Difference between revisions of "Props 2010/22/"
Truekahuna (talk | contribs) |
Truekahuna (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
== Analysis == | == Analysis == | ||
| + | For Greens, this proposition seems to be very "grassroots" - local levels of government are presumably more responsive to local issues ergo more grassroots control of the purse. | ||
| + | However, this proposition is yet another example of "budget by ballot-box". We elect representatives to go to Sacramento and make these decisions. | ||
== Comments == | == Comments == | ||
Please place all commentary into the "Discussion" page (see tabs above). Click the "+" sign to add a new section. | Please place all commentary into the "Discussion" page (see tabs above). Click the "+" sign to add a new section. | ||
Revision as of 16:04, 25 July 2010
PROPOSITION 22 -- LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Prohibits state from shifting, taking, borrowing, or restricting use of revenues dedicated to local government services, community redevelopment projects, and transportation projects and services. Prohibits the state from delaying distribution of tax revenues for these purposes. Major funding support provided by League of California Cities and California Alliance for Jobs (a group including Associated General Contractors, Operating Engineers, Carpenters Union, and Association of Engineering Construction Employers).
Proposed GPCA Position
"No"
Analysis
For Greens, this proposition seems to be very "grassroots" - local levels of government are presumably more responsive to local issues ergo more grassroots control of the purse.
However, this proposition is yet another example of "budget by ballot-box". We elect representatives to go to Sacramento and make these decisions.
Comments
Please place all commentary into the "Discussion" page (see tabs above). Click the "+" sign to add a new section.
