Homeland Security to fight....Global Warming??

[sirs]

Actually, it's not, since as I already demonstrated above, it was put on the ballot to stop legislators from doing an end around the 2/3 majority requirement to raise taxes by referring to them as fees

My claim is absolutely true, as prop 26 was billed, and subsequently passed.

[BT]

The definition of fees was not changed.

The mechanism for enacting fees that exceeded reasonable costs to the state for administering the benefit was.

If fees were synonymous with taxes there would be no need for the proposition.

[sirs]

I knew you'd try to get into the technical definitions, thus my pre-response that Prop 26 doesn't define fee = tax.  It merely prevents legislators from doing an end around the 2/3 majority to raise taxes, by merely referring to them as fees.  Precisely as it was billed, campaigned on, and won on

[BT]

Nothing technical about it. You made a claim that was proven false. What else is new?

[sirs]

LOL...right.  Because, the entire Prop 26 campaign was obviously built on a lie, and the people bought it.

What else isn't new is the continued debate vacuum you keep trying to drag me in, where it depends on what the definition of is, is.  Everyone else can read for themselves and see precisely how inaccurate your conclusion of my claim is, especially those who live in CA.  Perhaps Kramer can enlighten you.  But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, since I've demonstrated, IN CONTEXT, what prop 26 was all about

----------------------

Oh, and on another completely unrelated tangent as this whle fee/tax issue was, just learned that the commission finally put together to start realigning districts to theoretically start addressing the severe gerrymandering that has been so solidified in this state, is supposed to be proportional to its population.  Yet from what I heard... though asians make up around 12% of the population in CA, they're going to be about 30% of the commission.  Blacks also have a pretty high % on the board compared to the general population.  Whites apparently got screwed, as they have only 3 members, to the Asians' 4, on a board of 14 members.   

[BT]

LOL...right.  Because, the entire Prop 26 campaign was obviously built on a lie, and the people bought it.

No, Prop 26 was designed to require unreasonable fees to have the same approval mechanisms as other taxes.

There was no redefinition of the meaning of the term . In fact under the new law, reasonable fees were excepted from the super majority requirement. It is all there in black and white. At the link you provided.

Perhaps the people knew what they were voting for, but you didn't know what you were talking about.

[sirs]

No, it was designed to stop legislators from doing an end around the 2/3 vote requirement when wanting to raise taxes by reclassifying them as fees

THAT's what it ran on.  THAT's how it was presented.  THAT's why it got passed

[BT]

No, it was designed to stop legislators from doing an end around the 2/3 vote requirement when wanting to raise taxes by reclassifying them as fees

THAT's what it ran on.  THAT's how it was presented.  THAT's why it got passed

The law prohibits lawmakers from misusing the fees process. It did not redefine the term. It even allowed fees to be raised if they were deemed reasonable without the need for a supermajority.

[sirs]

The law was designed to stop legislators from misusing the fees process by doing an end around the 2/3 vote requirement when wanting to raise taxes, and classifying them as fees

[BT]

The law was designed to stop legislators from misusing the fees process by doing an end around the 2/3 vote requirement when wanting to raise taxes, and classifying them as fees

Presumably this is a conservative backed proposition, because you seem to support it.

And all I can say is it appears the conservative backers of this proposition sold it one way, but wrote it another.

Caveat Emptor

[sirs]

Yea, that has to be it       

[BT]

Yea, that has to be it       

Can you think of another reason they would
a: not bother with redefing the term fees
b: specifically except reasonable increases to fees from the super majority requirement?

[sirs]

I can think that it was presented precisely as is, and was passed as is, and legislators are no longer able to pull stealth taxation by calling them fees, and thus getting around the 2/3 supermajority required in raising taxes.

[BT]

I can think that it was presented precisely as is, and was passed as is, and legislators are no longer able to pull stealth taxation by calling them fees, and thus getting around the 2/3 supermajority required in raising taxes.

That is an untrue statement. They most certainly can set reasonable fees without the need for a super majority.

[sirs]

I must have missed the part where the Proposition doesn't do what it was specifically designed to do