Voting Sensibly in California's 2006 Election!!! [Here's an accurate look at the Props & Candidates, in California's upcoming Nov election. Don't be fooled by 'Big Media Propaganda'. Take a look below for the real lowdown 'NON-CORPORATE' view, on what these Propositions, and Candidates, are all about.
One thing that's not mentioned much below however is that the Green Party has some good candidates running also, and that of course is always worth taking a look at. Note: If you're filthy rich, you'll probably be voting just the opposite on all the recommendations below, but if you're like the rest of us, its best to stick with sanity. Rick Stevens] Source > http://www.sfbg.com/printable_entry.php?entry_id=1768 State races and propositions Governor PHIL ANGELIDES This race ought to be a lot closer than it is and the fact that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is well ahead in most polls speaks to the poor quality of news media coverage that has allowed the job of governor to be all about expensive campaign commercials and misleading sound bites. The Schwarzenegger camp is trying to smear Phil Angelides as a candidate who just wants to raise taxes, when the Democrat is actually one of the first statewide politicians in years to seriously talk about a more progressive financial policy for California. Yeah, Angelides wants to raise taxes on people like himself and Schwarzenegger and others with millions of dollars in assets and incomes in the seven figures. He wants to bring a little bit of fairness to the way the state raises money. And he wants a stable revenue base that will pay for decent public education, public health, housing, environmental protection, and transportation programs. He's the only Democrat to run for governor in 25 years who actually talks like a Democrat. The very wealthy, the big businesses, and the giant real estate interests aren't paying their fair share of the cost of running California. The individuals and corporations that have reaped tremendous rewards from the Bush tax cuts haven't given a dime of that back to this state. And while Schwarzenegger talks boldly about rebuilding California, somebody at some point is going to have to pay off those bonds and either that will come at the expense of education and other social priorities or taxes will have to go up. Under Angelidess plans, most middle-class Californians would actually get a tax cut: he has, properly, not only proposed higher levies on the very rich but also offered to reduce the burden on ordinary working people. But it's hard to put all of that in a 30-second sound bite. Schwarzenegger has to go and it's important that Democrats, independents, and thinking Republicans help out in the huge, uphill battle to dump him. Work for Angelides, donate to Angelides, vote for Angelides.... It's a turning point for this state, and the stakes are very, very high. Lieutenant governor JOHN GARAMENDI John Garamendi's been kicking around California politics since the 1970s. He's been in the State Assembly and Senate, ran three times for governor, and was the state's first elected insurance commissioner. After a stint as a deputy interior secretary under President Bill Clinton, he came back and was again elected California insurance commissioner in 2002. He claims he's created the best consumer protection agency in the country, and while that's a bit of an overstatement, he's done a decent job. He's never supported single-payer health insurance, but his views are, as they say, evolving he told us he thinks Medicare ought to be extended to everyone. Now perhaps seeing no other suitable office he's running for lieutenant governor. It's probably the end of the line for the 61-year-old rancher, and that's not a bad thing: the California Democratic Party needs some new faces in Sacramento. Garamendi's known as a tough, law-and-order type who strongly supports the death penalty. He told us he would use the lieutenant governor's office as a bully pulpit for education, health care, and environmental reform but he wouldn't even talk about raising taxes. Still, for a centrist Central Valley Democrat, Garamendi's not all bad and he's way, way better than his opponent. The Republican candidate, Tom McClintock, is both a serious candidate and very bad news: he's way ahead of Garamendi in fundraising and has a hardcore conservative GOP base. McClintock supports parental notification for abortions (and opposes choice in general), supports the draconian property rights measure, Proposition 90, and is a die-hard supporter of tax cuts and a foe of most social programs. Vote for Garamendi. Secretary of State DEBRA BOWEN Bruce McPherson, the Republican who got this job after Democrat Kevin Shelley resigned in scandal and disgrace, has been a fairly decent secretary of state. But with the national battle over voting technology, vote counting, and election theft ongoing, California needs an activist crusader in this job; we're strongly supporting Debra Bowen. Bowen, a termed-out state senator, has gone after the manufacturers of voting machines, is demanding accuracy and reliability, and is openly saying that some of this technology is an invitation to fraud. Vote for Bowen. Controller JOHN CHIANG Our first choice for this job was Joe Dunn, a state senator and former consumer lawyer who led the legislature's investigation into the Enron scandal. But John Chiang, a member of the Board of Equalization, beat him in the Democratic primary, and we're willing to endorse him. We're not entirely thrilled with Chiang's campaign though, which is emphasizing a crackdown on the underground economy. The idea is to recover tax dollars lost to illegal activities; he told us in the spring that he wants to go after unlicensed contractors, which seems less than a model progressive standard for solving the state's budget problems. Better he should go after the giant multibillion-dollar corporate tax cheats. Still, his opponent, former Ventura County assemblymember Tony Strickland, is a supply-side tax cutter (and president of the California Club for Growth, which advocates less regulation and less government). It's an easy call; we're with Chiang. Treasurer BILL LOCKYER Bill Lockyer's a disappointment, mostly because he could have been so much more. Aggressive, bright, and ambitious, he could have been an attorney general who put his state office on the map, the way Eliot Spitzer did in New York and like Spitzer, he could have been a serious candidate for governor. Instead he was a mediocre AG, someone who did indeed go after Pacific Gas and Electric and Enron for bilking consumers during the energy crisis but who has never been a strong voice against white-collar crime, monopolies, and illegal trusts. In fact, Lockyer has done absolutely nothing to stop the worst anticompetitive merger of the past few years, the newspaper consolidation that will give Dean Singleton's MediaNews Group control of virtually every daily newspaper in the Bay Area. He's way better than Republican Claude Parrish, so we'll endorse him. If he wants to move up in the future though, he'll have to do more with this office than he did with the last one. Attorney General JERRY BROWN Hmm ... Governor Jerry Brown? Mayor Jerry Brown? Presidential candidate Jerry Brown? Talk-show host Jerry Brown? Which Jerry Brown is running for attorney general and what will he do when he gets there? It's hard to say Brown is one of the most interesting and unpredictable politicians in the country. As a candidate for AG, he's talking about protecting a woman's right to choose and defending stem-cell research, aggressively taking on environmental crimes (something he's always been good on) and enforcing the death penalty, even though he doesn't believe in it. He reluctantly came around to supporting same-sex marriage during the primary. He hasn't said a word about the Bay Area newspaper merger. But there really isn't much choice here: Brown's opponent, state senator Charles Poochigian of Fresno, is antichoice and progun, opposed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's global warming proposals, and is one of the most right-wing candidates on the November ballot. Vote for Brown. Insurance Commissioner CRUZ BUSTAMANTE Like a lot of politicians on the ballot this fall, Cruz Bustamante seems to be looking for a place to park for a few years while he figures out his next move. And we don't see much reason for the insurance companies to be running in fear: Bustamante accepted more than $120,000 in industry money during the primary. Still, hes talking about forcing insurers to cut workers compensation rates when profits are soaring. He supported state senator Sheila Kuehl's single-payer health insurance bill (although he's not making that a big part of his campaign and there's no mention of single-payer on his Web site). The Republican in this race, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Steve Poizner, is against insurance fraud (which means he's willing to help companies be even more aggressive in refusing to pay claims) and wants to get uninsured drivers off the road (but says nothing about the high cost of auto insurance). We'll go with Bustamante. Board of Equalization, District 1 BETTY YEE Betty Yee, the incumbent, was appointed to this seat when Carole Migden (who never really wanted the job) was elected to the State Senate. It's a powerful post, overseeing local assessors offices and the taxation of utilities and some big businesses and generally setting day-to-day tax policy for the state. And Yee's been solid: unlike Migden, she seems happy to stick around for a while (and isn't just looking for higher office) and has been aggressive at collecting money from wealthy and powerful businesses. Senate, District 8 LELAND YEE There are plenty of reasons to be disappointed with Leland Yee, whose record in Sacramento is hardly distinguished and whose politics are hardly progressive. When we asked him this spring about the Ellis Act, the state law aimed at undermining rent control in cities like San Francisco, he admitted it was bad for tenants and that there's no logical policy rationale behind it. Then he said he wouldn't vote to repeal it. And yet, Yee can surprise you. He's been strong on open government issues and he has no apparent loyalty to anyone else in local politics. He has, for example, endorsed Jaynry Mak for District 4 supervisor in a race where Mayor Newsom and all the downtown power and money is behind Doug Chan. That's his independent streak, and in a city still recovering from the stifling years of the Brown-Burton Machine, that's refreshing. We'll endorse Yee. Assembly, District 12 BARRY HERMANSON Sup. Fiona Ma, the Democratic candidate for this seat, has been on the wrong side of virtually every major issue that's come before the board. She's a big supporter of the Ellis Act, which is leading to the displacement of hundreds of tenants a year. She supports capital punishment. She's been a call-up vote for the mayor and the big downtown interests. We were sorry to see her win the primary over the far more qualified Janet Reilly. Were glad to see she still faces some opposition: Barry Hermanson, a small-business person and longtime community activist, is running on the Green Party ticket. Hermanson has a long and distinguished record in town. Among other things, he was the main sponsor of the citys minimum-wage law and put thousands of dollars of his own money into passing it. Hermanson emphasizes universal health care and renewable energy and would be a strong advocate for progressive issues in Sacramento. A weak and unimpressive Democrat shouldnt simply walk into this seat; vote for Hermanson. Assembly, District 13 MARK LENO Mark Leno is a case against term limits. He's done a great job in Sacramento, has risen to a leadership position, has managed to pass some legislation that seemed impossible at the start, and has been a strong progressive on issues across the board. He's also heading for his last term. He's immensely popular in his district. He's managed to make friends across the aisle in Sacramento (no simple feat these days) while staying true to his San Francisco principles. If legislators weren't limited to three assembly terms, he might someday have gone on to serve as the first openly gay assembly speaker. We wish him well in his final two years. Assembly, District 14 LONI HANCOCK Loni Hancock is one of the assembly's leading advocates for single-payer health insurance. It's not likely to pass in the next two years and would have a better chance if people like Hancock could stick around long enough to build a real legislative constituency. But we give her credit for trying. She's also an outspoken advocate for abused women and a solid environmentalist. She fully deserves another term. Assembly, District 16 SANDRÉ SWANSON Sandré Swanson emerged from a tough primary battle with Oakland City Attorney John Russo with what amounts to a lock on this seat. We supported Swanson then and we're happy to support him now: the former aide to Ron Dellums and Barbara Lee has the political experience to jump right into the job and the good old-fashioned progressive instincts to be a totally reliable vote. He's against the death penalty and new prison construction, and in favor of raising taxes on the rich and eliminating the Proposition 13 protection for commercial property owners. We expect a lot of him. Proposition 83 PENALTIES FOR SEX OFFENDERS NO This is one of the more cynical election-year moves we've seen in a while and we've seen a lot. Proposition 83 is supposed to be about tougher penalties for sex offenders; it's actually about attempting to embarrass Democrats in a close-fought November contest. The legislation itself is really poor public policy. It would, among other things, ban any registered sex offender (and not all registered sex offenders are dangerous predators) from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school which would mean that nobody carrying that status could live anywhere in San Francisco (or most other dense urban areas). So all the sex offenders would be forced to live in rural regions, where there a fewer services, fewer nearby cops and more opportunities for further trouble. It would also require all registered sex offenders to wear GPS monitoring devices for life and would cost local and state government several hundred million dollars a year. But this was never about policy. The GOP hoped that Democrats would oppose it and thus could be accused of being soft on the worst kind of criminals. Vote no. Proposition 84 CLEAN WATER, PARKS, AND COASTAL IMPROVEMENT YES With Californias population growing by half a million people a year and with images of Hurricane Katrina still fresh in voters' minds, supporters of Proposition 84 argue that the state needs to do all it can to preserve beaches, forests, rivers, and streams before theyre lost to sprawl while simultaneously investing more in improving levees and controlling floods. All of which adds up to a $5.4 billion proposal, making this measure one of the largest parks and water bonds in history. The brainchild of the Nature Conservancy, California Audubon Society, Save the Redwoods League, Peninsula Open Space Trust, and Big Sur Land Trust, the wide-ranging proposition also has the support of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, and San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom. Vote yes. Proposition 85 PARENTAL NOTIFICATION FOR ABORTIONS NO, NO, NO Proposition 85 would amend Californias Constitution to require a doctor about to perform an abortion for a woman under the age of 18 to notify her parents or legal guardians within 48 hours, although emancipated minors and emergency cases would be exempt. Doctors who ignore this ruling would be subject to fines. Its a terrible, ugly proposal that quite literally will put the lives of thousands of young women at risk. Sure, in a perfect world, pregnant teens should talk to their parents but often thats just not possible or practical. Instead, with this law in effect, many kids will seek illegal, unsafe abortions, putting them at serious risk of life-threatening complications. Coupled with the Houses recent decision to make it a federal crime to escort a minor across state lines for an abortion, Prop. 85 could bring California back to the dark ages of botched back-alley abortions. Planned Parenthood, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), and the League of Women Voters are all vehemently opposed. So are we. Vote no. Proposition 86 CIGARETTE TAX INCREASE YES Proposition 86 would impose a new, 13-cent tax on each cigarette distributed in the state of California. Thats about $2.60 a pack, up from the current 87 cents a pack. While the jump is sizable, it would generate revenues of more than $2 billion annually by the end of the decade. The tax is uncomfortably regressive and lacks creativity: its yet another method of boosting state income without asking the rich to kick in anything. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures show that most wealthy people dont smoke; tobacco taxes are paid disproportionately by the poor. But the new dollars would set aside money for nonprofit community clinics and help young physicians pay off medical school loans in exchange for serving in low-income neighborhoods. The state legislative analyst predicts that up to $367 million would be available for childrens health coverage alone, while millions more would go toward smoking prevention. As it stands, taxpayers collectively spend millions treating the health effects of cigarettes. Vote yes on Prop. 86. Proposition 87 OIL COMPANY TAX YES Major oil-producing states like Alaska and Texas impose a drilling tax that brings in billions of dollars annually for state services. Yet oil producers in California pay only chump change through corporate income taxes and regulatory fees. Proposition 87 would force the oil dealers, who produce about 230 million barrels of oil across the state each year, to pay their fair share. This tax could earn California as much as $4 billion beginning in 2007 to be spent on alternative-energy programs. A well-funded oil industry ad blitz glosses over the actual language of the proposition, suggesting that it would punish consumers by raising gas prices and greatly overstating the possibility that Prop. 87 could negatively impact other state revenues. In an election mailer sent out in September, detractors altogether overlook a central issue in the oil-consumption debate that the proposition attempts to address: the ill health effects of pollution created by burning oil. A full 58 percent of the revenues would go toward incentives for the purchase of alternative-fuel vehicles, incentives for producers to supply alternative fuels, and grants and loans for private research. This is an excellent way to raise money for the state directly from oil company profits, not from consumers. Vote yes. Proposition 88 PARCEL TAX FOR EDUCATION YES Proposition 88 would establish a $50 annual tax on most parcels of land in California to fund improvements in public education. Thanks in part to Proposition 13, the 1978 measure that prevented local government from raising property taxes, school spending in the state is abysmally low; this would add $470 million a year to K12 school funding. It's not all the schools need, but it's a significant chunk of cash. And while parcel taxes aren't the most progressive way to raise money (that would be income taxes, with fair property taxes next in line), the program is better than sales tax increases and other regressive measures. Vote yes on 88. Proposition 89 PUBLIC FINANCING OF CAMPAIGNS YES, YES, YES Our dysfunctional political system and the shortsighted policies it creates wont change until we have serious campaign finance reform. This measure would create the best of all possible campaign systems, similar to the ones now working well in Arizona and Maine. It creates a public finance system for those running for state legislature and constitutional offices, paid for by a 0.2 percent increase in the corporate tax rate, and lowers contribution limits to candidates who opt out of public financing. It also limits the political expenditures of lobbyists, unions, political action committees, and corporations while taking into account court rulings on political speech. Vote yes. Proposition 90 EMINENT DOMAIN RESTRICTIONS NO, NO, NO Proposition 90 is by far the worst item on the November California ballot, a draconian measure that could potentially eliminate a wide range of government regulations from rent control and zoning to workplace safety and environmental laws and bankrupt local agencies that in any way try to limit what a property owner can do with land or buildings. The catchphrase for Prop. 90 advocates is eminent domain. And yes, Prop. 90 would block state and local agencies from taking private land for private projects an appealing concept, in theory if not in practice. But what this really does is define anything that restricts the private use of property as "taking" and demands that the government pay compensation. That means, for