Hi Trip,
Awesome, thanks! Succinct and well summarized, in my opinion. I’m copying the Activist list too, as we’ve usually posted this kind of stuff there. Posting there lets others see what we’re doing and maybe be inspired to pitch in, and also serves as transparency for our members, since we’re wordsmithing in the name of the party.
Speaking of which, since the LPSF’s name as an organization is appearing as a signatory on the arguments, the first person may be better avoided. (If any media were to quote what we say in the LPSF’s name in an argument, for instance, it would be weird if they quoted an “I” statement and attributed it to the organization.) You can include your name too if you wish as the author, but part of the purpose of this is to get the Libertarian Party name in front of voters, get them thinking about the party and what the libertarian perspective is.
Changing that is among the suggested edits and additions I made below to what you wrote – please look them over and let me know if you are okay with these changes. I also deleted some material, which you can see in the version at bottom with all the strike-thru removed text visible. If you’d rather not have your name appear in the voter handbook for any reason, you can take it out of course. But any increased voter name recognition from having it in could help if/when you run for office.
Libre Office counts the edited version at 269 words. Everything in blue is new (although in some cases just rewording or rearranging stuff you said), everything in black is your wording as written:
···
Firefighters have risky jobs with lengthy shifts. When they put themselves at great risk to help others, they truly are heroes. They voluntarily chose this career field despite the risks.
San Francisco firefighters hired after Jan 6, 2012 also were made aware of the new full pension retirement age of 58 (it was previously 55). The modification to the pension age was needed due to decades of fiscal mismanagement by the city government. By increasing employee contribution rates for hires after that date, voters were protecting firefighters pensions. Expenses needed to be trimmed. San Francisco avoided bankruptcy during the 2008 to 2012 bust cycle. Other cities in California were not so lucky – the state experienced multiple municipal bankruptcies.
Now, politicians are putting forth a ballot measure to overturn voters’ prudent action. Why? The ballot measure claims "the financial outlook of the San Francisco Employees Retirement System has improved significantly". During a boom cycle this might be true, yet there seems to be a lack of planning for the next bust. The boom/bust cycle won’t end as long as government meddling in the monetary system prevents natural market corrections from occurring. Kind of like how “no burn” forest management rules heighten the eventual risk of devastating fires.
Let's vote no on this ballot measure and have a proactive city government that protects itself against future bankruptcy while not increasing the tax burden upon its citizens. Better to explore ways to protect firefighters and reward them for their heroic service which do not increase spending obligations. Vote NO on Proposition H.
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
Trip Seibold
LPSF.org
If there are any of the changes I made above that you’d rather not use, please give me a call at your convenience today and we can go over the document.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
(415) 573-7997
P.S. – Here’s the raw edit version of the changes showing all the strike-thru deleted material:
Firefighters have risky jobs with lengthy shifts. They truly are heroes; I have a way of seeing the hero in everyone. When they put themselves at great risk to help others, they truly are heroes. They voluntarily chose this career field despite the risks.
San Francisco firefighters hired after Jan 6, 2012 also were made aware of the modified new full pension retirement age to of 58 (previously 55). Our citizens and city helped protect our firefighters by increasing their employee contribution rates for employees hired after that date. The modification to the pension age was needed due to decades of fiscal mismanagement by the local city government. Our citizens and city helped protect our firefighters bBy increasing their employee contribution rates for employees hired hires after that date, Our citizens and city voters helped protect our were protecting firefighters pensions. Expenses needed to be trimmed. San Francisco avoided bankruptcy during the 2008 to 2012 bust cycle. Other cities in California were not so lucky as California – the state experienced multiple municipal bankruptcies.
Now, the local government is politicians are putting forth a ballot measure to renegotiate a past agreement already made between our citizens, our firefighters, and the local government overturn voters’ prudent action. Why? The ballot measure claims "the financial outlook of the San Francisco Employees Retirement System has improved significantly". During a boom cycle this might be true, yet there seems to be a lack of planning for the next bust cycle. So long as the Fed is constantly meddling, boom and bust economic cycles will not be as smooth as in the absence of their meddling. The boom/bust cycle won’t end as long as government meddling in the monetary system prevents natural market corrections from occurring. Kind of like how “no burn” forest management rules heighten the eventual risk of devastating fires.
Let's vote no on this ballot measure and have a proactive city government that protects itself against future bankruptcy while not increasing the tax burden upon its citizens. There are b Better to explore ways to protect firefighters and reward them for their heroic service which do not increase pension spending obligations. Explore those options instead. Vote NO on Proposition H.
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
LPSF.org
On Aug 14, 2024, at 8:05 AM, Trip S. financiallypossible@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Starchild,
Again I count 272 words for this opposing argument. Wow, exactly the same number for both – possibly divine intervention? I feel it’s a good length as is. Please let me know what you think. I have copied Jawj for awareness purposes.
Firefighters have risky jobs with lengthy shifts. They truly are heroes; I have a way of seeing the hero in everyone. They voluntarily chose this career field despite the risks.
San Francisco firefighters hired after Jan 6, 2012 also were made aware of the modified pension age to 58 (previously 55). Our citizens and city helped protect our firefighters by increasing their employee contribution rates for employees hired after that date. The modification to the pension age was needed due to decades of fiscal mismanagement by the local government. Expenses needed to be trimmed. San Francisco avoided bankruptcy during the 2008 to 2012 bust cycle. Other cities in California were not so lucky as California experienced multiple municipal bankruptcies.
Now, the local government is putting forth a ballot measure to renegotiate a past agreement already made between our citizens, our firefighters, and the local government. Why? The ballot measure claims “the financial outlook of the San Francisco Employees Retirement System has improved significantly”. During a boom cycle this might be true yet there seems to be a lack of planning for the next bust cycle. So long as the Fed is constantly meddling, boom and bust economic cycles will not be as smooth as in the absence of their meddling.
Let’s vote no on this ballot measure and have a proactive city government that protects itself against future bankruptcy while not increasing the tax burden upon its citizens. There are better ways to protect firefighters and reward them for their heroic service which do not increase pension obligations. Explore those options instead.
