California Prop 1B Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, which according to excerpts from the California Legislative Analyst's Office,

authorizes the state to sell about $20 billion of general obligation bonds to fund transportation projects to relieve congestion, improve the movement of goods, improve air quality, and enhance the safety and security of the transportation system.

This measure sounds great at first, after all we all want to relieve traffic congestion, improve air quality and increase safety and security.

The problems comes in when we realize that this bond act will cost approximetly $40 billion to repay with payments at approximetyly $1.3 billion a year and we don't have the $1.3 billion extra with which to pay for this obligation.

Of this approximetly $40 billion a little over $20 billion will go to interest. Less than $1.5 billion of the obligation will go to improving safety and security, less than $1.2 billion will go to improving air quality, $2 billion will go to improve movement of goods on state highways and rail system, and in ports, $4 billion will go to public transportation, most of which, if things go as usual will be wasted and almost $11.3 billion will go to traffic congestion reduction and highway and local road improvements.

I have lived in California for over fourty years and during that time I have never seen a highway, freeway or road project that was done properly. No one at the State or local level ever seems to plan ahead. They start projects that by the time they are done are already obsolete and then they have to start all over. While they are working on these poorly planned projects, some of which take up to ten years to complete, traffic is worse than before and by the time they finish, the completed projects still can't handle the traffic. Additionally, the projects always cost more than is originally budgeted for, so more bonds have to be issued.

As far as I can tell, the only ones that benefit from these projects are the contractors and subcontractors that make huge profits overcharging for the work they claim to provide. How many times have you driven down the freeway or a highway and seen twenty or thirty 'workers' standing around doing nothing while two or three people are actually working.

I would not complain so much if the State was flush with money and already had the money set aside for these projects, however the State doesn't have the money and I hate to see the State go another $40 billion into debt in order to fill the wallets of a few, already rich, contractors just so that those contractors will owe some politicians and support them in their next election bid.

I say, vote no on this bond obligation.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Resources For Attorneys, a legal resources and lifestyle directory.

Winston Churchill once observed that “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” As part of the left-wing arsenal of distorted arguments as to why Bush is so wrong in his proclaimed “War on Terrorism,” another lie has presented itself, wrapped around the President’s stance on the Geneva Convention and its vague prescriptions for the interrogation and treatment of prisoners of war.

The central argument by those opposed to any alteration or clarification of the last of four succeeding agreements, with a history beginning in 1864, is that any change deemed detrimental in a revised version of the Geneva Convention might ultimately be used against our troops. The use of torture is bantered about as an example, with critics claiming that the U.S. Commander-in-Chief is looking for a legal loop hole that goes beyond the intent of the Fourth Geneva Convention, last revised in 1949. The President claims that different times and different circumstances call for one more overhaul of a multi-nation agreement that has already accepted revisions in 1949 and amendment protocols in 1977 and 2005. In other words, the current concepts of proper treatment for prisoners of war, civilians in wartime, and even the outlawing of the use of certain types of weapons in warfare, has been the result of a number of needed revisions, reflecting the changing nature of war.

In an attempt to belittle the administration’s efforts, magazine reporters Michael Isikoff, John Barry, and Michael Hirsh of Newsweek used a quote from the 2002 memo from Attorney General Gonzales concerning the application of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to the conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and truncated a key quote from Gonzales in his memo in their co-authored story. The Newsweek story quotes the Attorney General as saying, “In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.”

Now compare Newsweek’s quote with this one from the original memo; “In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments.”

The result of this obvious effort to change the true intent of Gonzales’ memo and his legal opinion of the current tenets of the Geneva Convention was swift. In no time, the word “quaint” was being used to describe the Attorney General’s haughty “opinion” of the agreement in general. To add to this transgression, other reporters like the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd continued this fable while left-wing blogs and websites repeated the Newsweek distortion. Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) seems to do this sort of thing to the liberal press.

Take a look at the links and you can form your own opinion. Maybe this time, truth will finally have a chance to get its pants on.

By: Nathan Tabor

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a legal resource and lifestyle directory.

California Prop 1A - Transportation Funding Protection. Is a Legislative Constitutional Amendment which according to excerpts from the California Legislative Analyst's Office,

amends the State Constitution to further limit the conditions under which the Proposition 42 transfer of gasoline sales tax revenues for transportation uses can be suspended. Specifically, the measure requires Proposition 42 suspensions to be treated as loans to the General Fund that must be repaid in full, including interest, within three years of suspension. Furthermore, the measure only allows suspension to occur twice in ten consecutive fiscal years. No suspension could occur unless prior suspensions (excluding those made prior to 2007‑08) have been repaid in full.

It further states,

Prop 42, which was approved by voters in 2002, amended the State Constitution to dedicate most of the revenue from the sales tax on gasoline to transportation uses. Specifically, Proposition 42 requires those revenues that previously went to the General Fund be transferred to the Transportation Investment Fund to provide for improvements to highways, streets and roads, and transit systems. Proposition 42, however, allows the transfer to be suspended when the state faces fiscal difficulties. Prop 42 is silent as to whether suspended transfer amounts are to be repaid to transportation.

And that

Since 2002, the state has suspended the Proposition 42 transfer twice because of the state’s fiscal condition. In 2003‑04, the transfer was suspended partially, and in 2004‑05, the full amount of the transfer was suspended. Existing law requires that these suspended amounts, with interest, be repaid to transportation by 2008‑09 and 2007‑08, respectively.

State politicians seem to frequently use tax dollars, set aside for one thing, for other projects, as in the above case where gasoline sales taxes are used to cover shortfalls in other areas. This Proposition would go a long way to ensuring that at least gasoline sales tax dollars would be used as they were meant to be. It would also increase accountability as to how those dollars are used, therefore I will be voting yes on this prop.

