13
Oct
08

Arizona Ballot Propositions for 2008

I was having difficulty finding an overview of all the Arizona ballot propositions so I compiled a list where all of them can be seen in one place. This entry covers Propositions 100, 101, 102, 105, 200, 201, 202, and 300.

Proposition 100: Protect Our Homes

Overview: Block the legislature from enacting a real estate transfer tax

Supporting Arguments:

  • Governments already collect taxes on your property based on the property’s value. This new tax would unfairly cause a second tax to impact your home or property.
  • Since the tax is assessed against the total value including the amount you owe on your mortgage(s), the overall equity earned by the seller is decreased.
  • In the current slow market, a transfer tax would make it more difficult for people to buy or sell homes. Once a transfer tax is put in place, it can be raised at any time. This costs people buying or selling their homes even more money.
  • A home is often the biggest and most important asset a person has in life. A transfer tax reduces the equity people have worked hard building. People already pay multiple taxes and fees on their homes. This tax will layer on one more significant closing cost you will have to pay.
  • This tax imposes the higher tax burden on lower income households that typically spend a larger percentage of their income on their home. [4]
  • Proposition 100 would prohibit state and local governments from imposing a tax when a home or other property is bought, sold, or transferred. The “Protect Our Homes” measure would guard against future efforts to pass a tax on property transfers. [5]

Opposing Arguments:

  • Arizona’s current tax system is too reliant on sales tax revenue, which is unstable, regressive, and unnecessarily limits economic growth. [7]
  • A real-estate transfer tax would raise in the neighborhood of $200 million per year, creating an opportunity to reduce or shift taxes in a manner that would increase economic growth. [8]

Proposition 101: Medical Choice for Arizona

Overview: Guarantee that Arizonans can choose their own health care.

Supporting arguments:

Notable arguments that have been made in favor of Proposition 101 include:

  • Keeps patients in control of their health care.
  • Protects people from having their health care choices dictated by government-appointed bureaucrats.
  • Preserves our rights to seek second opinions, choose alternative care, and keep our medical records private.
  • Makes patient freedom the top priority in health care reform.[2]
  • It creates a constitutional amendment that lays the groundwork for a solution to the health-care crisis.

Opposing arguments:

Notable arguments that have been made against Proposition 101 include:

  • A constitutional amendment limiting future legislation is dangerous. No one can predict what laws may be needed to improve the health of Arizonans.
  • The proposed amendment will not assure one’s freedom to choose a personal physician, but will prevent the state from creating a system assuring everyone access to the care they require.
  • Arizonans who now rely on Medicare or Medicaid could lose coverage.
  • The proposition’s goal, to prevent abuses associated with “socialized” medicine, is irrational. The only “socialized” medical programs in the US are the Veterans Health System, the Indian Health Service, and military medical services. None abuse the private sector. Socialized systems are funded by the Government. They provide services in government facilities by professionals who work for the U.S. Public Health Service.
  • Passage of a constitutional amendment in Arizona would limit legislative options. It will increase the abuses that private practitioners, hospitals, and patients now suffer from private insurance carriers. The industry dictates reimbursement, determines the services patients receive, and dictates who shall be granted or denied access to care.[2]
  • The language of the amendment is ambiguous or “murky” which could lead to the courts having to do the final interpretation on what it means.[4]

Proposition 102: Marriage Protection Amendment

Overview: Amends the constitution to recognize marriage as only between one man and one woma.

Supporting Arguments:

Supports make the following general claims in support of the amendment:

  • In May, 2008 California judges voted to redefine marriage.
  • The same thing can happen here.
  • A “YES” vote prevents judges and politicians from redefining marriage and leaves marriage’s essential meaning in the hands of the people of Arizona.

Opposing Arguments:

Opponents make the following general claims against the amendment:

  • Voters already rejected this amendment in 2006.
  • Lawmakers should trust and respect the will of the voters.[8]
  • Arizona has more important issues to address.[9]
  • Propositions like 102 do not protect the sanctity of marriage, but do amount to an undue involvement of government in people’s private decisions.[10]

Proposition 105: Majority Rules

Overview: Any initiative that imposes additional taxes or spending, in order to pass, would require support from a majority of qualified electors (not just those voting).

Supporting arguments:

  • It makes sense that the minority shouldn’t be able to impose a tax hike on the majority.
  • Prop. 105 would not affect existing voter-approved spending mandates
  • Prop. 105 would make it harder for special interests to use ballot initiatives to raise taxes
  • If a strong majority of voters want new spending obligations or tax increases, they can still vote for them
  • Too many groups wait for a “low turnout” election to pass their massive spending or tax increases on the balance of Arizona voters. Is it really too much to ask that we earn the consensus of a real majority of Arizona voters before passing laws of such great consequence?

Opposing arguments:

  • Prop 105 says that those people who don’t bother to get off their couch to vote get counted as automatic NO votes.
  • If you choose to exercise your right NOT to vote, Prop 105 will automatically choose a NO vote for you.
  • The recently deceased would be counted as a NO vote if Prop 105 passed.
  • If Prop 105 was already in place, a number of initiatives that passed overwhelmingly in previous years would not have become law.
  • Prop 105 isn’t about taxes or your money. It attacks the act of voting. [10]
  • It is a “slick scheme to give non-voters a vote”.[11]

Proposition 200: Payday Loan Reform Act

Overview: Business-sponsored reforms in the payday loan industry.

Supporting arguments:

  • Prop. 200 would mandate a substantial cut in loan fees
  • Establishes a flexible repayment plan
  • Requires internet lenders to be licensed in the state
  • Enacts tough new regulations to crack down on unscrupulous operators
  • “About 5 percent of Americans have taken out a payday loan. There’s scant evidence that their lot would have been better if denied that opportunity. A study by two economists with the New York Federal Reserve Bank found that after Georgia and North Carolina abolished payday lending, bounced checks and Chapter 7 bankruptcies increased.”[4]

Opposing arguments:

  • Prop. 200 fails to lengthen the minimum loan term of five days, thus keeping payday loan products at 391% APR or worse
  • Electronic access to borrower accounts gives payday lenders unfettered debit access to customer bank accounts and facilitates overcharging
  • The repayment plan provision limits consumers’ right to request a repayment plan to once per year.
  • “The argument that closing payday loan stores would be a blow to the economy is equally spurious. It might help the economy if we legalized the sale of heroin and let merchants hawk it on the street, but that doesn’t mean it would make our lives any better. An industry that thrives on keeping consumers poor does not help the economy.”[8]

Proposition 201: Homeowners Bill of Rights

Overview: Establishes a minimum 10-year warranty on new homes, mandatory disclosures of financial arrangements and pricing and new rights on fixing home defects and returns of deposits.

Supporting Arguments:

  • Prop. 201 will guarantee a 10 year warranty on new homes
  • The measure will make homebuilders correct construction defects or compensate the homeowner
  • Guarantees that homeowners can participate in choosing contractors to do repair work
  • Gives buyers the right to cancel within 100 days and get back most of their deposits

Opposing Arguments:

  • Prop. 201 will prohibit two parties from agreeing to resolve their disputes without going to court and hiring attorneys.
  • Prop 201 will forbid the defendants from recovering any attorney’s fees, even if the case was frivolous or if they win.
  • Prop. 201 will allow prospective buyers to file lawsuits. They will not even have to own the home to file a lawsuit.
  • Prop 201 assures that all disputes, either large or small, go to court raising, costs for everyone.

Proposition 202: Stop Illegal Hiring

Overview: Increases penalties on cash-based businesses who bypass current laws as well as employees who engage in identity theft to verify employment eligibility.

Supporting Arguments:

  • Prop. 202 makes it harder for employers to cut corners by creating a mechanism for law enforcement to target the underground, black market, all-cash economy.
  • Would make it a crime for an employer to accept false identification from a potential employee.
  • Creates a two strike penalty that ensures employers are out of business if they are found guilty of hiring illegal aliens.

Opposing Arguments:

  • Prop. 202 requires Arizona to wait until the Federal Government has taken action against an employer before the state takes action.
  • The measure exempts thousands of Arizona employers by offering the use of the same standards that have not worked in the past.
  • Eliminates the Silent Witness portion of the law and insists that all complaints regarding employer violations of the law must be written and signed

Proposition 300: State Legislator Salaries

Overview: Raises legislator salaries from $24,000 to $30,000.

