Barry Hess for Governor - Propositions

Hess For Governor's Guide to the Propositions

Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:43:08 -0400

Yes on 101

No on 104

No on 106

No on 107-argument 1

No on 107-argument 2

No on Prop 107 - argument 2 of 2

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:05:37 -0500

Prop. 107, among its many components, would cancel existing and prevent future domestic partnership benefits offered by private sector employers. This is a violation of the fundamental rights of private property, freedom of association and is an unwarranted intrusion of government into the private contracts between employers and employees. The government has neither the right nor authority to regulate these benefits in the private sector.

Prop. 107 is promoted as “protecting” the sanctity and tradition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Their argument is flawed and addressed in our Prop. 107 (argument 1). Other groups protest 107 for removing current and prohibiting future domestic partnership benefits for employees of the State and its political subdivisions. Their argument is also flawed but is irrelevant to this discussion. It is within the rights of the people to determine what their government does.

No on Prop 107 - argument 1 of 2

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:20:11 -0500

I am a Christian and I cannot support the proposition precisely because I am. I have to stand by doing the 'right' thing and I refuse to allow Caesar (Government--Man's Law) to have anything to do with God's holy institution. By allowing government to be the judge and to set down the 'rules' regarding inter-personal relationships, you end up removing God himself. If the non-believers who came up with this atrocious proposal were actually Christian and respecters of God's law--they would instead have proposed that we end government licensure of marriage altogether. I don't believe the authors were actually Christians, I believe they are doing the work of the Enemy. This amendment could only be forwarded by people who simply want to force their will into the private lives of others. While I confess that I do not understand or support the whole 'gay' thing this is aimed at, I will not sully my holy God by kidding myself into thinking He wants the corruption of government involved in what is His alone.

Therefore, as a true Christian who knows that God's a big guy who can and will take care of what's his--I have to refuse any support what-so-ever. I support holy marriage, not state marriage.

No on Prop 106

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:53:52 -0500

Prop. 106 would amend the Arizona Constitution to transfer a major public policy power to an appointed board and “earmark” revenue outside of the budgeting process. I strongly encourage voters to reject Prop. 106.

Prop. 106 would create a seven member Board of Trustees, appointed by the Governor, with authority over 9.3 million acres of state trust and other lands, and having the authority to transfer state trust land monies to a new Trust Land Management Fund.

Prop. 106 will earmark revenues outside the budgeting process creating a dedicated funding mechanism. Dedicated funding mechanisms damage the state's ability to do comprehensive budgeting and prevents any readjusting of budget priorities over time. I oppose creating an automatic, earmarked budget for any program.

No on Prop 104

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:52:51 -0500

Prop. 104 would allow cities and towns to issue additional debt, up to 20 percent of taxable property values, for public safety and transportation facilities. Currently, Arizona taxing authorities are allowed to issue debt up to 6 percent of taxable property values, with the exception that cities and towns are allowed to issue additional debt up to 20 percent of taxable value for water, light, and sewer facilities, and to acquire land for the purposes of creating parks and open spaces. The new debt capacity under Prop. 104 would allow total debt capacity for public safety and transportation facilities to increase to 26 percent of taxable value. Higher debt levels may lead to higher debt service, which comes out of secondary (uncapped) property taxes. Passage of this proposition will allow cities to spend even more money backed by bonds which will be repaid through increased property taxes. I strongly oppose the additional debt limit and the increased taxing and spending that can and will necessarily follow.

Yes on Prop 103

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:50:31 -0500

Prop. 103 would have the effect of declaring English to be the official language of the State of Arizona, requiring all official action to be conducted in English, requiring government to preserve, protect and enhance English as the official language, prohibiting, discrimination against persons using English, and permitting private lawsuits to enforce the official English amendment to the Arizona Constitution. Prop. 103 is “Official English” and not “English Only”. Prop. 103 would have no effect on private persons or businesses.

As Prop. 103 does not infringe on the rights of individuals and it is also the right of the people to control their government, and the assimilation of immigrants into the greatest experiment in the governance of a people is proper; it is right and reasonable for the government of the people to be conducted in a common language.