|
SUMMARY |
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS |
ARGUMENTS |
WHOM TO CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION |
| YES | NO | PRO | CON | FOR | AGAINST | |
204
SAFE, CLEAN, RELIABLE
WATER SUPPLY ACT.Bond Act Put on the Ballot by
the Legislature
| 204 - Summary This act provides for a bond issue of nine
hundred ninety-five million dollars
($995,000,000) to provide funds to ensure
safe drinking water, increase water supplies,
clean up pollution in rivers, streams, lakes,
bays, and coastal areas, protect life and
property from flooding, and protect fish and
wildlife and makes changes in the Water
Conservation and Water Quality Bond Law of
1986 and the Clean Water and Water
Reclamation Bond Law of 1988 to further
these goals. Fiscal Impact: General Fund cost
of up to $1.8 billion to pay off both the
principal ($995 million) and interest ($776
million). The average payment for principal
and interest over 25 years would be up to $71
million per year.
| 204 - Yes A YES vote on this measure means:
The state would be able to issue
995 million in general obligation
bonds for restoration and
improvement of the San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Estuary; wastewater treatment and
water supply and conservation; and
local flood control and prevention.
| 204 - No A NO vote on this measure means:
The state would not be able to issue
bonds for these purposes.
| 204 - Pro Provides a balanced solution to
California's water supply needs that
enhances our economy while
protecting the environment.
According to State Treasurer Matt
Fong, '' Proposition 204's $995
million investment in the state's
water supply and delivery system
is a very prudent investment to
sustain and expand California's
$750 billion economy."
| 204 - Con What ''water crisis"? State
government has a record of damaging
the environment rather than protecting
it. We don't know if these projects are
worthwhile. They should be voted on
and funded at the local level. Prop.
204 will cost $1.7 billion in principal
and interest over 25 years.
| 204 - For Californians for Safe, Clean, Reliable Water
10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90024-4303
(310) 441-9380
| 204 - Against Libertarian Party of California
1800 Market Street, Suite 16
San Francisco, CA 94102
1-800-637-1776 |
205
YOUTHFUL AND ADULT
OFFENDER LOCAL FACILITIES
BOND ACT OF 1996.Bond Act Put on the Ballot by
the Legislature
| 205 - Summary This act provides for a bond issue of seven
hundred million dollars ($700,000,000) to
provide funds for the construction,
renovation, remodeling, and replacement of
local juvenile and adult correctional facilities.
Fiscal Impact: General Fund costs of $1.25
billion to repay principal and interest, with
annual payments averaging $50 million for
25 years. Unknown costs, potentially millions
of dollars annually, to counties to operate
new facilities.
| 205 - Yes A YES vote on this measure means:
The state would be able to issue
$700 million in general obligation
bonds to finance local facilities for
juvenile and adult offenders.
| 205 - No A NO vote on this measure means:
The state would not be able to issue
bonds for that purpose.
| 205 - Pro California Sheriffs, Police Chiefs,
District Attorneys and Crime Victims
United agree--we need Proposition
205 to build and improve local jails
and juvenile halls. Your yes vote on
Prop. 205 will keep violent criminals
off our streets and behind bars where
they belong.
| 205 - Con Prop. 205 will cost $1.2 billion in
principal and interest. We don't need
more jails; change law enforcement
priorities instead. ''3 Strikes" should
be three violent felonies. The current
method clogs jails. 50% of crimes are
drug-related. The ''war on drugs"
has failed. Legalize drugs to cut crime.
| 205 - For Jim Brulte, Assemblyman
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-8490
| 205 - Against Libertarian Party of California
1800 Market Street, Suite 16
San Francisco, CA 94102
1-800-637-1776
|
206
VETERANS' BOND
ACT OF 1996.Bond Act Put on the Ballot by
the Legislature | 206 - Summary This act provides for a bond issue of four
hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) to
provide farm and home aid for California
veterans. Fiscal Impact: General Fund cost of
about $700 million to pay off both the
principal ($400 million) and interest (about
$300 million) on the bonds, with an average
annual payment for 25 years of about $28
million to retire this debt; costs offset by
payments from participating veterans.
| 206 - Yes A YES vote on this measure means:
The state would be able to issue
$400 million in general obligation
bonds to provide loans for the
veterans' farm and home purchase
(Cal-Vet) program.
