Propositions 1A - 1F, Request for comments

[bemildred]

I will be candid and say they look kind of bizarre to me, but I don't have the text yet, just the voters sample ballot. Could we have a civil discussion about whether or not we should vote for these? If anyone has an opinion, I'd appreciate you taking the time to express it.

[itsrobert]

1. After getting my $554 vehicle registration renewal fee

I voted NO on everything.

[stopbush]

5. Thanks for voting against 1B which would have restored the billions cut out

of the public school budgets this year.

My kids will send you a thank you note as their classes go from 22 students per class to 50 students per class.

[Joe Bacon]

48. Look at Arnold's track record!

All he has done is lie to us. 1A will give him the power to cut whatever he wants. I fully expect him to implement deep cuts to education even if these gimmicks pass! How can we trust him to keep his word on 1B? I don't trust him and that is why I will vote NO on all these propositions!

[Kerrytravelers]

6. This is the second thread in which you're stated how much your Vehicle Registration renewal fee is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=141x33926

I understand you're not pleased with the amount. However, I'm not sure letting that cloud your judgement on all the tax issues when we have such a financial mess in this state is entirely wise. This is the thinking that drove so many to participate in the recalling of Gov. Davis, who was in the process of suing Enron for bilking the State of California, and instead vote in Arnold, who was funded by Enron. The voters of this state who weren't paying attention gave us a "leader" who didn't solve any of the financial problems he oh, so *sincerely* promised he would work on. Instead, he went after unions and those who serve the most vulnerable (teachers, nurses, police, firemen, etc.) And, because the voters of this state didn't jump up and down loud enough, the Republicans refused to give any and held up our budget with their plan to protect the millionaires and screw the little guy. So... here we are. I am afraid many voters this year will just vote straight no without looking outside their own personal frustration to the bigger picture. I'm sorry. I don't mean to pick on you directly, but I just wish you'd looked past your Vehicle Renewal fee amount.

Quite frankly, I am happy to pay more taxes if those less fortunate than me can get a hand and an education. And no, I'm not rich. I'm a teacher.

[itsrobert]

10. I was one of the first hit with the Renewal fee

Most Californians will not learn how much their renewal fee is until well well after this election. This is what the politicians are counting on. I know I can't afford more taxes. If these measures pass, I'm going to have to sell my truck and makes cuts in my family budget.

[Kerrytravelers]

12. I've received my Vehicle Renewal fee.

Your renewal fee comes based on when you bought your car. Are we talking about the same thing here?


I can't comment on selling your truck and finances, as I have absoltely no first-hand knowledge of your income and responsibilities. However, if you really think you're being overtaxed, perhaps you might want to have your taxes (and that includes back taxes) looked at my a professional. You may be overpaying.

[stopwastingmymoney]

47. renewal fee

I just got mine and it's only 122.00

What are you driving?

[chimpyisstillsatan]

49. welcome to the Reagan Revolution's fallout -NT

[CreekDog]

57. you think those highways you drive on don't cost $554 to maintain?

:eyes:

[truedelphi]

41. What kind of truck or car was this $ 554 reg fee for?

I was supposed to pay like $ 110 in March, couldn't afford it. And doubt I'll have it before the increase. My car is a 1992 Toyota sedan. Is it gonna triple?

[LeftyMom]

53. What the heck kind of car is that for?

Mine is $72. :shrug:

[stopbush]

2. Check out the online voter guide here:

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop1a-title-sum.htm

Click on the initiative in the left hand column, then, click on "Analysis" and "Arguments & Rebuttal" above the text of the initiative. You can usually tell whether or not to vote for the initiative by who supports it and who's against it. Ex: if the Chamber of Commerce is against it, I'm usually for it.

[Kerrytravelers]

7. Thanks for the link. I've bookmarked for later. ((nft))

[bemildred]

11. Thank you. nt

[OffWithTheirHeads]

3. Seems to me that our fearless leaders are trying to divert

revenues that are supposed to be helping people (Poor people) into the general fund so they can piss it away on benefits for rich people.

