Debatable Propositions for California’s Future

I’m voting against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s propositions for a simple reason. He has said everyone must suffer, everyone must contribute. This is mostly true, as those who must suffer include students, the poor, those who need health support, the elderly, the lower class, the middle class and our kids. Notice, however, that the only people not included in this list are the rich; they do not have to suffer. In fact, they benefit by purchasing the bonds that will be paid back by the students, the poor, those who need health support, the elderly, the lower class, the middle class and our kids.

It’s not surprising for Schwarzenegger to not be responsible about our current debts; he still has yet to take responsibility for his groping.

Gary Coyne

South Pasadena

On March 2 the voters of California will be asked to make a critical decision about the state’s future: whether to pass Propositions 57 and 58. Here’s the brass ring, folks: If either or both of these measures fail, our children will feel the brunt in lost services, higher taxes and lower property values. Interest rates have again dropped to historical lows. Do the math. Refinancing our current debt makes sense, especially when it won’t cost as much in the long term.

Failing to make an investment in our state’s future will cost us in the effort to move forward. As a concerned citizen, I encourage a “yes” vote on Propositions 57 and 58 on March 2.

Anita Gunther

Long Beach

Our governor wants us to vote for his $15-billion bond issue. He says if it doesn’t pass there will be Armageddon cuts, yet he refuses to raise taxes. It boils down to this: Armageddon is preferable to raising taxes.

Bill Entz

Granada Hills

There are ways to increase California’s funds without taxing the poor. In addition to bringing back the luxury tax on expensive jewelry and expensive cars, revamp Proposition 13 to exclude industrial, commercial and multi-multi-residential properties (over 20 units).

You are going to hear the screaming all the way up to the Arctic from the owners of these properties; however, these are all money-making properties that originally footed the cost of bringing about Proposition 13. Of course, we single-residence owners also voted for it.

Another source of income should be gotten from the federal government for the cost of health, education and welfare for all the illegal immigrants, as well as the great expense to us for the apprehension of these criminals and incarceration of them for the terrible damage they do. Our governor has promised us to clean up the corruption, and his help would be greatly appreciated by all Californians.

Joan Siegel

Los Angeles