Hi All! I just took another look at the qualified ballot measures for this November's election, and this represents a golden opportunity for us to actually do (as opposed to just sit around and talk) something useful for the upcoming election: speak out against a bunch of outrageous measures (in the voter's pamphlet) which will only add to the cost of government intrusion in our lives. We've already done a fair amount of work on Jeff Adachi's pension measure, one that is worth supporting, and I think we will get something in the pamphlet supporting that one (for the record, I think Marcy's version is the best one), but we should also be coming out strongly against A (school bonds), B (road repaving & street safety bonds), E (amending or repealing legislation), and for sure G (half percent sales tax increase for 10 years). Now is the time for us to do our stuff and speak out and make convincing arguments limiting government by nipping away at its
purse strings. Please help to write ballot arguments for this election--most of what we submit will be due late next week, so there isn't a lot of time to dilly dally. We have a lot of brainy people out there (smarter than me) who can help to provide intellectual ammunition. Please bring your ideas and thoughts to this Saturday's meeting, even if it's just a few sentences or a paragraph. If you can't make it to the meeting, then just post your ammunition so we can incorporate it into our ballot arguments. Let's make a difference this time--please help!
P.S. The link to the SF Department of Elections is: http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=599
Don't forget that regardless of whose Adachi measure language we want to submit, if we want to improve the odds of ours being selected as the "official" and free argument FOR in the lottery (assuming it really is legit) we should submit a bunch that are similar but different. That would also be a good project for meeting.
I am unfortunately out of the country and cannot attend. But please let me know what is decided for the language.
Marcy….I seem to have missed seeing your proposed language. Could you please send to me personally?
Dear Aubrey and All,
I agree!! Although LPSF will be doing "official" recommendations at this Saturday's meeting, there is no reason not to do our homework ahead of time to ensure that we do not miss deadlines.
I just e-mailed you a paper I distributed at the last LPSF meeting containing all the work done so far on this project.
Nice job Marcy….as usual, your proposal seems very level-headed and free of rancor.
The only change I would make to your proposed language is the make sure it is clear that those private sector workers whose wages and pensions are set by employers instead of Charter are in fact the TAXPAYERS WHO ARE PAYING THE BILLS for this.
Otherwise….your version seems solid.
Huuummm....Mike, I am missing you point, as to how salaries and benefits in the private sector come out of taxpayer pockets. Maybe my argument is not as clear as I thought, and I did not succeed in differentiating the source of private vs. public salary/benefits payments.
You are missing the point. Public sector salaries and benefits are being paid out of the private sector that is struggling. That's the point AND the political leverage in the discussion.
Is it that hard? :>)
Every part of public expense is paid out of the private sector.
I PROMISE I will review my argument to see how I need to explain that.