Oppose all money-grabs
Vote NO on all tax increases, tax extensions, bonds, fees, and assessments
Don't fall for government money-grabs. Informed voters know that big government often robs people of personal responsibility and saddles working families, property owners, and small business owners with greater financial burdens.
It's all because big government refuses to investigate and slash its own waste. Because of the influence of government unions and entrenched bureaucrats, independent, tough audits are simply not seen.
Therefore, we encourage you to vote NO on ANY AND ALL tax increases, tax extensions, bonds (which is borrowing money with interest, which is always more expensive than a direct tax), fees, and assessments.
See this list of local ballot measures in California this 2024 primary election. Nearly all are bad and most are thieving, taking more money in the form of "extending" a tax increase, establishing a new tax, proposing a bond (always more expensive than a direct tax), or imposing some kind of fee.
Please VOTE NO and encourage your friends to vote no on these money-grabs that make government bigger and make average people poorer. For none are needed, because none come from entities that support tough, independent (outside of California) auditors, who will actually look for socialistic waste. To the contrary, these deceptive tax-and-spend entities are loathe to cut any waste or fraud, nor do they recognize it.
Why are cities run by Democrats and RINOs coveting your money and making you poorer? Because bloated government union pensions are bleeding them dry. City tax-hike and tax-extension and bond campaigns won't tell you that, but it's the big reason. Which is why you should oppose union-backed candidates (they work for the union bosses, not for you).
The League of California Cities recently reported that their members expect pension costs to rise by at least 50 percent over just the next half-decade. Cities employing police officers and firefighters will face the highest burdens: for every $100 spent in salary on current employees, they will soon have to shell out at least $54 to the state’s pension fund, CalPERS. "Policing Pensions," City Journal, Sept. 27, 2018
Three California cities have declared bankruptcy in recent years, and fast-rising pension costs have been major factors in all. One was Vallejo, whose recently retired city manager, Daniel Keen, joined his colleagues in seeking relief, saying he expected pension costs for police to reach 98 percent of payroll in a decade and hinting that Vallejo could slip into insolvency again.
A new study for the League of California Cities, conducted by a consulting firm, Bartel Associates, projects that over the next seven years overall city pension costs, excluding health care, will nearly double, reaching an average of 15.8 percent of their general fund budgets by 2024-25. Costs for police and fire personnel will climb to well over 60 percent of payroll.
“The results of this study provide additional evidence that pension costs for cities are approaching unsustainable levels,” Bartel’s report warns. As those burdens outstrip revenue growth, it says, “many cities face difficult choices that will be compounded in the next recession.” "Surging pension costs push more California cities toward bankruptcy," CalMatters, June 23, 2020
CalPERS and its legislative allies keep resisting the one reform that would truly free California taxpayers from this ruinous pension system: moving it toward a 401(k)-style defined-contribution plan, as other states and municipalities, including Utah and Rhode Island, have done. In a defined-contribution plan, the government’s commitment ends after it makes its annual required contribution into a worker’s retirement account; the taxpayer’s liability also ends there. Under the CalPERS regime, by contrast, employees are guaranteed benefits even if the government hasn’t put aside money to pay for them, placing all the future liability on the taxpayer. "The Pension Fund That Ate California," City Journal, Winter 2013
Remember, it's pro-family to keep more of your hard-earned money, so it's pro-family to oppose wasteful government taking away more money from you and other Californians.
Sneaky politicians like to take it incrementally, so you must consistently oppose even the smallest tax/bond/fee/assessment increases in order to inhibit the government from making you and your family poorer.