RE: [alfa] CA Bill # AB2683

[Jon Pike <jhpike@xxxxxxx>]

> Biba, my advice would be to go with the "low use" argument.  The whole
> financial impact argument won't gain a lot of sympathy when you're talking
> about the financial impact on wealthy owners.
>
>  
>
> > > True, the temptation was to end with, "So if you want to 
> > > really piss off a small but very vocal group which varies 
> > > from the very poor to the very rich..."
> >    
> Again, who cares, it's such a small group as to not affect the emissions
> significantly, therefore it shouldn't affect the votes in a likewise
> manner...
>
> My .02,
>
> bs
I kinda agree that "Low Use", low number, and related low quantity of 
smog is the most saleable point.. 
As a kicker, given them the idea of the saving of all that money/effort 
that it would cost to track, cite, mail and process test requests and 
results, etc..  and how Great of a Politician they could be in Saving 
the taxpayers all that Money and excess Government, that the (fill in 
the opposing Party) built up over the Years..  (ahem)

If you can't get a Pol's attention with a little self interest,  they're 
not a Pol!

Jon
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided