My Mother always said to vote “NO” on ballot initiatives. This was in Kentucky, where they were rare. But the advice, while not perfect, is pretty good. I would say instead, “If the initiative isn’t a clear win for liberty, vote NO.”
This fall will be my first time voting in Colorado, and I received my book describing the ballot initiatives last week in the mail. There are 3 proposed amendments to the constitution and 8 proposals to amend state statutes. I am going to discuss them all, let you know how and why I am planning to vote, and see if you all think I am wrong about any.
First up is Amendment D (I am not responsible for naming convention): New 23rd Judicial District Judges.
This would have the Governor appoint judges for the new district from the current 18th district. A no vote leads to uncertainty and possible disruption of court functions. Seems like a clear-cut case of NO to me.
Amendment E: Extend Homestead Extension to Gold Star Spouses.
Without evening reading it, the title alone makes a NO vote clear. It provides a property tax exemption to surviving spouses of armed forces members who died from service related injuries. Someone, I am sure, will tell me why I should vote YES, but I doubt I will.
Amendment F: Changes to Charitable Gaming Operations.
Currently nonprofits must exist for 5 years before applying for a Bingo license, plus all workers must be volunteers. Both would change, the former would be reduced to 3 years and they could pay their workers. Once again, I am following my Mom’s advice and voting NO. It is probably a marginal move to more liberty but not enough to push me off my default.
FF: Health School Meals for All.
Hard NO.
GG: Add Tax Information Table to Petitions and Ballots.
If a ballot measure raises or lowers state income tax rates, it must include a table showing how it affects filers in different income categories. Useful, but nah, still voting NO.
121 (yeah, don’t ask me, I don’t understand the letter/number system either): State Income Tax Rate Reduction.
Lowers state income tax from 4.55% to 4.40%. YES.
122: Access to Natural Psychedelic Substances.
Seems like an easy YES, but it isn’t. It is complex. The text changes for #121 is less than one page. For this, it is 11 pages. That earns it a NO.
123: Dedicate Revenue for Affordable Housing Programs.
Fuck you, cut spending. NO.
124: Increase Allowable Liquor Store Locations.
Currently a person can have an interest in up to 3 liquor store locations, this would boost the limit over time, being unlimited after 2037. I liked Liquor Barn in KY. YES.
125: Allow Grocery and Convenience Stores to Sell Wine.
Hell YES.
126: Third-Party Delivery of Alcohol Beverages.
It is what you would think it is. About 2.5 pages. Can’t see a reason not to vote YES.
Feel free to tell me where I am wrong.
If you made it this far, you get a music link.
The one on tax tables is a hard one. One one hand, it makes every measure spend extra money to justify it’s existence, which could make it difficult for some smaller, liberty-minded initiatives. One the other hand, it sure would be nice to see how much taxes will go up every time somebody wants free money.
I’m sure the tax table information will be true and accurate and not the legislative guess before the tax department finalizes it. “Oops, turns out that wasn’t the ultimate version”
“We know what your house is worth”
Yes. That is also true.
In towns like mine in NH, it is accurate.
Voters have to approve all spending. The amount the voters vote on is the amount budgeted, and tax rates are based on spending and property values.
If something goes over-budget, my understanding is the town needs to hold a new town-wide election to approve the extra spending.
It’ll make money!
Prop 121 included the tax table, even though not yet required. I am sure it took 5 minutes to put together.
Does the tax table include “showing how it affects filers in different income categories.”
Which seems to be a bit of class warfareism included in the measure.
Columns of table:
Income Category, 12 different categories from under 15k to over 1MM
Estimated Number of Taxpayers
Total change in Taxes owed
Average change in taxes owed.
For Prop 121, that last column ranged for -$7 for the lowest category, to -$6,647 for the highest.
And there are totals at bottom. It cuts taxes $382.3 million dollars, or $119 per taxpayer.
When voting in MD, I voted straight across the board ‘NO’ in all caps on all ballot initiatives. Guess how many of them were left wing fantasies? ‘YES’ on all of them is the correct answer.
No always,
I have seen sneaky ballot initiatives where a ‘No’ generates the lefty wishlist policy. Read the wording carefully.
When I lived in Wisconsin, there was once 7 related ballot questions. To vote the same way on all, I had to alternate YES and NO votes.
I remember California having competing propositions. If more than one passed, the one that received the highest percentage won.
I seem to recall one CA initiative where it took a half a full page in the LA Times to explain whether a Yes or No vote resulted int the change that the Voter thought he was voting for.
Yes, that is a trend now. Absolutely reprehensible.
It takes only one line of text to legalize a drug. If it requires multiple pages, they are just crafting a particular set of condition under which they will not prosecute you.
Hence my NO vote due to 11 pages.
