Voting Sensibly in California's 2006 Election!!!

[Guest guest]

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. Rick.]

 

 

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 Angelides’s 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, he’s 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.

 

We’re 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 city’s 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 shouldn’t 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 California’s 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 they’re 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 California’s 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.

 

It’s 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 that’s 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 House’s 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.

That’s 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: it’s 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 don’t 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 children’s 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 K–12 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 won’t 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 aren’t. 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, it’s a pittance —

but it would have a significant impact on one of the

state’s 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 K–12 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 weren’t 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 state’s 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates

(http://voice.)