For the record, 1. I am not poor. I'm a Union Sheet Metal Worker and get paid what most in this country would consider to be a fair wage. As a resident of Silicon Valley,(really expensive to live in) I get by but not much else.

2. I am seeing attempts to raise taxes on everything from cigarettes to shopping bags in an attempt to procure more revenue for the state. All of these affect the people at the lower end of the economic scale disproportional and I am against all of them. One of the latest, a new "fee" on alcohol. Do you really think a $0.10 "fee" really matters to the guy making over 250K per year that is drinking Chateau Lafitte? Do you think the guy making 250K+ really cares that his grocery bag will now cost $0.25? Hell no! But it really affects the guy whose job(and more and more people are having to take these jobs) consists of asking "would you like Fries with that?"

I don't know but it seems to me that most of the people who legislate live in an economic strata that makes them un able to relate to those who actually work for a living and they actually think that these "fees" don't amount to much. Also, imposing these "fees" will raise lots of revenue without really affecting their lifestyles but will make sure that they don't have to impose higher taxes on the people who live in their strata.

The fact is that the people who live in their strata SHOULD be taxed at higher rates than the rest of us because they dis proportionally use the commons to ship their goods on our roads, use our police force to protect them, use the resources that we all provide to help them make a profit but those in power do not have the guts to distribute the costs proportionally. They would much rather impose "fees' on the poor.

Fuck em, I'm voting no on everything but the pay raise canceled in a down year.

[stopbush]

4. So, you're voting against 1B which would restore the billions of $s in cuts made to the schools

this year?

PROPOSITION
1B EDUCATION FUNDING. PAYMENT PLAN.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY
EDUCATION FUNDING. PAYMENT PLAN.

Requires supplemental payments to local school districts and community colleges to address recent budget cuts.
Annual payments begin in 2011–12.
Payments are funded from the state’s Budget Stabilization Fund until the total amount has been paid.
Payments to local school districts will be allocated in proportion to average daily attendance and may be used for classroom instruction, textbooks and other local educational programs.


Nice. There's not even an opposition position against this Prop in the voter guide and you're voting "no" because????

My two kids, their laid-off teachers and I thank you for making an informed vote. Sheesh!

[Peace Patriot]

33. The bought-and-paid-for politicians have been trying to get their hands on

voter-designated education funds--that can only be spent on schools--for many years. 1B looks to me like a ploy to start diverting those funds to the General Fund. Please explain to me how this will not happen.

I believe that this financial crisis has been deliberately induced, to accomplish just such goals as this--overriding the will of the voters, and diverting funds that we have designated and protected for education, to other purposes, where it will get sucked out of the General Fund and never go back to schools again. 1B REALLY looks to me like a clever ploy to do this. It offers a temporary sop to the schools IN EXCHANGE FOR future diversion of strictly mandated education funds into the General Fund.

That is why I--who have NEVER VOTED AGAINST SCHOOL FUNDING, EVER--am seriously considering a NO vote. I feel the same way about voter-designated funds for the mentally ill. They are trying break open these funds and use them for other purposes. And they are LYING about their intentions. I would say, don't be fooled by the temporary payouts. Look to the long term picture, and fate of these funds. Read the initiative skeptically, considering what really goes on in Sacramento, esp. with this governor.

I am willing to hear arguments, and be convinced otherwise, but I've been a Californian all my life, and have voted in EVERY election for 40+ years, on EVERY initiative, over the years. And I smell a rat.

[krabigirl]

52. I agree with you. 1B smells funny.

I always vote for school funding bills, but the wording of this one implies that money is moving from the schools to the general fund. I don't trust Arnold to help the schools one bit, and since these are his props, I won't be voting for them.