I would have done the same.
But you’ll never get a two line legalization measure to pass. I’m in the “take what you can get” camp and will vote Yes on practically any loosening of drug laws.
Yeah.
Unfortunately.
For example, in NH, from what I understand from folks close to it, the Liquor Commission wants to sell marijuana in the state-run liquor stores. But the Liquor Commission doesn’t want to do this until after marijuana is legal at the Federal level. The Liquor Commission is a very powerful lobby. So, the chances are unfortunately good that not only will marijuana legalization won’t happen in NH until after the Feds legalize it, but that the price of legalizing it will be that it will only be allowed to be sold in the state run liquor stores.
That and how they are gonna tax the fuck out of anyone who meets the legal conditions.
They could legalize them all tomorrow by simply following the constitution as written.
Let Granny have her bingo, pay employees.
Liquor stores shouldn’t be singled out for licensing purposes.
/Remembers the fear of Adult Bookstores on every corner
Remembers the fear of Adult Bookstores on every corner
Maryland limits how many licenses are allowed per “district” because they fear liquor stored on every corner. It isn’t illegal for grocery stores to sell but the cost of getting one of the limited licenses is too much. It’s like taxi medallions.
California ballots are crowded with every office you could think of and numerous propositions. They send out the sample ballot which includes summaries, pro/con arguments and the full text. I always voted no if I could understand the text.
Virginia doesn’t have many things on the ballot. This year only has a single entry for House of Representatives.
It’s one of the reasons government in Cali sucks. Democracy is the worst.
Whycome you no like the mob?
It’s fickle, emotional, and revolting.
Plus, it’s full of people.
They won’t live and let live?
DAMNIT! Now I have that Paul McCartney song stuck in my head…
Live and Let Die?
*explosion*
*silhouette of a leggy lady with a gun*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b07Z_qfchFk
*gives in and cries*
::Credits for Live And Let Die::
“Introducing Jane Seymour”
I had no idea.
BTW, the booklet I received has 111 pages. How much did that cost to send to every voter residence in the state?
111 pages is a book, not a booklet.
Lol.
I got that book last week and shitcanned it. I wasn’t planning on voting, but lowering income tax rates sounds like a good reason to go.
Thanks, robc!
Plus wine in grocery stores! This is the most important one for my wife.
That’s a weird one. Coscto started selling alcohol in CO a few years back. But most grocery stores still can’t. I don’t if Costco got a carve out, or just said to hell with the law.
Just beer and seltzer in mine. There is a liquor store on the premises, but I don’t think Costco runs it.
Interesting. The one we usually go to is in Gypsum. They used to have a separate liquor store on the premises. But a few years back, all the booze was inside Costco.
From what I can tell, there has been no change in the morals of those who live nearby.
The Costco in Timnath (mine) has beer/wine/liquor, so I guess they have a liquor license. As opposed to most groceries, that just have a beer license. Basically, the change puts wine in the beer category. So if you have a beer license currently, you can sell wine too.
I remember when it was 3.2 beer or whatever that was in groceries.
wine in grocery stores
A topic dear to my heart. I don’t drink, but our regulations are a source of endless amusement.
Behold the hot mess of NJ liquor regulations
Of course, if you are fortunate enough to live 2 miles from the NY state border, you can just drive up there and load up on food and adult beverages AT THE SAME TIME!!! But it’s NY, so there’s a 5-cent deposit on bottled soda, so need to go back to NJ to get those mixers, so much for one-stop shopping… Oh, fuck it. I’m glad I quit drinking.
Still prefer NJ to going to the state PA beer distributor…
I had a consulting gig working on an implementation of a billing/inventory system for Seagram’s in 1989. That was one of the things that set me on a path which eventually led here. There were at the time 31 distinct regulatory profiles for the 50 states, and one of the fun tasks was implementing a framework to handle the specific logic required for each jurisdiction. None of it made any sense, and it sure did open my eyes.
This is putting me down a path to look into the convoluted history of Texas blue laws. They started in 1863, whereabouts. Which party pushed them? Why are they still going? Possible nice article. Unless Neph beat me to it.
Generally they’re Baptist and Bootlegger coalitions that pushed the blue laws… for “common decency”. First article I believe I had published on the site here was about random blue laws dealing with beer. They’re still going because no one makes a big deal about repealing laws.
I’m not defending the current state of PA beer and liquor laws, but there has been a marked improvement in the last 10 years.
I can buy 6-12 beers at a purchase in most grocery stores, bulk break up beer at buy singles to 12 packs at the beer distributor, and find beer at most convenience stores.
It also opened up the bar/restaurant exclusion to buying six packs.
They are all work arounds the existing shittly laws, however.
So less shitty but still shitty.
I saw some talk of putting a constitutional amendment out to privatize the liquor stores.
The downside of using the constitutional amendment process to rein the governor in over the Lil Rona Panic…. it set the precedent that if the governor won’t go along with what the legislature wants, the legislature just goes the constitutional amendment route.
No doubt. Wolf would never entertain anything that would reduce union membership, so privatizing the LCB stores was bound to be stillborn.
You’d think the place was influenced by Quakers.
New Jersey has also decided to kneecap the breweries in the state. At least one is suing over it.
One of the few things I miss about that place – BYOB restaurants. Many small restaurants decide not to deal with all the hassle and let the diners bring in their own adult beverages.
Also no GD “safety” inspections on automobiles anymore.
Otherwise, yes, not much good to say about the NJ regulatory state.
Iowa used to have state run liquor stores. That was where you had to go buy wine. Beer could be bought anywhere. So the law basically said booze was beer or liquor.
The changed the law to say that booze was liquor, wine, and beer. This was part of allowing retailers to sell wine.
A few years passed before someone noticed that the “open container” law still said you were prohibited from having open containers of liquor or beer in a moving vehicle. Thus is was legal to have open wine bottles in the car. Presumably anyone by the driver could be sipping champagne as you cruised down the road.
The legislature eventually fixed that gap.
State run liquor stores disappeared a long time ago. Good ridance.
Good to hear. I grew up in Sioux City, right on the Iowa, South Dakota, Nebraska border. The cops periodically made bank by stopping cars with Iowa plates coming back over the River from (usually) Nebraska or South Dakota. The state run stores were dingy and dismal, and kept short hours.
Me neither. Got better things to do in True Blue Duloot.
It would be interesting to know if the passage rate of ballot initiatives has increased in CO since the legalization of MJ, with the “Yes” votes being essentially “Sure, dude! Like, whatevs!”/easy stoner joke
124: Increase Allowable Liquor Store Locations.
Mass has a somewhat similar ballot question but, of course, it’s more complicated:
https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_3,_Changes_to_Alcohol_Retail_Licensing_Initiative_(2022)
It looks like alcohol store owners vs. retail corporations.
I’m torn on this one – there is no good guy here.
and we have this bit of utter class envy:
https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_Tax_on_Income_Above_$1_Million_for_Education_and_Transportation_Amendment_(2022)
I can’t even with that envious bullshit (and the fantasy of ” dedicate revenue to education and transportation purposes” – money is fungible, you fools).
People will be shocked, shocked, when high earners choose to relocate an hour north to tax-free New Hampshire (or just head to FL).
I was about to joke that Question 1A would just automatically give all these rich people Florida residency.
I’ve seen the advertisements for it on one of the TVs at the gym. Barf.
Incremental progress. The retail market will gain power and strength from that. Later, all limits will come off as the state “market” shrinks. That’s a yes.
Serious question: Why Yes on this incremental progress, but No on the Colorado psychedelics incremental progress?
Damn, I was expecting more of a rally in the stock market before it dropped again. One day ain’t much of nuthin’.
Maybe the market is signaling its disapproval of the happenings in Europe.
As mentioned, the downside to using Schwab for both my checking and investment accounts is that I see the latter when I go to look at the former.
I don’t wanna look.
I’ve been warned out of checking by the daily notices that my Intelligent Profile has tax loss harvested and been rebalanced almost every day for the past week.
At least I won’t need to worry about capital gains for the next couple of years…
After the nuclear war will any of these matter besides the bingo?
At least we’ll still have tic-tac-toe.
Would you like to play a game?
The only winning move is not to play.
That’s not a winning move, just a non-losing one.
Since playing results in either a loss or a draw, non-losing is as good as winning.
Someone, I am sure, will tell me why I should vote YES, but I doubt I will.
It’s the classic “pushing in the right direction via carveout” method. It’s a bad tactic and should be voted down simply because of its manipulative nature.
+1 Davy Crockett’s Sockdolager
I would be inclined to vote YES on this one (lapsed Catholic here with nostalgia for the useful bits):
Amendment F: Changes to Charitable Gaming Operations.
Currently nonprofits must exist for 5 years before applying for a Bingo license, plus all workers must be volunteers. Both would change, the former would be reduced to 3 years and they could pay their workers.
Better would be removal of license requirements, however.
Removal of.licencing is extreme right wing authoritarianism
Only fascists do that shit.
Fascists and French Policemen
I don’t think I’ve ever watched that in its theater aspect ratio.
That was when widescreen was WIDEscreen.
Cinemascope
Back in the good old days.
Cinerama!
*sigh* October 15 approaches, which means it’s crunch time for taxes. Goodbye, filing extension. It was nice while it lasted.
You pay taxes? How unlibertarian
Women’s prisons aren’t as much fun as those “documentaries” would lead you to believe.
Women’s prisons aren’t as much fun as those “documentaries” would lead you to believe.
Oooh! – when is your article dropping? I love a good first person narrative! /ducks
True!
https://www.pennlive.com/crime/2022/09/14-officers-charged-in-violent-attack-coverup-at-nj-womens-prison.html
myself I would rather go to women’s prison than men’s/.
In some states you get to choose.
There’s a lot of that going around. 🙄
Technically she already paid*, just has to file the paperwork.
*I assume she paid.
Yes and no. I am self-employed so I have to file a schedule C, on which paper I may or may not have turned a profit nudgenudgewinkwink.
I was on my 56th delivery when I drove my car into the bridge abutment?
If a ballot measure raises or lowers state income tax rates, it must include a table showing how it affects filers in different income categories. Useful, but nah, still voting NO.
Something similar is required in NH for SB2 towns when the town-wide vote on spending articles happens. The town has to print up what happens to your property taxes. I like it because if I see something raises my taxes, I vote no.
Inflation fighter
“I came of age and studied economics in the 1970s and I remember what that terrible period was like,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told a House subcommittee last year. “No one wants to see that happen again.”
*guffaws, slaps knee*
Yellen’s an idiot. Powell is forcing the rate hikes, not her.
The market is forcing the rate hikes. Inflation risk will do that. Powell at least is not trying to fight the market too much. Yet.
Robert Reich does not agree.
So Reich wants to see the 70s stagflation recurr?
Who the fuck knows what a retard really wants, other than cake?
It is already recurring. We are in a recession regardless of what the media assholes are saying. Inflation is worse than I have ever seen it (according to FedGov 1980s formula).
They can narrative all they want, but EVERYTHING is more expensive, mostly by 15-20%, and nobody’s gotten a raise to offset it. But who you gonna believe, them or your lyin’ eyes?
HR explained in a video today that “compensation is not based on what it costs to buy things” instead “compensation is based on average labor costs”.
Translation, you are fucked again for the second year in a row.
How nice of them to clarify.
The first question in every townhall-type forum is “What about inflation?”. Every answer is waffling and dodging.
Today was actually the most direct response so far.
Confirmed my belief that attrition is not bad yet, so fuck off.
We’re pretty much in the same boat. My view is that HR has their head in the sand regarding how they want compensation to work. And there are too many of those people trying to justify their continued employment.
And to breed further resentment, executive compensation has been pegged at 11 despite results or any other reason execs and HR have offered for why the folks in the weeds aren’t getting pay raises.
Our townhalls have been similar to yours, kinnath.
First inflation was handwaved away. Then it was called “transitory”. Then they acknowledged, but did little about it. Now they have gone back to being crabby and saying it will go away next year.
*sigh*
Yeah…I wouldn’t bet on that.
Corporate greed, not wages, is behind inflation. It’s time for price controls
Apparently yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcR_wdAMkOs
Greed? Yeah, that must be why the stock market soared this quarter.
Ah, the 3iq Reich.
“When his controls were lifted”
Like the gold standard?
Robert Reich does not agree.,/em>
It will definitely work this time!
I wish people would stop dropping meetings at the end of my workday.
tell them to pick them back up and go away
I can’t.
Schedule a standing “meeting” for the last hour of your day.
I had something on my calendar, it didn’t help.
Institute a dress code. Make them pay dearly.
It’s with management. I’m not in a position for shenanigans.
A benefit of public transit was I could tell management I had to catch my train unless someone was willing to drive me home.
*sniffles*
I am home.
Yea. WFH means I can’t use that excuse anymore.
I go into the office one day a week…I very much like WFH.
How in the hell are specific tax issues like the Gold Star Exemption even Constitutional material? That seems a case of misplacing it. I’d still vote no, but if your Constitution is getting into nitty-gritty items like specific tax exemptions, your Constitution is working too damn hard and has been badly repurposed already.
Voting bread and circuses…
Ditto for the bingo question. Why is that a constitutional question and not a law question?
Because some states like to put every damn detail in their constitution, looking at you California even though Alabama’s is the longest.
Thanks to all who responded to my Medicare question in the morning links comments.
Next step will be talking to my company benefits center.
good luck
Aargh!!! 🤬😡😤 Accrued vacation hours didn’t update in the timekeeping system last pay period, and I’ve been after our PEO to fix it for almost two weeks. This week’s payroll just finished processing, and lo and behold, vacation hours updated in the timekeeping system…
… exactly one pay period’s worth short. ::beats head on desk::
That’s a flaying offense.
NEVER @#$& with people’s pay or their time off. Lesson #1 of people management.
^^^
Some animals deserve to not get robbed?