Tuesday, April 28, 2009

1F, the only necessary "yes"

This measure 1F is the only necessary "yes" vote for this May 19th election. The sad thing is that Politicians need a measure to keep themselves from a pay increase, even when in spending is in the deficit. Every election, there are pamphlets to read before voting for politicians, or for policies. I find it sad that the way our information for a clear understanding before voting is presented in very clever and sneaky way that, in some measures, can be confusing because of the rhetoric. I would like you to directly reference this article to the "Special Election" for May 19, 2009 and urge you to read the language very carefully before marking your box.

The measures for this election are for measures 1A through 1F. The first 5 measures lay out a proposition for borrowed money (from future taxes) to be distributed to possible causes like homelessness or education. These are per voter's preference. In reading the language, it is very clear that a "yes" is for more future spending, and a "no" would be a vote to work within the current budget. A yes is per discretion of the voter.

However, at the end of the list is measure 1F. The most interesting thing to me is the presentation of measure 1F. If voted in, this measure would amend a current right of our Elected Officials from being able to give themselves raises in times of recession. This seems fair, since business owners know that money in means good pay. If there is no money coming in, it affects their take-home pay. They can't give a raise with money that doesn't exist. They know that something's gotta change, but in the meantime, they get no increase in their own take home pay. So, a "yes" means no raises for politicians in a budget deficit year. This allows the politicians to be directly affected by how they plan the budget. A "no" means to allow the current practice of Politicians being able to receive a raise, even when monies are not available to do so. It doesn't make sense that politicians who are working for the community and the betterment of those they serve to require these measures to manage their integrity and responsibility. However, the reality is that unlimited power must not be given to any people, including elected officials.

I am not saying that there are actually those who are representing our State and/or government that would take advantage of their position and use their power to rise above social climates that are difficult. However, if there might be some of our State or National Representatives that would actually allot themselves a monetary raise even when funds are not available to do so, it is necessary to mandate observation of current fiscal situation, and allow those who are running the system to actually feel the real current situation. Since there IS a measure (1F) that allows us as "the people" to vote in our policies, then it must be addressed. By this I mean, maintaining a logical budget works with what monies that are actually available to spend, not to spend what isn't there.

Of all the measures for May 19th's election, the only truly necessary yes is for measure 1F. Since this measure is being presented, it is necessary to check the power and flow of the system mandating our community, so those who are representing "the people" can not live with impunity from any current social environments.

Given the pure nature of man, when given the opportunity to put into writing a policy that would not allow any person to be immune to reality of overall social situations because of social or political position of authority, it must be taken by every individual to participate by voting. Absolutely I would do everything in my vote to ensure fairness in an unfair world, which includes personal fiscal responsibility of individuals and those spending the money of "the people".

The only necessary yes, 1F. Even if passing 1F doesn't ensure that politicians will actually follow their own budget and pay themselves accordingly, the voice of "the people" will reverberate desire of "the people" to maintain fairness in spending.

1F is the only necessary YES

No comments: