Comments on: Latest poll numbers on November ballot measures

By: JohnW

JohnW — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 06:48:22 +0000

Re: #2

I don’t like the idea of earmarking half of the incremental taxes from Prop. 39 to alt energy for five years, or for any other purpose. It should go to the general fund.

But the “Triple Factor” 2009 law it would replace (passed in the middle of the night for the benefit of a few large out-of-state companies) is profoundly stupid, in that it encourages multi-state companies with a strong sales base in CA to concentrate their workforce elsewhere. It also puts CA-based companies at a disadvantage. Genentech locating a $450 million dollar plant in Oregon while laying off people in CA is an example. Every other state, including Texas, uses the “Single-Sales Factor.” We should too.

By: George Antrobus

George Antrobus — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:21:21 +0000

You have to love Tom Steyer. First he annihilates Prop. 23 to make sure his phony green companies get the proceeds from carbon auctions, hurting consumers and driving productive citizens out of California. Then he bankrolls Prop. 39 to attack productive corporations and drive them out of California, in order to enact a new tax whose proceeds will – you guessed it – go to his phony green companies. Good old Tom. It’s all about him.

By: JohnW

JohnW — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:35:16 +0000

Prop. 40 is totally confusing.

Am surprised by the early positive numbers on Brown’s tax proposal and the “he’s baaack” Mercury Insurance proposition. Now that the legislature has come up with such a lousy version of pension reform, that should cause support to decrease on the tax proposal and grow for Prop. 32 (wishful thinking on my part).