| 206 - No A NO vote on this measure means:
The state would not be able to issue
bonds for this purpose.
| 206 - Pro This act provides for a general
obligation bond issue of four hundred
million dollars ($400,000,000) to
provide funding for the purchase by
wartime veterans of farms and homes
under the Cal-Vet program. The
Cal-Vet program is entirely
self-supporting and costs the taxpayer
nothing.
| 206 - Con The federal government provides
extensive veterans' benefits, including
VA home loans. The state doesn't
need to duplicate this. Foreclosures
are at an all-time high. If veterans
don't pay these loans, taxpayers
would have to pay. Banks offer
low-down home loans. Veterans can
apply if they have good credit.
| 206 - For Senator Don Rogers
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
916) 445-5798
Attention: David Grafft
| 206 - Against Libertarian Party of California
1800 Market Street, Suite 16
San Francisco, CA 94102
1-800-637-1776
|
207
ATTORNEYS. FEES.
RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE.
FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS.Initiative Statute Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures
| 207 - Summary Except as allowed by laws in effect on
January 1, 1995, prohibits restrictions on the
right to negotiate amount of attorneys' fees.
Prohibits attorneys from charging excessive
fees. Authorizes court to impose sanctions for
filing frivolous lawsuit or pleading. Fiscal
Impact: Unknown, but probably not
significant, net fiscal impact on state and
local governments.
| 207 - Yes A YES vote on this measure means:
It would be more difficult for the
Legislature to change laws
concerning attorney-client fee
agreements. Courts and the State
Bar would be required to sanction or
recommend disciplinary measures
against attorneys who file frivolous
legal actions. Attorneys would not
receive fees for cases in which they
were sanctioned by the court for a
frivolous legal action.
| 207 - No A NO vote on this measure means:
There would be no change in the
Legislature's ability to change laws
concerning attorney-client fee
agreements. Courts and the State
Bar would retain discretion on
when to sanction or recommend
disciplinary measures against
attorneys who file frivolous legal
actions. An attorney may receive
legal fees in cases where he or she
has been sanctioned for a frivolous
legal action.
| 207 - Pro Frivolous lawsuits can be stopped.
Proposition 207 takes away all the
fees from lawyers when a judge rules
their lawsuit is frivolous. After three
frivolous lawsuits--they can lose
their license. Proposition 207 was
written by responsible consumer
attorneys. It punishes bad lawyers
without taking away consumers'
contingency fee protections.
| 207 - Con Vote no on 207: A smokescreen by
ambulance-chasing lawyers that
guarantees their ability to take
outrageous fees. Propositions 207 and
211 contain ''hidden" language to
protect excessive fees. We'll pay for
their greed in higher insurance and
health care costs. 207 and 211
damage consumers and seniors.
Vote no.
| 207 - For Hilary McLean
Consumer Attorneys of California
(916) 442-6902
| 207 - Against Association for California
Tort Reform
(916) 443-4900
Fax: (916) 443-4306
Website: http://www.actr.com/actr/
|
208
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
AND SPENDING LIMITS.
RESTRICTS LOBBYISTS.Initiative Statute Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures
| 208 - Summary Limits campaign contributions to $500
statewide elections, $250 large districts, $100
smaller districts. Incentives for voluntary
spending limits. Prohibits lobbyist
contributions. Fiscal Impact: Costs of up to
$4 million annually to state and local
governments for implementation and
enforcement; unknown, but probably not
significant, state and local election costs.
| 208 - Yes A YES vote on this measure means:
Campaign contributions by an
individual would be limited to $250
for legislative and local offices and
$500 for statewide offices. These
limits approximately double for
candidates who accept voluntary
campaign spending limits. The
voluntary spending limits for
general elections would be $200,000
for state Assembly, $400,000 for
state Senate, $2 million for
statewide office (other than
Governor), and $8 million for
Governor. The measure establishes
voluntary spending limits for local
elections.
| 208 - No A NO vote on this measure means:
There would continue to be no
limits on political campaign
contributions to candidates for state
office. There would be no limits on
the amounts of money that
candidates, their campaign
committees, or other support groups
can spend in any state election.
Local governments could establish
their own campaign finance limits.
| 208 - Pro Yes on Prop. 208: genuine campaign
reform. Prop. 208 will get big money
out of politics, making politicians
accountable to the voters, not big
campaign contributors. This practical
solution to special-interest influence,
sponsored by League of Women
Voters and AARP, will be the
nation's toughest campaign reform
law.
| 208 - Con 208 doesn't limit out-of-district
campaign contributions to politicians.
It sets contribution limits too high for
ordinary Californians. 208 gives
favored treatment to candidates with
wealthy special interest backers. 208's
''spending limits" are only voluntary.
It costs taxpayers millions. 208 is too
little, too late. Yes on 212 instead.
| 208 - For Californians for Political Reform,
A Committee Sponsored by League
of Women Voters of California,
American Association of Retired
Persons-California (AARP), Common
Cause and United We Stand America
926 J Street, Suite 910
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 444-0834
www.vida.com/cfr
| 208 - Against Californians Against Political
Corruption
11965 Venice Blvd., Suite 408
Los Angeles, CA 90066
(310) 397-3404
http://www.best.com/~myk/fedup/
|
209
PROHIBITION AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION OR
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT
BY STATE AND OTHER
OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES.Initiative Constitutional
Amendment Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures
| 209 - Summary Generally prohibits discrimination or
preferential treatment based on race, sex,
color, ethnicity, or national origin in
public employment, education, and
contracting. Fiscal Impact: Could affect
state and local programs that currently
cost well in excess of $125 million
annually. Actual savings would depend
on various factors (such as future court
decisions and implementation actions by
government entities).
| 209 - Yes A YES vote on this measure means: The
elimination of those affirmative action
programs for women and minorities run
by the state or local governments in the
areas of public employment, contracting,
and education that give ''preferential
treatment" on the basis of sex, race,
color, ethnicity, or national origin.
| 209 - No A NO vote on this measure means:
State and local government affirmative
action programs would remain in effect
to the extent they are permitted under
the United States Constitution.
| 209 - Pro Proposition 209, the California Civil
Rights Initiative, is the right thing to
do. It ends government-sponsored
discrimination by rejecting quotas,
preferences and set-asides. It saves
tax dollars currently wasted on
high-bid contracts. Proposition 209
increases California's commitment to
fighting sex and race discrimination.
Vote Yes.
| 209 - Con Proposition 209 goes too far
eliminating equal opportunity
affirmative action programs for
qualified women and minorities. It
permits gender discrimination by state
and local governments through a legal
loophole. Politicians exploit 209 for
their own political opportunism.
General Colin Powell has spoken out
against 209. Vote no on 209!!!
| 209 - For California Civil Rights Initiative
Yes on 209
Box 67278
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(310) 286-2274
E-Mail:ccri@earthlink.net
http://www.publicaffairsweb.com/ccri
Ward Connerly, Chairman
Glynn Custred and Tom Wood,
co-authors
| 209 - Against Chris Taylor
8170 Beverly Boulevard, Suite 205
Los Angeles, CA 90048
(213) 782-1144
|
210
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE.Initiative Statute Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures
| 210 - Summary Increases the state minimum wage for all
industries to $5.00 per hour on March 1,
1997, and to $5.75 per hour on March 1,
1998. Fiscal Impact: Unknown impact
on government revenues. Annual
wage-related costs to state and local
governments of $120 million to $300
million (depending on federal action),
partly offset by net savings, in the low
tens of millions, in health and welfare
programs.
| 210 - Yes A YES vote on this measure means:
California's minimum wage will increase
to $5.00 per hour beginning March 1,
1997, and to $5.75 per hour beginning
March 1, 1998.
| 210 - No A NO vote on this measure means:
California's minimum wage will not be
raised beyond the level required by
current law.
| 210 - Pro Because of inflation, California's
minimum wage buys less today than
at any time in the past 40 years.
Proposition 210 restores the
purchasing power of the minimum
wage, and makes work more
rewarding than welfare. League of
Women Voters, Congress of
California Seniors, Consumer
Federation of California support
Proposition 210.
| 210 - Con The likely federal minimum wage
hike will hurt enough. Proposition
210 will make California's minimum
wage higher than the federal level and
any other state. This will mean
inflation, less jobs for the young and
unskilled, more people on government
assistance, higher taxpayers' costs and
more hardships for small businesses.
| 210 - For Liveable Wage Coalition
660 Sacramento Street, Suite 202
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 616-5150
E-Mail: LIVINGWAGE@AOL.com
http://www.prop210.org
| 210 - Against Alliance to Protect Small
Businesses & Jobs
268 Bush Street, #3431
San Francisco, CA 94104
Web site: www.prop210no.org
|
211
ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE
ARRANGEMENTS.
SECURITIES FRAUD.
LAWSUITS.Initiative Statute Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures
| 211 - Summary Prohibits restrictions on attorney-client
fee arrangements, except as allowed by
laws existing on January 1, 1995.
Prohibits deceptive conduct by any
person in securities transactions resulting
in loss to retirement funds, savings.
Imposes civil liability, punitive damages.
Fiscal Impact: Probably minor net fiscal
impact on state and local governments.
| 211 - Yes A YES vote on this measure means: The
law will be broadened to make it easier
for an individual to sue for securities
fraud particularly in cases involving
retirement investments. Also, the
Legislature could no longer change the
laws concerning any attorney-client fee
agreements.
| 211 - No A NO vote on this measure means:
Current law regarding securities fraud
will remain unchanged. Also, the
Legislature could still change the laws
concerning any attorney-client fee
agreements.
| 211 - Pro Fraud must be punished.
Prosecutors are swamped by fraud
cases.
Proposition 211 punishes white collar
cheaters who ''willfully, knowingly,
or recklessly" defraud people out of
their pension or retirement savings.
Proposition 211 helps victims get
their money back and holds corporate
executives personally responsible for
cheating senior citizens!
| 211 - Con 211 is a hoax. 211 prohibits limits on
lawyer fees and encourages frivolous
lawsuits that clog courts, damage
business and stall medical research.
211 could cost 159,000 jobs and $5.1
billion in higher taxes. 211 damages
pensions, retirement and family
savings. Seniors, Democrats,
Republicans, families say no on 211.
| 211 - For Sean Crowley
Citizens for Retirement Protection
and Security
(213) 617-7337
| 211 - Against Taxpayers Against Frivolous
Lawsuits
915 L Street, #C307
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 774-0637
1-800-966-1492
Fax: (916) 774-0429
Web Site: http://www.tafl.com
|
212
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
AND SPENDING LIMITS.
REPEALS GIFT AND
HONORARIA LIMITS.
RESTRICTS LOBBYISTS.Initiative Statute Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures
| 212 - Summary Repeals gift/honoraria limits. Limits
contributions to $200 in state and $100
in other campaigns. Imposes spending
limits. Prohibits lobbyist contributions.
Fiscal Impact: Costs of up to $4 million
annually to state and local governments
for implementation and enforcement;
unknown, but probably not significant,
state and local election costs. Increases
state revenues about $6 million by
eliminating tax deduction for lobbying.
| 212 - Yes A YES vote on this measure means:
Campaign contributions by an individual
would be limited to $100 for state
legislative and local offices and $200 for
statewide offices. Mandatory campaign
spending limits for state and local
offices would be established; if the
limits are invalidated by the courts, they
would become voluntary. The spending
limits for general elections would be
$150,000 for state Assembly, $235,000
for state Senate, $1.75 million for
statewide offices (other than Governor),
and $5 million for Governor. Current
restrictions on public officials receiving
gifts and honoraria would be eliminated.
Current tax deductions for lobbying
expenses would be eliminated.
| 212 - No A NO vote on this measure means:
There would continue to be no limits on
political campaign contributions to
candidates for state office. There would
be no limits on the amounts of money
that candidates, their campaign
committees, or other support groups can
spend in any state election. Local
governments could establish their own
campaign finance limits. Current
restrictions on public officials receiving
gifts and honoraria would be
maintained. Lobbying expenses would
remain tax deductible.
| 212 - Pro 212 gets tough on special interests
and self-interested politicians. 212
strictly limits out-of-district
campaign contributions; bans
corporate and union contributions;
bans corporate tax deductions for
lobbying; sets $100 contribution
limits; and sets low, mandatory
campaign spending limits. All at no
cost to taxpayers. Vote Yes on 212.
| 212 - Con Warning: Prop. 212 is consumer
fraud. It wipes out anti-corruption
laws, legalizing unlimited personal
cash payments and gifts to elected
officials! It allows special interests to
give one hundred times what you and
I can give! A hundredfold advantage!
Opposed by League of Women Voters
& AARP. Vote no.
| 212 - For Californians Against
Political
Corruption
11965 Venice Boulevard, Suite 408
Los Angeles, CA 90066
(310) 397-3404
http://www.best.com/~myk/fedup/
| 212 - Against Californians for Political Reform,
A Committee Sponsored by
League of Women Voters of
California, American Association of
Retired Persons-California (AARP),
Common Cause and United We
Stand America
926 J Street, Suite 910
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 444-0834
www.vida.com/cfr
|
213
LIMITATION ON RECOVERY
TO FELONS, UNINSURED
MOTORISTS, DRUNK DRIVERS.Initiative Statute Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures
| 213 - Summary Denies recovery of all damages to
convicted felons for crime-related injury.
Denies recovery of noneconomic
damages (e.g., pain, suffering) to drunk
drivers, if convicted, and most uninsured
motorists. Fiscal Impact: Probably minor
net fiscal impact on state and local
government.
| 213 - Yes A YES vote on this measure means:
Uninsured drivers or drivers convicted
of driving under the influence of alcohol
or drugs at the time of an accident could
no longer sue someone who was at fault
for the accident for noneconomic losses
(such as pain and suffering). Also, a
person convicted of a felony could no
longer sue for injuries suffered while
committing the crime or fleeing from the
crime scene if injuries were a result of
negligence.
| 213 - No A NO vote on this measure means:
Individuals could still sue for injuries
that resulted from an accident that
occurred while they were breaking
certain laws.
| 213 - Pro A yes vote on this measure means: A
convicted felon would be prohibited
from recovering monetary damages
for an accidental injury sustained
while fleeing from his or her crime.
Drunk drivers and uninsured
motorists involved in collisions could
recover only medical and
out-of-pocket expenses but would be
prohibited from recovering ''pain and
suffering" awards from insured
drivers.
| 213 - Con No-Fault Auto Insurance has failed
twice in California. Now, the
Insurance Lobby's newest No-Fault
scheme rewards reckless drivers who
hit innocent poor people. Proposition
213 lets reckless drivers avoid
responsibility. No-Fault for reckless
drivers. The No-Faulters say we save
millions. But nothing in Proposition
213 No-Fault lowers our insurance
rates.
| 213 - For Rex Frazier
915 L Street, Suite 1050
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 449-2956
Fax: (916) 449-2959
| 213 - Against Consumers Against No Fault for
Reckless Drivers
2110 K Street, # 19B
Sacramento, CA 95816
(916) 444-0748
|
214
HEALTH CARE.
CONSUMER PROTECTION.Initiative Statute Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures
| 214 - Summary Regulates health care businesses.
Prohibits discouraging health care
professionals from informing patients or
advocating treatment. Requires health
care businesses to establish criteria for
payment and facility staffing. Fiscal
Impact: Increased state and local
government costs for existing health
programs and benefits, probably in the
tens to hundreds of millions of dollars
annually.
| 214 - Yes A YES vote on this measure means:
Physical examinations would be required
before health plans or insurers could
deny recommended care. State staffing
standards would be expanded to more
types of health facilities, taking the
needs of individual patients into account.
Health care businesses could not offer
financial incentives to doctors and others
to reduce care. Certain health care
employees and contractors would have
additional protections.
| 214 - No A NO vote on this measure means:
There would be no requirements
regarding physical examinations prior to
denial of recommended care. There
would not be any change to current
state and federal laws regarding health
facility staffing, health care employee
and contractor protections, and
restrictions on financial incentives
to reduce care.
| 214 - Pro Proposition 214 protects freedom of
speech between patients and doctors,
and patients' right to the care that
their health insurance has already
paid for. It prevents HMOs and
insurers from using gag rules,
intimidation, or financial incentives
to discourage doctors from providing
needed care. Please, vote yes on
Proposition 214.
