Showing posts with label endorsements. Show all posts
Free Will Voters Guide: California Edition
California is looking more like a state that will avoid any major electoral shake-ups, despite all the talk of wave elections out there. That should really be a warning to GOP officeholders presently measuring drapes. Seven years ago, the state GOP united behind a charismatic celebrity who promised to radically shrink the state government and blunt the power of the public employees' unions. The result of the failure to follow through on this promise can be seen in today's polls, which show hard left candidates Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer holding narrow leads. An 80 seat swing in the House will mean nothing if nothing changes, and the Democrats will quickly get back in the saddle. They are the party of government, after all.
California candidates: for God's sake, please vote Republican. There is no significant third party presence on the ballot. I know virtually all of the candidates on offer from the GOP are moderate Republicans, but we can't enable the consolidation of leftist power over the state.
Prop. 19: this is the "legalize pot" proposition. I find persuasive the arguments that the War On Drugs, at least as against weed, has failed. I am stopped short by marijuana's deleterious effects - it combines the intoxicating effects of drink with the health problems associated with cigarettes, both of which we have spent decades trying to stamp out. I am absolutely unmoved by the idea that legalized pot will lead to a flood of tax revenue. Mostly, I think the current situation, where possession has been decriminalized, and "medical" marijuana is freely available, is just fine in a world where a state law would instantly be pre-empted by federal law. NO.
Prop. 20: redistricting, pt. 2. This would affirm that the redistricting commission set up by a 2008 proposition, one of the few good results from that year, should be tasked with drawing district boundaries. We have to affirm this because state pols have been trying to negate the districting commission. They will never let this go. We still have to vote on term limits, after all. YES.
Prop. 21: would establish a $18 surcharge on vehicle registrations to fund state parks. Supposedly, owners of vehicles that paid the surcharge would be granted free entrance to state parks. Meh. NO.
Prop. 22: a constitutional amendment that would prevent the state from borrowing or taking funds from local municipalities. This is in reaction to the 2009 budget "deal," which balanced the state budget by simply taking funds from the state's counties and cities. At the time, I wondered if that was even legal. Now it won't be. YES.
Prop. 23: would suspend implementation of the state's cap & trade law until state unemployment dips below 5.5%. This should be a no-brainer, but California is distinctly lacking in brains on this issue. Global warming has been discredited, or at least called into serious question. The state's Air Resources Board has been caught grotesquely exaggerating the amount of pollutants in the state's environment. The "No on 23" crowd has been making a big deal about how Prop. 23 is funded by "Texas Oil Interests." (Are you kidding me?) And, Prop. 23 is widely expected to fail. Groan. YES.
Prop. 24: would repeal some tax breaks granted to "corporate interests" This pitiful little effort is one of the few business friendly policies put up by "pro-growth" "fiscal conservative" Governor Schwarzenegger, and of course state liberals can't stand it. NO.
Prop. 25: this year's effort to "reform" Prop. 13, this time by replacing the 2/3rd voting requirement to pass tax increases with a simple majority vote. This is the lone bulwark that gives Republicans in the state legislature any say in tax policy. Lose this, and it's all over. NO.
Prop. 26: would subject the state's multiplying fees and regulatory takings to a 2/3rd requirement, just like regular taxes. Another no-brainer. YES.
Prop. 27: would eliminate the redistricting commission and replace it with our elected representatives. Ha Ha. NO.
Free Will Voting Guide: San Francisco Edition
November 2nd is almost upon us. Time to bust out the San Francisco Voters Guide and figure out how to vote on the 14 city propositions (actually they're called "measures") the voters have been tasked with deciding. Yes, there is such a thing as too much direct democracy.
Measure AA: would add $10 to car registration fees for vehicles registered in SF to fund "transportation projects." Dare I ask if these are "shovel ready" projects? There's a similar proposal to fund state parks on the state ballot, but with that one there's at least a trade-off: free admission to the parks for vehicles that paid the fee. No such "deal" here, of course. NO
Measure A: a $46 million bond to pay for earthquake retrofits for certain types of structures (mostly old residential buildings with a large groundfloor opening like, gulp, the one where Free Will is located). San Francisco is famously earthquake prone, yet it's filled with old buildings. Indeed, it's difficult to tear down and replace one. So, the City tends to just pay for retrofits. The opponents of this measure like to say insane things like "behind the mask of earthquake retrofit sit a group of very wealthy and greedy multimillionaires who refuse to repair their highly profitable slumlord hotels and apartment houses." Spare me. YES.
