October 8, 2004

ELECTION 2004

La Prensa San Diego Election Special on The Ballot Issues

Proposition 63

Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding; Initiative Statue

A YES vote on Proposition 63 would impose a 1% tax on those taxpayers with an annual taxable income of more than $1 million! Funds raised would be used to finance an expansion of County Mental Health programs for mentally ill children, adults and seniors.

VOTE YES! ON PROP 63. It is time that the rich, who pay less in income taxes than the working class citizens, pay their FAIR SHARE of the cost to provide health care for the people! America is not a FREE RIDE for the rich! 

VOTE SI por la Proposición 63 para ayudar a la salud mental de los niños y adultos de todas edades. ¡Los gastos se pagarán por las personas que hacen más de $1,000,000 por año por medio de un impuesto de UN por ciento anual!

VOTE SI/YES PROPOSICION 63

¡VOTE Noviembre 2, 2004!

Prop 64

Prop 64: would place limits on private enforcement of unfair Business Competition Laws. An Initiative Statute.

Prop 64 is an end-run to limit the ability of private citizens, groups, individuals to protect themselves, by taking away their ability to launch Class Action Lawsuits against the massive Corporations that with impunity, would destroy our country, environment, our health, and ruin our ability to lead healthful lives. Prop 64 would destroy our ability as citizens to protect us against the massive power of Corporate America. They in combination with powerful political individuals, who are very easily co-opted in the interests of the massive business structures, easily overlook the fact that they are elected to preserve our Democratic form of government and not sell the people out for money!

Protect your rights to sue the massive conglomerates when they go too far in their quest to accumulate wealth with little REGARD FOR THE CITIZENS and of our COUNTRY. Say NO! to the money changers in the temples of America!

VOTE NO ON PROP 64

¡VOTE NO CONTRA La Proposición 64!


Proposition 67

Proposition 67 — Is deceitfully titled “The Emergency Medical Services Funding. Telephone Surcharge. This is an Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.” In fact, it is a not too subtle move to increase your telephone surcharges in order to give more and more money to the physicians who are too accustomed to living way beyond their means.

Only 0.75 ($4 million) percent, of the 500,000,000 million that will be added to California phone bills, will be used for the 911 account. The majority of the money raised, will be given to the Physicians to increase their income bottom line. If you live in Logan Heights, or any other area, where the residents can barely make ends meet, this proposed surcharge on your phone may mean that you may not be able to have a phone in your home. If we are going to have an “added tax,” let us have one to provide Health Insurance for all no matter how poor you are.

VOTE NO ON PROP 67

VOTE NO en la Proposición 67


Proposition 68

Proposition 68: Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues Tax, Exemptions. Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

PROP 68 is one of those “Hot Button” issues that crops up from time to time to remind us that having the “Initiative process to make law is not necessarily the way to go to run a State. It makes one wonder why do we have state government with an Assembly and Senate where issues of this nature can be vetted, discussed, and solutions be voted on that are in the best interest of the State. It is irresponsible to place the burden on the voters of having or being able to acquire all the knowledge to be able to make responsible choices that are in the best interest of the people and the State. One is left to wonder just why do we have an Assembly and Senate????”

Having unburdened myself, and having read the arguments pro and con on PROP 68, I would say that a NO vote on Prop 68 is the most responsible vote. A NO vote is the most principle vote if one is of the opinion that “gambling” is not something that one desires to see as a growth industry in the State of California.

Keep gambling confined to the Indian Reservations where limits can be placed on its growth.

VOTE NO ON PROP 68

¡VOTE NO en la Proposición 68!


Prop 69

DNA Samples. Collection, DataBase, Funding. An Initiative Statute

Proposition 69 is being touted as a means to “identify criminals and protect the innocent.” It is an Initiative petition created by, paid for, and the required signatures collected by paid circulators in order to have it placed on the Ballot. It is the norm, that most people, who are pestered to death by these peddlers of Initiatives, rarely take the time to read the lengthy petition thrust under their noses. Most sign off on it just to get rid of the paid circulators , who in the main don’t have a clue what the trash, they are circulating is all about.

Californians should be offended by the growing misuse of the Initiative petition that has become the tool of wealthy individuals, corporate leaders, and the so-called upper class, to control the majority of the working class citizens. PROP 187 is a recent example of an Initiative Petition used by the Anglo-American society against the Mexican American Latino population of the state. We elect citizens of the state to be our representatives in the State Senate and Assembly to act as our intermediates and analyze all documents which are submitted to become the Law of the State. It is odd that the proponents of PROP 69 bypassed the legislature. Is it because they knew that Prop 69 was an attack against the middle class Americans? The wealthy class has the money to protect itself. Who will protect our Civil Rights? Legal Rights? Is it because they see Prop 69 is actually “creating” a new Crime?

Voters beware! If a DNA Data Bank is so required, let the proponents submitted their proposal to our Legislature whose job it is to assure that the citizens of this state will be served by passing a Bill to become Law that will survive the challenges of time.

VOTE NO ON PROP 69

¡VOTE NO contra la Proposición 69!

Letters to the Editor Return to the Frontpage