[padia]

36. the only reason to vote for "1B"

is a matter of principal. The message that we support education is important, but I am not willing to swallow the poison of 1A which has to pass if 1B is to be enacted. Also if C,D& E are passed it is going to strain the resources of the schools. After reading the analysis of these propositions it seems like a big shell game with no real way to enforce these measures. Betting that the lottery will sell more tickets is risky & I am not okay with them already borrowing money before we pass the measure let alone before they know if it will be more profitable. Also they are going to buy bonds which means my daughter who is in the 2nd grade has a better chance of paying off student loans from a doctoral program before CA pays off this debt & lets not forget the loan is only 1/2 of the amount paid for when all is said and done we pay 100%. I use we loosely because I could be dead of natural causes in 30 years (I aspire to live past 76 but you never know). 1st 5 does lots of pre-screening and preschool programs that if they don't do schools will have to absorb the consequences of and there is already a component for them to put excess funds back into the general fund. Also with 1D there is the fox watching the hen house piece with the county accounting officer that I have a problem with. As for 1E, taking money from mental health programs is not a good idea.

[Kerrytravelers]

8. This tax on the poor came because we Californians didn't jump up and down loud enough and the

Republicans dug their heels in to protect the millionaires and held up the budget.

The state is in a mess. No matter how pissed we are at the situation, it is worth reading the ballot initiatives and thinking about what is better for everyone to move past this and get our collective selves back together.

Please reconsider and read the iniatives.

[DBoon]

32. Note that the one tax cut that did get passed benefited large corporations

Intel, etc. who are based in CA

The Republicans required this as a concession to breaking the budget deadlock

Not suprising they would hold the budget hostage to benefit the wealthiest tax payers

BTW, I'd love to see a ballot initiative to roll those cuts back

[itsrobert]

9. Thanks. These taxes place a biigger burden on the midde class and lower wage earners

I'm not voting for it.

[truedelphi]

42. I very much feel the way that you do. I don't understand why the rich are left alone

Cigarette smokers are penalized, but those who use Glade Air Fresheners, Lysol Disinfectants, etc and will cause their own deaths plus cancer for their kids are allowed to continue to buy this crap and let the land fills fill up with the empty containers.

And so what if a working person wants a drink - why should they pay more?

We really need to stop making those who have so little pay the most. We need what's called a Progressive Tax System, in most countries. Here the poor pay and pay and pay.

[bemildred]

13. State Democrats decline to endorse 3 of 6 ballot measures

Reporting from Sacramento -- Efforts by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders to win voter approval of six budget measures on the May 19 ballot grew more difficult Sunday when a sharply split state Democratic Party declined to back three of them.

The mixed verdict by more than 1,200 delegates to a state party convention came after a nasty floor fight over the grim menu of proposed solutions to California's severe budget crisis.

"We've got all kinds of divisions," Art Pulaski, leader of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, said of the fractures among unions that drove the party's internal rift. "It's not unusual for us."

Republicans, too, are split on Propositions 1A through 1F. The state Republican Party has broken with Schwarzenegger, its standard-bearer, and begun fighting the measures.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dems27-2009apr27,0,4714993.story

[Kerrytravelers]

14. It is all such a mess.

I plan on setting aside a serious block of time and reading through each one carefully.

[bemildred]

15. Yeah. The thing that bothers me is I see no light at the end of the tunnel.

This is just a patch job, papering things over, trying to bullshit our way a bit farther down the road. And it REALLY pisses me off the way they force us to choose among various lousy options, screw schools, screw the sick, screw consumers, screw the environment, anything but screw the wealthy or the corporations, who have been parasitizing the state since it's founding.

[Kerrytravelers]

16. The only out I see is voting out some of these Republicans.

There was an earlier thread on DU that cited sources saying that in several districts, Republican registrations are down, while Democratic registrations are up. And remember, in '08, several counties that had always been red, or red for decades, went blue. And Orange Country was the closest it has been for a very long time. So, I can only hope that in the next election cycle, we see Republicans outed and Democrats voted in.

I'm hoping that the people of California have been paying attention to how these initatives came to be. It was because the Republicans refused to work with the Democrats at all. And the Democrats had been compromising and extending the proverbial olive branch. The California Republicans are much like the Republicans in Washington DC- the party of NO!

If Obama were to come to California and speak on this, I'm betting that enough voters would vote for the Democrats and this mess would begin to be fixed. Also, I'm thinking that because Arnold has taken a new approach, kinda, and has become what many see as a moderate, this will ease the transition in the minds of voters to elect a Democratic Governor. It's been a while since we had a Democrat in the Governor's Office (before Davis, it had been Jerry Brown.)

