOR Proposition 300" : We have Penny Kotterman, President, of the AEA; Jane "One Billion Dollar Debt" Hull; Jaime "It's not About Race" Molera, current State Superintendent of Public Instruction"; and the always liberal with our money, multi-millionaire Democrat Eddie Basha. All these people are suffering under the insane idea that all public education needs is more money. "If only we could pay our teachers (most of whom currently make more than Mr.Wonderful who has twice the initiative, knowledge and teaching charisma) more money they would teach better." Listen, the only job lower than being a security guard is laying asphalt, being an attorney or a politician and do you know what? I work just as friggin' hard at being the best security guard (what a horrible thought) I know how to be, even though I'm earning in one week including eight to sixteen hours of overtime, less money that I used to score in a single day in the late 1980s. It ain't the money guys. For the most part we have a cadre of teachers whose first concern is something other than Arizona students. Like benefits, three months of vacation, permanent employment and getting home in time to watch American Idol. (That is, unless they are the child molesting type.) All the dollars in the world matriculating through our campuses will not change how a tenured teacher teaches. There is more than enough money in the public school system. Just visit a private school and see what they do without, like a football field or a fleet of busses. More money will not attract better teachers or somehow magically cause today's teachers to teach better. Doesn't that just make sense? Vote no on Proposition 300.

Vote: NO

Proposition 301:

YES
73% to 27%

"Continue the Arizona State Lottery until July 1, 2012"

This is how Satan got us to suck on his teat. This was the first taste we had of some of the rewards of legalized sin and now our municipalities just can't get enough of this bitter leche. Recall that I write again and again how government entities can never get enough of our money and this legalized numbers racket is just the ticket for these cowards in our legislature. Why cowards? Because unlike their peers in private industry who must make cutbacks, close facilities and lay-off employees in a 'right to carry' state, these politicians, rather than cutting back and facing the ire of their former government workers, just look for ways, no matter how distasteful or in this case even criminal, to increase revenues. Vote no and turn the running of this numbers game back to the Mafia where it belongs.

Vote: NO

Proposition 302:

YES
69% to 31%

"Incarcerate Convicted Drug Users who Refuse Treatment"

Unless I'm reading the page 133 "Analysis by Legislative Council" statement wrong, this proposition only makes common sense. As it stands now, anyone who is convicted of personal possession or use of a controlled substance can refuse to attend court ordered drug treatment and the court can do nothing about it. If this proposition is passed, the judge can throw convicted drug users into jail if they refuse to attend drug treatment classes. On the "FOR" side, we have: Richard M. Romley, Thomas P. Ambrose, City of Phoenix Mayor Skip Rimsza and Senior VP Public Affairs, Phoenix Suns (a laffer, because under NBA union rules marijuana use is not prohibited!) . On the "NO" side, we have: Richard Mahoney, whack-job candidate for Governor of Arizona, and Dr. John Sperling, founder of the University of Phoenix and lifelong promoter of the legalization of marijuana. Vote yes on this common sense proposition.

Vote: YES

Proposition 303:

YES
67% to 33%

"Increasing the State Tax on Tobacco Products"

Here we go again. The sponsors of this moronic bill believe that by making a legal product more costly they will inhibit its use. Bullshit. Cocaine is pretty damn expensive and it's still as popular as hell. Cigarettes are a legal product, if these people want to really halt its use why not make it illegal? I think it's hilarious that considering that if the 1994 state tax hike and this proposed state tax are implemented the tax on a single pack of cigarettes that the common man or even my daughter will pay would be $1.18. While the big $20, $30, $50 stogies the high-rollers stuff in their fat faces see their total state tax rise less than a nickel each! I stand alone on this one folks. There are no "Against Proposition 303" arguments. Just remember Jack-in-the-Box, McDonald's, Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and every other purveyor of high fat fast food are next on the list of these same power-hungry crusaders against free will.

Vote: NO

Proposition 304:

NO
66% to 34%

"Increasing State Legislator's Salaries"

Increase our state legislators' salary by 33% to $36,000 for a 'work year' of around one hundred Mondays through Thursdays. You know a proposed salary of $45.00 per hour plus a per diem voucher of $60, well that ain't bad! These clowns lost over $1,000,000,000 - thats one billion dollars - of our tax money in the last several months and they deserve a raise? Vote no on this laffer.

Vote: NO

Proposition 411:
(Maricopa County Only)

YES
68% to 32%

"Maricopa County Jail Election Tax Extension"

Back in 1998 Maricopa County voters passed a one-fifth cent per dollar sales tax increase to fund Sheriff Joe's jail expansion projects. Due to monumental screw-ups, both on the Arizona state level and the Federal level there are projected to be no funds to continue/run the new facilities when the 1998 tax expires in 2007. This prop will extend the tax until year 2027 to ensure that the jail system we depend on to house illegal aliens, dopers, drunks, violent criminals and father rapers, will have the needed funds to function properly. During this twenty five year period, we all need to keep in touch with the highly touted "Citizens Jail Oversight Committee" to see that our tax dollars are being spent as advertised and not being used to retro-fit Ford Crown Victoria's to be able to withstand a rear end collision with a Trident submarine sailing at 95 knots. This is an example of how a temporary tax can become permanent and you can bet when 2027 nears there will be calls for this tax to be extended again. This vote breaks my rule against not voting for tax increases, but I feel that jails are one of the few actually legitimate functions of government. If Sheriff Joe was not our current Sheriff (and he will not be over this entire two decade plus period) I could not recommend a Yes vote for 411.

Vote: YES

Summary: " H o w t o V o t e "
Vote: YES	Propositions 102, 103, 302 and 411
Vote: NO	On All Other Propositions