Re: opposing argument for qualified measure H Retirement Benefits for Firefighters

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.

P.S. Trip – Finally(!) here’s a version showing the argument as it would appear in black and white text, with what I recommend we put in boldface oritalics (which they allow in arguments). Having some parts of the text jump out on the page that way makes a mass of text more visually readable and helps grab readers’ eyes, I think, so I tend to use them for these arguments. Here’s a version with suggested boldface and italics:

···
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 future spending obligations. Vote NO on Proposition H.
Trip Seibold
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
LPSF.org
I also added the word “future” before “spending”, bringing the word count back to the 270 you had (the Elections Department may come up with a count that’s lower by a couple words due to things like their rule for “San Francisco” counting as one word, but I don’t expect their count to be higher). Since there’s plenty to spare, adding “unsustainable” before “future” could make that point even stronger. Let me know what you think.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))
LPSF Chair
(415) 573-7997

On Aug 14, 2024, at 9:38 AM, Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net wrote:

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 <http://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 <http://lpsf.org/>

On Aug 14, 2024, at 8:05 AM, Trip S. <financiallypossible@gmail.com mailto: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.

Really well done Starchild! Thank you, I like the edits. The only
modification I hesitate upon is the addition of the sentence about the no
burn forest management policy. It may confuse people in following the logic.

Love, logic, liberty, and heroes :purple_heart:

···

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 9:55 AM Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net wrote:

P.S. Trip – Finally(!) here’s a version showing the argument as it would
appear in black and white text, with what I recommend we put in boldface
oritalics (which they allow in arguments). Having some parts of the text
jump out on the page that way makes a mass of text more visually readable
and helps grab readers’ eyes, I think, so I tend to use them for these
arguments. Here’s a version with suggested boldface and italics:


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 future
spending obligations. *Vote NO on Proposition H.*

Trip Seibold
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
LPSF.org

I also added the word “future” before “spending”, bringing the word count
back to the 270 you had (the Elections Department may come up with a count
that’s lower by a couple words due to things like their rule for “San
Francisco” counting as one word, but I don’t expect their count to be
higher). Since there’s plenty to spare, adding “unsustainable” before
“future” could make that point even stronger. Let me know what you think.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))
LPSF Chair
(415) 573-7997

On Aug 14, 2024, at 9:38 AM, Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net wrote:

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 <http://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 <http://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.

Thanks, Trip! You could be right. Hopefully others on the list will weigh in on whether they think it’s too confusing. Personally I love comparing free markets to natural ecosystems when I get the chance, because I think lots of people have respect for nature and tend to oppose interfering with it, and I’d like more people to see markets in a similar way. But without the space for further explication, perhaps most readers will find it less clear than we may. Then again, the comparison, which I think is apt, could help people understand the concept of government meddling preventing natural market corrections from occurring as it applies to the economy.

Thoughts, anyone?

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

···

On Aug 14, 2024, at 10:40 AM, Trip S. financiallypossible@gmail.com wrote:

Really well done Starchild! Thank you, I like the edits. The only modification I hesitate upon is the addition of the sentence about the no burn forest management policy. It may confuse people in following the logic.

Love, logic, liberty, and heroes :purple_heart:

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 9:55 AM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
P.S. Trip – Finally(!) here’s a version showing the argument as it would appear in black and white text, with what I recommend we put in boldface oritalics (which they allow in arguments). Having some parts of the text jump out on the page that way makes a mass of text more visually readable and helps grab readers’ eyes, I think, so I tend to use them for these arguments. Here’s a version with suggested boldface and italics:

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 future spending obligations. Vote NO on Proposition H.
Trip Seibold
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
LPSF.org <http://lpsf.org/>

I also added the word “future” before “spending”, bringing the word count back to the 270 you had (the Elections Department may come up with a count that’s lower by a couple words due to things like their rule for “San Francisco” counting as one word, but I don’t expect their count to be higher). Since there’s plenty to spare, adding “unsustainable” before “future” could make that point even stronger. Let me know what you think.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))
LPSF Chair
(415) 573-7997

On Aug 14, 2024, at 9:38 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:

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 <http://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 <http://lpsf.org/>

On Aug 14, 2024, at 8:05 AM, Trip S. <financiallypossible@gmail.com mailto: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.