In the meantime, I will likely vote for some of this to pass, simply to get us started on the road to recovery in the event that I am totally wrong and no seats turn over to us.

[bemildred]

17. That's the first thing, so they cannot stonewall reform. nt

[bananas]

22. I read that Clear Channel is trying to get-out-the-vote for Republicans and conservatives

I think it was a post on DU, talk shows like Jon and Ken.

edit: Oh, the thread is right here:
"ALL CALIFORNIA DEMS: Please VOTE on May 19. Clear Channel has declared war on Unions."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=141x34094

edit: Now I'm reading the xpost in GD and thinking WTF?

[Auggie]

24. Agree. Though I'm leaning towards no on everything...

get some of these pukes out of office and try again for real reform.

Here is the thread about puke registration: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=141x33941

[slackmaster]

18. My old friend Pete recommends YES NO NO YES YES NO

For his thoughtful analysis please see http://www.peterates.com/index.shtml

[bananas]

19. Ballotpedia and SmartVoter are useful

Ballotpedia seems useful, don't know if it's biased or not:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_2009_ballot_propositions

Smart Voter is from the League of Women Voters,
will show you where to vote, sample ballot, etc:
http://www.smartvoter.org/

[bananas]

20. Courage Campaign: No on 1A, 1C, 1D, 1E, and 1F; No position on 1B

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/EndorsementVote
http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/content/CourageStaffRecs/

* A "No" vote on Prop 1A will stop a spending cap that will force long-term cuts to core programs such as schools and health care.
* A "No" vote on Prop 1C will stop Arnold Schwarzenegger from throwing our unpredictable lottery revenues to
the derivatives market on Wall Street.
* A "No" vote on Props 1D and 1E will protect the programs for children under age 5 and the mentally ill that voters previously approved.
* A "No" vote on Prop 1F rejects a meaningless right-wing attack on our public officials.

For more in-depth information on the Courage Campaign's staff recommendations, please read our full recommendation here.

[Athletic Grrl]

31. IB only passes

Contingent on passage of 1A. As a student of a CC, believe me, they need the money. Professor said last week that tuition could triple (to $60/unit, which is ridiculous for a CC) if this thing doesn't pass.

[katty]

43. thx for this!

[bananas]

21. Calitics: It's All About Prop 1C Now

http://www.calitics.com/diary/8671/its-all-about-prop-1c-now

It's All About Prop 1C Now
by: Robert Cruickshank
Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:00:00 AM PDT

As we enter the final weeks before the May 19 special election, the often blurry picture of the six initiatives and the broader politics surrounding them is coming into focus. Yesterday's rejection of Propositions 1A, 1D and 1E by the California Democratic Party convention should not be surprising for two reasons:

1. Despite the rhetoric, none of these propositions will have a meaningful impact on the immediate budget mess. Prop 1A of course has no effect at all on revenues until 2011. Props 1D and 1E are drops in the bucket, especially considering that at minimum there is an $8 billion budget hole no matter what happens on May 19
2. Those three propositions were the most objectionable and obviously ridiculous proposals of the six. A spending cap is a huge price to pay, and Prop 1A doesn't really offer much in return. As several folks eloquently explained on the convention floor, including Paul Hogarth, Props 1D and 1E are an indefensible attack on the most vulnerable and needy Californians. Democrats showed that they still had souls by rejecting those two measures.

With the likely rejection by voters of Prop 1A, Prop 1B is rendered moot even if it is approved (CTA looks like it will lose its multi-billion dollar gamble) and the irrelevancy of Abel Maldonado's Prop 1F, that leaves Proposition 1C as the only thing about the May 19 election that has any suspense left to it. The February budget deal assumed $5 billion would be brought in from Prop 1C - which is optimistic at best but does mean that of all six propositions, only Prop 1C really matters over the near term.

Along with the rest of the Calitics Editorial Board I oppose Prop 1C - it's a payday loan that is likely to leave the state on the hook for at least $2 billion out of the general fund when it becomes clear that people aren't about to reverse the trend of buying fewer lottery tickets.