| 214 - Con Proposition 214, like 216, is bogus
health care reform. It increases health
insurance by up to 15% (costing
billions ), costs taxpayers hundreds of
millions, and helps trial lawyers file
more frivolous lawsuits. 214 and 216
could cost 60,000 workers their jobs
but don't provide health coverage to
anyone. Vote no .
| 214 - For Californians for Patient Rights
560 Twentieth Street
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 433-9360
Internet Address:
http://www.yes-prop214.org
| 214 - Against Taxpayers Against
Higher Health Costs
Stop the Hidden Health Care Tax
915 L Street, Suite C240
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 552-7526
(800) 996-6287
Fax: (916) 552-7523
Web Site:
http://www.noprop214.org
|
215
MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA.Initiative Statute Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures |
215 - Summary Exempts from criminal laws patients and
defined caregivers who possess or
cultivate marijuana for medical treatment
recommended by a physician. Provides
physicians who recommend use shall not
be punished. Fiscal Impact: Probably no
significant fiscal impact on state and
local governments.
| 215 - Yes A YES vote on this measure means:
Persons with certain illnesses (and their
caregivers) could grow or possess
marijuana for medical use when
recommended by a physician. Laws
prohibiting the nonmedical use of
marijuana are not changed.
| 215 - No A NO vote on this measure means:
Growing or possessing marijuana for
any purpose (including medical
purposes) would remain illegal.
| 215 - Pro Marijuana can relieve pain and
suffering in serious illnesses like
cancer, glaucoma and AIDS.
Proposition 215 permits patients to
use marijuana, but only if they have
the approval of a licensed physician.
Tight controls limiting marijuana to
patients only will remain in place.
Cancer doctors and nurses groups
support 215.
| 215 - Con Propositon 215 legalizes marijuana.
Vote no. It allows people to grow and
smoke marijuana for stress or ''any
other illness." No written prescription
or examination is required, even
children can smoke pot legally. The American Cancer Society
rejects smoking marijuana for medical
purposes and no major doctor's
organization supports 215.
| 215 - For Californians for Medical Rights
1250 Sixth Street, # 202
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 394-2952
Fax: (310) 451-7494
Internet home page:
http://www.prop215.org
| 215 - Against Citizens for a Drug-Free California
Sheriff Brad Gates, Chairman
4901 Birch Street
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 476-3017
|
216
HEALTH CARE.
CONSUMER PROTECTION.
TAXES ON CORPORATE
RESTRUCTURING.Initiative Statute Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures |
216 - Summary Regulates health care businesses.
Prohibits discouraging health care
professionals from informing patients.
Prohibits conditioning coverage on
arbitration agreement. Establishes
nonprofit consumer advocate. Imposes
taxes on corporate restructuring. Fiscal
Impact: New tax revenues, potentially
hundreds of millions of dollars annually,
to fund specified health care. Additional
state and local government costs for
existing health programs and benefits,
probably tens to hundreds of millions of
dollars annually.
| 216 - Yes A YES vote on this measure means:
New taxes would be imposed on health
care businesses to fund specified health
care services. Physical examinations
would be required before health plans or
insurers could deny recommended care.
State staffing standards would be set for
all health facilities, taking the needs of
individual patients into account. Health
care businesses could not offer financial
incentives to doctors and others to
reduce care. Certain health care
employees and contractors would have
additional protections.
| 216 - No A NO vote on this measure means: New
taxes would not be imposed on health
care businesses to finance health care
services. There would be no
requirement regarding physical
examinations prior to denial of
recommended care. There would not be
any change to current state and federal
laws regarding health facility staffing,
health care employee and contractor
protections, and restrictions on financial
incentives to reduce care.
| 216 - Pro Protects consumers against unsafe
care by insurance companies and
HMOs. Outlaws bonuses to doctors
for denying treatment. Restores
control of patient care to doctors and
nurses. Saves lives. Reduces costs to
taxpayers, businesses. Bans
unjustified premium increases.
Creates independent watchdog.