example, that any new San Francisco rent control laws or limits on condo conversions would be subject to challenge from landlords who could argue that the government has forced them to accept less than market value for their property and thus must reimburse them for the difference. That's billions of dollars a year; new tenant protections would be utterly out of the question. The same goes for environmental laws, labor laws, safety laws a long, long list of regulations that we now take for granted as part of a stable society. It could also be a huge roadblock to public power under Prop. 90, the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. would have a powerful tool to use against any city attempt to take over the local electrical grid. What we're seeing here is without a doubt the worst assault on local government since Proposition 13 passed in 1978, and its long-term impact could make that tax-slashing measure look mild by comparison. Prop. 90 is really scary. It's a 19th-century version of property rights run amok. It could lead to massive waves of evictions, environmental damage on a large scale, the end of health and safety rules (including, perhaps, requirements that buildings be accessible to disabled people) and huge profits for a few corporations and big landlords. If you do nothing else this fall, go to the polls and vote no on 90. Proposition 1A TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROTECTION NO In general, we agree with the basic premise of this measure: fuel taxes should be used for transportation system projects (particularly mass transit and other alternatives to the automobile, although advocates of this measure focus on freeways). But to lock that basic rule of thumb into an unbreakable mandate would be disastrous to California during lean budget years. Social services, education, emergency services, and all critical government functions would face deep cuts during economic downturns simply so we could keep building roads unabated. This is ballot-box budgeting at its worst and should be defeated. Proposition 1B TRANSPORTATION BOND NO General obligation bonds seem almost like free money, but they really arent. This measure would raise nearly $20 billion and cost the state almost double that over the next 30 years. That might be fine if it were building a smart transportation system that considered global warming instead of pouring most of a huge chunk of money into freeways and roads. Just $4 billion of this goes to public transit. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements get nothing, and almost everything else goes to the facilitation of more cars on California roads (including wasteful boondoggles like a fourth bore in the Caldecott Tunnel). Vote no. Proposition 1C HOUSING BOND YES California has a critical, unmet need for more affordable housing, particularly for low-income seniors, working families, military veterans, and those with disabilities. This $2.85 billion bond measure addresses that need, helping renters, those trying to buy a home, and battered women and children who need temporary shelter. Compared to the money the governor wants to spend on highways, its a pittance but it would have a significant impact on one of the states most pressing problems. Vote yes. Proposition 1D SCHOOL FACILITIES BOND YES This $10.4 billion investment in California schools is an investment in the future of the state. The measure allocates $7.3 billion for K12 facilities and $3.1 billion for those in our colleges. We need at least that much just to get to adequate. Vote yes. Proposition 1E DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND FLOOD PREVENTION BOND YES Before Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, officials knew the levees there werent strong enough to withstand a major storm surge. Similarly, officials with the Army Corps of Engineers and the state say the delta levees of Northern California will fail during a major sustained storm, endangering human life and billions of dollars in property. Beyond guarding against that happening, this $4.1 billion bond would also improve the states drinking water system and help prevent pollution of our streams and ocean. Vote yes. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal justices CONFIRM ALL California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal judges have to face the voters immediately after they're appointed, then once every 12 years. That's a good thing. In the past, the radical right and big business interests have used the reconfirmation process to kick out judges they didn't like Rose Bird, for starters and that's a bad thing. Rejecting judges ought to be a right reserved for the really bad cases. Nobody on the list this year meets that standard. SFBG Posted: 2006-10-03 21:37:31 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com contact owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] no flaming arguing or denigration of others allowed contact owner with complaints regarding posting/list or anything else. Thank you. please share/comment/inform and mostly enjoy this list Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quick_vegetarian/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quick_vegetarian/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
