i took the first one as a good thing.
FOR
This amendment, would establish a Joint Budget Commission and would do what has not been done before - put both the budget and revenue estimates together in one document. In addition to the annual budget, it will also require the Commission to create a long-term financial outlook.
AGAINST
Current general law, which prescribes requirements for each department and agency of state government to submit a planning document and supporting budget request, is adequate and an additional task force is not needed.
What Your Vote Means:
YES
If approved by voters, Amendment #1 would establish a long-range budget-planning process, putting both budget and revenue estimates together in one document. It would create a Government Efficiency Task Force (appointed every four years by the Governor, Senate President and Speaker of the House) to seek input from the public, executive and judicial branches and create a long-range financial plan.
NO
If Amendment #1 is not approved by voters, the current laws as set by Section 19 of Article III of the State Constitution will remain in place as originally proposed by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission and approved by the voters in 1992.
Financial Impact:
There is not a direct financial impact on state or local government.
-----
the tobacco one will take a portion of the big settlement that the states made with tobacco companies and appropriate a percentage of it towards educating minors about the dangers of smoking. (the arguement being that it will save costs of health care subsidies in the long run)
no taxes involved there.
whether or not THAT is a state responsibility is up to the voter...but it is not a tax based proposal.
anywho...
no new taxes this time around.