Backed by California Nurses
Association, Harvey Rosenfield and
Ralph Nader.
| 216 - Con Propositions 216 and 214 are near
twins--phony health care reform that
costs taxpayers and consumers
billions without providing coverage to
the uninsured. 216 means: four new
taxes; dramatically higher health
insurance costs; more government
bureaucrats; more frivolous lawsuits
for trial lawyers; and up to 60,000
lost jobs. Vote no .
| 216 - For Harvey Rosenfield
Consumers and Nurses for
Patient Protection
1750 Ocean Park, #200
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 392-0522
E-Mail: network@primenet.com
| 216 - Against Taxpayers Against Higher
Health Costs
Stop the Hidden Health Care Tax
915 L Street, Suite C240
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 552-7526
(800) 996-6287
Fax: (916) 552-7523
Web Site:
http://www.noprop216.org
|
217
TOP INCOME TAX BRACKETS.
REINSTATEMENT. REVENUES
TO LOCAL AGENCIES.Initiative Statute Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures |
217 - Summary Retroactively reinstates highest tax rates
on taxpayers with taxable income over
$115,000 and $230,000 (current
estimates) and joint taxpayers with
taxable incomes over $230,000 and
$460,000 (current estimates). Allocates
revenue from those rates to local
agencies. Fiscal Impact: Annual increase
in state personal income tax revenues of
about $700 million, with about half the
revenues allocated to schools and half to
other local governments.
| 217 - Yes A YES vote on this measure means:
Income taxes will be raised on the
highest income taxpayers in the state,
with the increased revenues going to
schools and other local governments.
| 217 - No A NO vote on this measure means:
Income taxes on the highest-income
taxpayers in the state will not be raised.
| 217 - Pro Proposition 217 restores a little fiscal
sanity to California. It cancels a tax
cut for the wealthiest 1.2%--a cut
the rest of us won't get--to protect
schools and restore local funding the
state took away. Support your local
schools, law enforcement, libraries,
parks, and child protection. Vote yes.
| 217 - Con Taxes already are too high!
Retroactive tax increase effectively
gives California highest personal
income tax rate nationwide. Small
businesses would be hurt. Absolutely
no guarantees or accountability how
the new tax money would be spent.
Contains too many provisions with
uncertain and even potentially
dangerous economic consequences.
No on 217!
| 217 - For Yes on Proposition 217
2500 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 508
Los Angeles, CA 90057
213-386-4036
Web site address:
http://www.prop217.org
| 217 - Against Californians for Jobs,
Not More Taxes/No on 217
111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 406
Burlingame, CA 94010
(415) 340-0470
|
218
VOTER APPROVAL FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAXES.
LIMITATIONS ON FEES,
ASSESSMENTS, AND CHARGES.Initiative Constitutional
Amendment Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures |
218 - Summary Requires a majority of voters to approve
increases in general taxes. Requires
property-related assessments, fees,
charges be submitted to property owners
for approval. Fiscal Impact: Short-term
local government revenue losses of more
than $100 million annually. Long-term
local government revenue losses of
potentially hundreds of millions of
dollars annually. Comparable reductions
in spending for local public services.
| 218 - Yes A YES vote on this measure means:
Local governments' ability to charge
assessments and certain property-related
fees would be significantly restricted.
Spending for local public services would
be reduced accordingly. Many existing
and future local government fees,
assessments, and taxes would be subject
to voter-approval.
| 218 - No A NO vote on this measure means:
Local governments could continue to
collect existing property-related fees,
assessments, and taxes to pay for local
public services. Local governments
would have no new voter-approval
requirements for revenue increases.
| 218 - Pro Proposition 218 simply gives
taxpayers the right to vote on taxes.
Proposition 218 provides only
registered Californians vote on taxes.
Nonresidents, foreigners,
corporations get no new rights.
Proposition 218 doesn't cut
traditional ''lifeline" services; allows
taxes for police, fire, education. Your
right to vote on taxes: Yes on
Proposition 218.
| 218 - Con Gives large landowners--including
noncitizens--more voting power than
average homeowners. Denies
assessment voting rights for renters.
Cuts existing funding for local police,
fire, library services. Adds new taxes
on public property like neighborhood
schools, cutting funds available for
teaching and classroom supplies and
computers; increases school crowding.
| 218 - For The Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association
The Right to Vote on Taxes Act,
Yes on Prop. 218
621 S. Westmoreland Avenue,
Suite 202
Los Angeles, CA 90005
(213) 384-9656
| 218 - Against Citizens for Voters' Rights
2646 Dupont Dr., Suite 20-412
Irvine, CA 92612
(714) 222-5438
http://www.prop218no.org
|