Measure B: the most heavily opposed measure this cycle. "No On B" flyers started appearing in my neighborhood two months ago with all sorts of dire warnings about "lost" health care. What this really is is a measure to increase the City employees' contributions to their pension plans and decrease the City's contributions to their health plans. This is the sort of thing we need to do around the state and around the country, so this will at least give us an idea of the appetite the voters have for this sort of thing. The City workers hate it, of course, and are putting a lot of time and effort into defeating it. YES.
Measure C: would require the Mayor to appear before the Board of Supervisors. They've tried to do this before, no doubt inspired by Britain's "Question Time." Should we make the mayor wear a powdered wig, too? NO
Measure D: would allow non-citizen residents of SF to vote for members of the local school board. The schools have enough problems. NO.
Measure E: would allow for Election Day registration for municipal elections. Also, would not require voters to show ID to prove they hadn't previously registered. No chance for fraud there! Sheesh! NO.
Measure F: something about reforming the way people are elected to the Health Services Board. The two most progressive members of the Board of Supes are opposed, so the choice is clear. YES.
Measure G: did you know that the City Charter guarantees that the City's bus drivers be paid the second highest wage in the country? Amazingly, the transit system is terminally beset my budget shortfall and system delays. G would change that "system" and replace it with a standard collective bargaining system. The drivers hate the idea. YES.
Measure H: would prohibit local elected officials from serving on the local political party's central committee (and let's face it, this is a problem only for Dems and Greens). I can't really bring myself to care, but the mayor says the current system allows people to avoid ethics rules for elected officials by submitting themselves to the less exacting standards of their party. I like to think this will be a headache for some liberal somewhere. YES.
Measure I: would allow for Saturday voting in the November 2011 election. Gotta say, it makes more sense to vote on Saturdays, rather than Tuesdays. YES.
Measure J: the first of a matching set (K is the doppelganger). This would raise the hotel tax to 16%. Since hotels are SF's version of the golden goose, this is lunacy. NO.
Measure K: would NOT raise the hotel tax, but would make some other changes set out in J (the hotels must collect the hotel tax from residents, only individuals can be "permanent residents" in a SRO). That's more like it. YES.
Measure L: would prohibit sitting or lying on a public sidewalk between 7 AM and 11 PM. This is yet another attempt by the City to try to control the homeless population by making it difficult for them to set up camp wherever the hell they please. Naturally, all "right thinking" (meaning "wrong thinking") people are against this Nazi-esque attack on the downtrodden by Mayor Newsom's brownshirts. Opponents like to say this is unnecessary, all you need to do is enforce existing law. Problem is, no one enforces existing law. It's a farce, and voting on this is a waste anyway, since it will be struck down by a local judge forthwith. Still, it's a small stand in favor of civilization. YES.
Measure M: oooh. This one's a "poison pill." The voter thinks that this is a means of setting up a system of police foot patrols, but buried in the bill's language (which no one reads) is a provision that says L won't go into effect if M passes. (and if M passes, I guarantee you won't be seeing any foot patrols, either). NO.
Measure N: would increase the City's property transfer tax. That's easy. NO.
California Primary Day
Don't forget to vote in today's California Republican primary! Baby Free Will and I went to the polls this morning and found the usual primary scene: no lines and bored poll workers. If you want to make your voting as quick and painless as possible, make sure to print out the official Free Will Voting Guide:
Governor: Meg Whitman
Senate: Chuck DeVore
Congress: (S.F. only) John Dennis
Lieutenant Governor: Sam Aanestad
Secretary of State: Damon Dunn
Controller: David Evans
Attorney General: John Eastman (this guy really needs to win!)
Treasurer: Mimi Walters
Insurance Commissioner: Mike Villines
State Propositions
Prop 13: YES
Prop. 14: NO
Prop. 15: NO
Prop. 16: YES
Prop. 17: YES
San Francisco Initiatives:
Prop. A: NO
Prop. B: NO
Prop. C: NO
Prop. D: YES
Prop. E: YES
Prop. F: NO
Prop. G: NO