<snip>

[bananas]

23. California Nurses Association opposes ALL of them

I always look for their recommendations: http://www.calnurses.org/legislative_advocacy/cnannoc-voter-guide-for.html

[bemildred]

25. The false promise of Prop. 1A

Even in this season of economic crisis, it's hard not to be optimistic about California's future. Ours is a state bursting with energy and promise, a place populated by innovators and inventors, hardworking families and young dreamers, global enterprises and entrepreneurs. You can see and feel the pulse of possibility from the halls of East L.A. College, where the children of immigrants are balancing jobs and studies to get ahead, to the labs of the Silicon Valley, where the next revolution in technology is being hatched.

Yet, increasingly, the dysfunction of a state capital mired in continual fiscal disarray is threatening to hinder California's ability to thrive. At the very time Washington has embarked on a wholesale rethinking of fiscal policy, Sacramento's leaders are proposing to recycle the same broken policies that have brought the state to a fiscal precipice.

Five years ago, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, with legislative leaders in tow, persuaded Californians to approve his deficit borrowing plan and "rainy-day fund" proposal, promising that the state would tear up its credit cards and never again face debilitating deficits. Then, in five of the next six budgets, the governor and the Legislature adopted deficit spending plans while running up $25 billion in budget debt -- and that was during years when the economy was booming. Along the way, as he complained about the autopilot budgeting that clogs the state's fiscal arteries, Schwarzenegger asked voters to put even more budget strictures into the state Constitution. But he never delivered on his promise to balance the budget.

Now, when the need for fundamental fiscal reform and a credible long-term plan to balance the budget has never been more urgent, the state's political leadership is promoting a new budget proposal -- Proposition 1A. As you might guess, the governor is promising that the ballot measure will free California from ever again facing budget deficits.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-angelides28-2009apr28,0,6390521.story

[bemildred]

26. Yes on Proposition 1F

Proposition 1F is dumb but relatively harmless.

At first glance, it looks like one of those familiar proposals to punish legislators for their irresponsible failure -- year after year -- to reach agreement on a state budget and offer them incentives to do so quickly and on time. But it's not.

There are bills that would do such things. One proposed measure, for instance, would dock legislators' pay for every day a budget is not in place after the legal deadline. Another would bar legislators from accepting campaign contributions until they pass a budget. Whatever you may think of those proposals, you can see that they might pressure legislators to overcome partisan gridlock and agree to a budget deal more quickly.

But Proposition 1F does something else. If passed, it would bar members of the Legislature and statewide officials from receiving pay raises when the state is experiencing a budget shortfall.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-endorse28-2009apr28,0,4149628.story

[Throd]

27. I will vote no on all of them.

[Nailzberg]

28. We could probably balance the budget if we didn't hold special elections every freaking 3 months

I got the sample ballot and the only thing I could think of is "Didn't I just vote?"

[LeftyMom]

30. Seriously.

Maybe that should be the next initiative. NO SPECIAL ELECTIONS. If somebody dies in office appoint somebody of the same party in the interim (or some other reasonable means of finding a replacement) we already hold elections every two years, plus primaries. That's plenty.

[bemildred]

29. Poll: California voters oppose 5 of 6 measures

SACRAMENTO—Just three weeks before California's special election, a poll released Wednesday finds Californians opposed to five of the six ballot measures.

The Field Poll suggests Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislative leaders face a significant hurdle in persuading voters to support their complicated budget plan. The half-dozen measures were the result of a bipartisan budget package to deal with the state's $42 billion shortfall through June 2010.

"It appears that most likely voters are now on the 'No' side on each of the propositions, from 1A through 1E. None of them are getting more than 40 percent support," said Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo. "They each have a long way to go."

Only Proposition 1F, which would prohibit elected state officers from receiving raises during deficit years, was the only measure supported by likely voters, with 71 percent in favor. Less than a quarter were opposed.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_12252823

[bemildred]

34. Jeffrey Scharf, Everybody's Business: California needs real reform

On May 19, California voters will go the polls to vote on five interlocking propositions. These measures labeled 1A to 1E are stop-gaps designed to see the state's finances through the next two years.

