Thanks, Terry! Feel free to borrow anything I've written here. The maximum word count for *rebuttals* is 250 words, so maybe that's what you had in mind. Or maybe the word count limits are different for Alameda County?
Anyway, you'll be glad to hear that my argument against Proposition A was selected in the lottery as the official opposition argument. (My other submission, unfortunately, did not fare as well.)
So if anyone has ideas for the rebuttal to the proponents' argument against Proposition A, please let me know. I am going to invite the Taxpayers Union (i.e. Barbara Meskunas) to be a co-signatory on the rebuttal, and see if there are any arguments she'd like included. Barbara also submitted SFTU arguments against propositions A and F, but only one per measure.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
I thought the maximum word count was 250, so I kept mine to that limit. But I like the language of Starchild’s arguments so much that I’d like to steal a line or two for our Measure A and B arguments. If the ROV will allow us to edit on-site, though, we can make sure we adhere strictly to their rules.
Terry Floyd
From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf OfStarchild
Sent:Friday, August 19, 20059:05 AM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Ballot argument against Proposition A (community college bond)Richard,
Well, they are sticklers, but some things like "San Francisco" get counted as one word, and they'll go over the word count with you when you submit them, so if it does come out over, I'll delete a word or two. Good call though.
<<< Starchild >>>
OnFriday, August 19, 2005, at 08:49 AM, Richard Newell wrote:
Starchild,
Better have a few words to spare. I hear they are sticklers on the word count, and different software programs come up with different counts. (That's a fact.)
Rich
From: Starchild
To: LPSF Discussion List
Cc: Dennis Umphress
Sent:Friday, August 19, 2005 7:45 AM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Ballot argument against Proposition A (community college bond)I included some arguments used by San Diego Libertarians on this one -- thanks to Dennis Umphress for posting the link (http://www.smartvoter.org/2000/11/07/ca/sd/meas/AA/ ). I also parodied some lyrics from a classic song by The Who (http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/wontgetf.htm ). 8)
Both this and my argument against Proposition F come in at exactly 300 words by Microsoft Word's count.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three voter positions on taxes:1. taxes are too high.
2. taxes are about right.
3. taxes are too low.If you agree with "1" or "2", then you don’t need to read any further – Proposition A will increase taxes, so you should vote NO.
But maybe you just don’t think government is taking enough of your money. In that case, let me refer you to the opposition. Take a look at the argument for Proposition A and you’ll see a long list of nice things they promise to do with the $246 million they want from you. But according to the actual text of the measure, “The Board does not guarantee that the bonds will provide sufficient funds to allow completion of all listed projects.”
In other words, they are deliberately selling more than they are confident they can deliver. So why shouldwe believe in their goodie list?
They also promise the money won’t be used for salaries or other operating expenses. (They feel compelled to promise this because voters know bond revenues have often been spent on things which were never mentioned during the campaigns).
However, money is fungible. So even if the $246 million is spent as promised – not that there’s any guarantee of this either, since an official diverting Proposition A funds into salaries, perks, bureaucracy, or whatever would face no criminal penalties – there’s nothing preventing existing capital funds being shifted to such purposes if Proposition A passes…
“Meet the new bond, same as the old bond!”
Don’t get fooled again!Demand transparency and accountability from the educational establishment before trusting them with more money.
If we say NO on A, they’ll likely come back with a more reasonable proposal in a year or two anyway.
Starchild
Outreach Director, San Francisco Libertarian Party<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>