If you pay attention to the New York Times, the leadership of the Democratic Party, or the left wing pundits filling the airwaves, you get the impression that the U.S. Army is struggling to find men and women willing to volunteer in the service of their country. Recently released statistics, though, seem to contradict that assumption.

When the Army failed to meet its recruiting goals a couple of years ago, many saw it as a sign that young people in America were staying away from military service because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many complained that we did not have enough soldiers to meet our global commitments. Congress responded by raising the statutory limit on troop levels, as if changing the number on paper would somehow magically produce new soldiers to fight the war on terror.

The worry about a withering Army, however, seems to have been misplaced. According to the Washington Times, the Army is on track to meet its goal of 80,000 new recruits for the fiscal year that ends September 30. At this point in the recruiting cycle, the Army has surpassed its goal of 70,000 new recruits with 72,997 signing up so far. And the Associated Press has reported that the Army is having its best recruiting year since 1997, with similar success expected in 2007.

It is important to note that the Army is the branch of service suffering the largest number of killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. The recently released statistics seem to undermine the belief that the war on terror is driving young men and women away from uniformed service.

Still, there will be those who point out that the Army has raised its age limit for new recruits from 38 to 42. But these critics fail to understand that not every job in the Army requires someone under the age of 25. Not every soldier will fight in the infantry. And those new recruits who are older than the average enlistee are still required to meet the Army's physical fitness standards. It would be foolish for the Army to exclude Americans who want to serve their country based solely on their age.

Others will point out that the Army has increased benefits such as college tuition reimbursement and enlistment bonuses. But what private company doesn't sweeten the pot by offering incentives to potential employees? The Army is no different, and with an all-volunteer force must compete against the private sector for its employees.

And the Army is not alone when it comes to recruiting. The Navy and Air Force are also on target to meet their recruiting goals. So is the Marine Corps, which has responsibility for the deadly Al-Anbar province, including the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, in western Iraq. The Washington Times reports that the Marine Corps will meet its goal of 32,701 new recruits without any increase in benefits or change in enlistment requirements.

By focusing on statistics for new recruits, however, the left misses an important fact. Retention statistics, which account for the number of soldiers who agree to reenlist, are at an all-time high. More soldiers are choosing to stay in the Army, even after multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even more remarkably, retention numbers are highest for units who are forward deployed in combat zones!

Could it be that the Army is an attractive option for young job seekers? Could it be that skill training (there are over 200 different jobs in the Army), college tuition benefits, health care coverage, and a regular paycheck are attracting young men and women to military service? Could it be that there are patriotic citizens in this country with a genuine desire to serve their nation in its time of need?

The truth is, recruiting and retention numbers can be explained by all of these factors. Raising the age limit for new recruits has opened the door to military service for a new segment of the population. College tuition benefits and skill training attract young people who might otherwise have difficulty marketing themselves to the private sector. And men and women with a sincere desire to serve their country are signing up in the face of renewed violence in Afghanistan and an unrelenting insurgency in Iraq.

In their effort to push as much negativity as possible about the war on terror, the liberal left has lost focus on the fact that the United States is locked in a life-and-death struggle for its very survival. And that loss of focus has obscured the truth that for more reasons than not, Americans are enlisting and staying in the service of their nation.

By: Greg Reeson
http://reeson.townhall.com
Greg Reeson is a frequent contributor to The Land of the Free and Associated Content. His columns have appeared in several online and print publications, including The New Media Journal, The Veteran's Voice, The Washington Times, The American Chronicle, The American Daily, GOPUSA and Opinion Editorials.com.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a legal resources and lifestyle directory.

When I went out to the snailmail mailbox today, it was, as usual, filled with junk political mailers. Normally, I just toss them out without reading them. This time one mailer caught my eye. It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know but it did bring somethings into clearer perspective.

I am a Republican, however, I have been very unhappy with many aspects of Governor Schwarzenegger's administration and I have been thinking of voting on every matter in the upcoming election except the Governor's race. This has been troubling me as I have always believed that voting is not only a right, it is also an obligation. I further believe that if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about what goes on afterwards.

I have not liked the fact that the Governor has been spending money like water. I have not liked the fact that he seems to be for every bond issue that comes up. I have not liked the fact that he has been making such sweet deals for Indian Tribes on gaming casino matters.

On the other hand, I know that Mr. Angelides will also be a big spender, will also support almost every bond issue that comes up and will also be willing to sell out the state to Indian Gambling interests.

The difference between the two men, as was partially shown in the mailer, is that where the Governor urges a no vote on tax increase initiatives 86, 87, 88 and 89, Mr. Angelides has endorsed propositions 86, 87 and 89 and has not endorsed or urged a no vote on Proposition 88.

In my opinion, Governor Schwarzenegger has fought almost every or every tax increase and has kept his word about not raising taxes. I don't like his bond issue endorsements, but then he never promised not to put the state further in debt.

Mr. Angelides, I believe, will not only support every bond issue, he will also support every tax increase. From what I've read and heard about him, he is a person who, since he has been in politics, 'has never met a tax increase that he didn't like'.

I just don't think that Californian's can afford to have Mr. Angelides as Governor. This state has enough problems as it is, without having a Governor who is happy and eager to raise taxes.

Our state legislature is already run by the tax and spend Democrats and the only thing that has kept them from raising all kinds of taxes is Governor Schwarzenneger's veto power. Our Republican legislators fight hard to keep taxes down, but there just are not enough of them in office. As far as I can tell, if Mr. Angelides becomes Governor, there will be no end to the tax increases and new taxes.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Resources For Attorneys, a legal resources and lifestyle directory.