The problem, as outlined by the Legislative Analyst's Office, is a $40 billion projected budget shortfall during 2008-09 and 2009-2010. The plan is to close the gap with $15 billion in spending cuts, $12.5 billion in tax increases, $8 billion in federal stimulus funds, $5 billion borrowed from future lottery revenues and $1 billion "re-purposed" from special accounts to the state's general fund. The tax increases, lottery borrowing and re-purposing need voter approval.

Proposition 1A is a convoluted combination of higher taxes and spending restraints. The effects are so uncertain that the legislative analyst's opinion concludes, "The fiscal effects of Proposition 1A are particularly difficult to assess. This is because the measure's effects would depend on a variety of factors that will change over time and cannot be accurately predicted." Why voters should approve a measure that even the legislative analyst cannot decipher is a mystery.

Proposition 1B is similarly incomprehensible. According to the legislative analyst, "Because there is uncertainty over how the Constitution would be interpreted in its current form, it is unknown how Proposition 98 funding would work in the future under current law. As a result, it is difficult to know how this measure (1B) would change the state's finances ... under most situations, however, costs for K-14 education likely would be higher than under current law -- potentially by billions of dollars each year."

http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_12282891

[davidinalameda]

35. my Democratic club didn't endorse any of the measures

I'm voting no on all but maybe C

[bemildred]

37. Proposition 1C - C stands for conniving

Proposition 1C, entitled the "Lottery Modernization Act," should be called the "Public Education Theft Act." The latter description at least gives voters a true indication of the proposition's contents, rather than the distorted title we are forced to live with.

Anyone who reads the fine print in this proposition will quickly determine that Proposition 1C is the latest gimmick for the state to borrow money against future revenues, while depleting current programs of badly needed resources.

The "Lottery Modernization Act" changes the system by allowing the California State Lottery Commission to provide larger prizes and reduce operating expenses. Instead of 84 percent of revenues allocated to prizes (50 percent) and public education (34 percent), the proposal kicks up the two categories to 87 percent of revenues. In short, the changes merely are cosmetic.

Proposition 1C is a thinly veiled attempt for the state to borrow $5 billion of future lottery earnings to help balance the state budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1. The proposition also allows the state to borrow additional lottery profits in future years. Proponents say that the state will replenish the borrowed lottery funds with money from the state budget. What kind of sense does that make?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/06/EDST17FQHU.DTL

[XemaSab]

38. You can't borrow your way out of a hole

n/t

[bemildred]

39. Yeah, and punting it ahead to next year seems to be what got us here.

What we need is a government than can raise revenue to pay as it goes. Ahunld said he was going to fix all this and he did squat, except punt things to next year. Then the economy collapsed, and we get even more bizarre, delusional plans to put it off.

[slackmaster]

40. Four cases of robbing Peter to pay Paul, higher taxes for the working middle class

No real fix to the entrenched problem of unrestrained spending.

I plan to vote NO on all six.

[roody]

44. I am a CTA member and have mixed feelings about it.

They are all fiscally irresponsible. I will definitely vote NO on moving the millionaire tax meant for mental health services to the general fund. I will probably not vote with my union for the first time.

[bemildred]

45. It's a tough question.

My wife is a teacher. I think they are trying to blackmail us, and if we let them get away with it, they'll just do it some more.

[roody]

46. I'll just admit I am voting No on all except maybe the last one.

[diva77]

50. here's a brief analysis of all of them -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=141&topic_id=34094&mesg_id=34399

[krabigirl]

51. No on all of them.

[bemildred]

54. Thank you all for participating.

Democracy in action.

[slackmaster]

55. I was the first person to vote at my polling place this morning

Except possibly the couple who own the house. I was the first walk-in.

Vote early, vote often!

I'm proud to say that I have never failed to vote in any public election, starting with the California primary in 1976 just after I turned 18. The first vote I ever cast was for Jimmy Carter.

[Kerrytravelers]

56. I have to admit, it is now special election day and I have no idea.

Just like most Californians, I am completely lost. I've read them, read various editorials, etc., but I still feel like it is really a lose-lose outcome, no matter what. *sigh*