Supporting Arguments:

Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers and the Arizona Advocacy Network are two groups supporting this measure.

In The Arizona Advocacy Network’s statement, they encourage “passage of this modest pay raise for Arizona’s legislators. Even if you have issues with how legislators have done their jobs, they are seriously underpaid and deserve a raise. Their compensation of only $24,000 per year has not been raised for many years and must be improved to attract the best and brightest to legislative service.”[2]

Opposing Arguments:

“The role of the legislature is quite simple: Pass an annual budget and go home. It is a part time legislature that is supposed to meet less than 100 days a year. Being elected is a civic minded contribution, not a career. The one thing legislators cannot seem to do in a timely manner is pass a budget. I certainly would not pay legislators more for a job they currently cannot seem to do as more of your tax money would simply encourage prolonging the budget process further.[2]

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Arizona Ballot Propositions for 2008”


  1. 15 October 2008 at 14:41

    We need a healthy economy and the payday system will only hurt. It thrives on people’s debt – they typically end up extending their loans. People who use payday loans typically owe $800 on a $300 loan by the time they are actually able to pay it off.

    We just don’t need 400% interest rates and if Prop 200 wins, voters will be protecting the payday system rather than reforming it!

    Get the facts at http://www.200isnoreform.com

    Vote NO on Prop 200!

  2. 2 GreatJob
    16 October 2008 at 12:52

    Nice overview. Thank you.

    It is not easy to sift through the language in these initiatives and I’m really sick of the misleading titles.

    Prop 201 is a sham. Lawyers making lawyers richer. The logic behind it is absent. The initiative allows “prospective” homebuyers to bring a suit against a seller. . What? You don’t even have to buy the home to sue. I saw this video that makes light of the idea . . .

    http://www.stoplawsuitabuseaz.com/video-center/no-on-201-commercial

    . . pretty accurate. Lawyers get righer, homeowners pay the price. It won’t be so funny if it passes, though.

  3. 3 DJ
    19 October 2008 at 17:39

    Excellent “Cliff Notes” my friend! Thank-you.

  4. 4 Cody
    6 November 2008 at 09:12

    Very Nice!

  5. 5 mary
    9 February 2010 at 10:41

    I am glad you have that video here, however I have to burst your bubble. Even our constitution is fraud.

    Recommended book: Constitution that Never Was, by Ralph Boryszewski.

    I was trying to donate this book to the local library and librarian was trying to twist herself out of accepting the book because there were “no reviews” found on the book. I said this is censorship, then she said it is also because book is over 15 years old …

    This book was self published by now 92 year old gentleman who spend VIRTUALLY every penny publishing it AND working on another, trying to finish it before he dies.

    There was NO publisher willing to publish this book and no newspaper would review it for obvious reasons. We are questioning the very law of this country!!!!!

    If you want to broaden your knowledge and have the guts to swim in uncharted territory this book is “it”.

    As this author is focusing his strength and whatever rest of the finances he has to finish the book, any contribution is welcome. I have sent him $40 for the book, he sent me 2!! Obviously he wants the truth about this country out.

    when sending money order make it to “Ralph Boryszewski”

    (I sent cash in the envelope)

  6. 9 February 2010 at 20:10

    @Mary: Hi and welcome to my blog. Interesting idea that our Constitution is a fraud. I happen to like our Constitution, though.

    I will be honest – the idea that the document is a fraud is not one that I can really even wrap my head around.

  7. 7 mary
    3 March 2010 at 12:45

    yes, and I can understand why….If you are open minded and willing to take a look at the information I am more than happy to e-mail you two pages from the book. Understand that book was written based on factual information researched via Library of Congress and other sources including history professors.

    Let me know.

    e-mail me at mahwah@azet.sk

  8. 8 mary
    3 March 2010 at 12:45

    oh and one more thing…it is not an idea, it’s the fact.

  9. 3 March 2010 at 21:20

    I would be willing to concede that there are parts that are applicable and parts that are not, but the entire thing? I dunno. Maybe I am talking about unalienable rights vs civil rights and you are talking about something else?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories


%d bloggers like this: