Alan Korwin, Arizona’s expert on gun laws, has made it really easy to decide how to vote on the propositions this year. Vote yes on all the 100′s, and no on all the 200′s. About the only ballot proposition that conservatives are a bit split over is Prop. 200, regulating the Pay Day Loan industry. Do you vote for it now, knowing that the legislature will otherwise pass a law with more drastic restrictions, or do you vote against it on principle, since it’s still voting for more government regulation of private industry? It’s funded by the Pay Day Loan industry, which is trying to reform itself before the heavy hand of the legislature takes draconian measures. Alan comes down on the NO side, but says it was the toughest ballot proposition to decide. The PAChyderm organization supports it; AZ Federation of Taxpayers opposes it.

***

I have studied the AZ ballot props at length and asked knowledgeable
friends for their input. Here’s the result. If you like Page Nine and my
other work, we’re likely on the same page on these. The descriptions and
titles are simplified but fair. Don’t miss the notes at the end.

100 YES Stop a Big Tax Increase Plan (Protect Our Homes)
100 YES Stop a Big Tax Increase Plan (Protect Our Homes)

Government would like to create new taxes and take more of your money, by
charging you for transferring ownership of your home or land. Our homes and
land already suffer under heavy taxes, taxing transfers amounts to double
taxation. Passing this amendment to our state Constitution would stop
unfair tax increases. This one was easy.

——–

101 YES Freedom of Choice in Health Care
101 YES Freedom of Choice in Health Care

Government is getting ready to require you to use the health care they
pick for you. You could still choose their medicine if you want under this
proposal, but they could not force you to, or prevent or penalize you from
picking your own if you prefer. They hate this deal, which is supported by
doctors, and it protects your freedom. It prevents socialized medicine from
being forced on you (and you could still take that if you like). This was
an easy choice too.

Note: In a story on 10/23, consistently deceptive Arizona Republic
reporter Scott Wong mentioned how “costly” the plan would be, and in the
“billions,” seven times, before mentioning near the very end (on an inside
jump page) that the state’s budget analysts found, “the proposition is not
expected to have a fiscal impact on the state.” Such sorely twisted
reporting gives an unfair advantage to the media’s cohorts — this one led
by the governor, who would get free reign to socialize your health care if
she can defeat this excellent proposal. No ethics charges are expected (the
paper has no ombudsman).

——–

102 YES or NO Marriage Is Between One Man and One Woman
102 YES or NO Marriage Is Between One Man and One Woman

This depends on your morality. If you believe the traditional family unit
with two parents, a man and a woman, is important, sacred and a basis for
civilization, you must vote YES. If you believe people should be entirely
free to “marry” whomever they please, you must vote NO. The homosexual
agenda is helped by a NO vote, and plural “marriages” would be possible
down the road.

This issue is deceptive because the correct term is “holy matrimony.”
Marriage is a function of religion, which should have absolutely no
connection to government that causes all the problems. Churches should
marry whomever they wish, and secular laws should not apply. Because
government manages society with tax policy, and has latched that onto
marriage and child rearing, we find ourselves in this mess. A YES vote puts
a religious-based view into the state Constitution.

——–

105 YES Make Tax Increases Require a Majority
105 YES Make Tax Increases Require a Majority

The way we’re set up now, a ballot proposition can create gigantic tax
increases that never end, and be made into law by a small group at the
polls. (A “majority of people voting” is usually a tiny minority of the
public that will be burdened with the tax.) What happens is that special
interests spend a fortune convincing people to vote for an (often
deceptively worded) plan, and just enough people vote aye, saddling
everyone with more taxes. Too often, your tax dollars then pour right into
the pockets of the groups that sponsored and paid for the campaign. That’s
just wrong. This amendment to the Constitution says that if taxes are to go
up, a real majority of voters in the state must approve it. This will make
it very hard to raise taxes deceptively, and all we’ll have to watch out
for is our legislature.

——–

200 NO Regulate the Pay-Day Loan Business
200 NO Regulate the Pay-Day Loan Business

People freely use these services so much that payday-loan type offices
have sprung up everywhere. People using them are struggling financially,
and must pay high amounts to get their hands on badly needed cash right
away. Banks do nothing to help these folks — this is banking outside the
bank system. Government seeks to regulate the businesses, which admittedly
have some questionable loan practices (the payday loan debt trap), and high
(but usually short term) rates.

If regulation is needed to curb abuses or help stop endless cycles of
personal debt, let the market or the legislature act. Expiration in 2010 of
the current law allowing them to operate will force that action (though
expect no further action if Prop 200 passes). There’s also a suggestion I
can’t resolve fully that says these outfits are the “banks” for illegal
immigrants, and transfer huge sums of off-the-books cash to Mexico. The law
of unintended consequences is at play on this one, my least confident
choice. Hmmm.

——–

201 NO Restrict Homeowner’s Options for Defective Construction
201 NO Restrict Homeowner’s Options for Defective Construction

Some of the things in the so-called Homeowner’s Bill of Rights are not bad
(it’s a loooong proposal), but the bottom falls out because the only option
you would have if you have a lemon or any problems is to hire lawyers and
go to court. It’s a trial lawyer’s dream, and would raise the costs of home
ownership. It even allows “prospective” homeowners (folks who haven’t even
bought a home) to attack builders in the courts, a real nightmare
suggestion. Builders aren’t perfect, but this is not a solution.

——–

202 NO Amnesty for Illegal Alien’s Employers
202 NO Amnesty for Illegal Alien’s Employers

The destruction Arizona suffers from illegals pouring into the state is
monumental. Arizona just pushed through a very strict law against employers
who hire illegal aliens, a model for the rest of the nation, and it’s
already reduced our attractiveness to the flood of illegals sneaking in
here. It’s got real teeth, and has driven illegals out of the state. This
would gut that law and make it nearly impossible to prosecute employers who
profit from using illegals. The folks promoting this item call it the
stop-hiring-illegals law, and that’s exactly opposite of what it would do.
Disgraceful.

——–

300 NO Give State Legislators a 25% Pay Raise
300 NO Give State Legislators a 25% Pay Raise

Are you nuts? We’re flat broke. No, it’s worse, we’re swimming in debt.
The budget’s been hopelessly mismanaged (by many in the legislature, not
all). The malfeasance, violations of oaths of office, immorality and hubris
of many legislators is a total embarrassment. The argument that for another
six grand we’d attract better candidates, they would act better,
responsibility would improve, and reliance on special interests and
lobbyists would go down is totally infuriating BS. People making that
argument are either brain dead, ignorant, or your mortal enemies. Don’t you
realize what the system is — these are people willing to spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars to get a job that pays 24K? Throw the bastages out,
don’t give them raises. Sheesh. I have to tell you this? (Apologies to the
few good legislators I consider friends.)

——–

Judicial confirmations
Judicial confirmations

Since virtually the entire judiciary takes a negative view of the bedrock
freedom principle of fully informed juries (http://www.fija.org), I think
they all deserve to be removed, vote NO down the line. What a message that
would send to the nation. (In an act of supreme unfairness, the coven votes
for its own published approval ratings and gets nearly 100% approval all
the time; many this time were actually identified by the powers that be as
“unfit”). Typically, they’re all retained by a 2/3 margin anyway. I know
one judge who breaks the mold, John Buttrick, he’s worth retaining.

——–

Summary:

Centrists and conservatives will vote YES on the 100s and NO on the 200s.
(Leftists and socialists will likely vote the opposite.)

These choices will lower taxes, shrink government, enhance freedoms:

100 YES Stop a Big Tax Increase Plan
101 YES Freedom of Choice in Health Care
102 YES or NO Marriage Is Between One Man and One Woman
105 YES Make Tax Increases Require a Majority
200 NO Regulate the Pay-Day Loan Business
201 NO Restrict Homeowner’s Options for Defective Construction
202 NO Amnesty for Illegal Alien Employers
300 NO Give State Legislators a 25% Pay Raise
Judicial confirmations Retain Buttrick, NO to the rest

——–

I heard one dope on the radio last time bragging he voted NO to everything
’cause he was gonna show them! So the idiot, without looking, took a
question like, “Should we lower your taxes, reduce government waste, and
increase your freedom?” and basically just shot himself in both feet and
the groin. Choose wisely.

——–

A conservative and a liberal blog have assessed the judges in fine detail,
check it out if you’d prefer to cast a more precise ballot:

http://www.azjudgesreview.blogspot.com.

——–

EARLY VOTER’S DILEMMA: The nation is supposed to rise up as one on
election day and sweep through the legislatures, making changes. The
introduction of “early” voting dilutes this effect and introduces serious
problems:

1. You might cast your vote before new information arrives (like this
report);

2. Your candidate might be dead by the time election day arrives, and it’s
then too late to vote for a live person (it happens);

3. Your candidate might be in prison or indicted and in hindsight, be a
pretty bad choice (and prisoners can’t hold office);

4. You don’t get to rise up as one with your neighbors, enjoy their
company for a brief while, and elect new officials across the board.

Absentee ballots present a similar issue but are mitigated by their value
as a tool for people who will not be present to cast a vote on the
prescribed day (the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November).

——–

Let me know if you found this report useful.
Tell your friends!

——–

If you don’t get my Page Nine report,
with the news the media withholds,
sign up here (unsubscribe anytime):

http://www.bloomfieldpress.com

Take a look at my books on being more politically effective:

http://www.gunlaws.com/books3.htm

Enjoy an outrageously freedom-oriented novel:

http://www.gunlaws.com/books7novels.htm

Add the Founders Package to your library–
the books the Founding Fathers read and wrote:

http://www.gunlaws.com/books8founders.htm

Learn about the Supreme Court’s most important gun-rights case:

http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm

Alan Korwin, Writer
Full-time freelance since 1984
Author of 11 books

Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 phone
602-494-0679 fax
1-800-707-4020
alan@bloomfieldpress.com

Just passing this along to our readers, am not endorsing it in any way. Here is the blog’s description:

About Me

Bob
Phoenix, Az, United States
I’m a retired cop, originally from back east, settled here about 15 years ago. I’ve got 3 relatives in the MCSO who will remain nameless. I saw what Saban and the Newspapers did to Arpaio supporters after the last election, and don’t want anyone thinking that my opinion is anyone’s but my own. If there’s a price to pay, I’ll pay it myself.