Category: politics

Today over lunch I’ve been perusing the endorsements of various state papers, reading them in light of my post yesterday on the ballot propositions. I find endorsements such as these useful: often they highlight aspects of an issue I hadn’t thought of, and in some cases, and provide indications of buried bias in the issues that were not obvious on a surface reading. I’d like to discuss/highlight a few:

• Prop. 20: Redistricting by Independent Committee / Prop. 27: Legislative Redistricting. These two are very closely linked: Prop 20 expands the scope of the new independent redistricting commission to congressional districts; Prop 27 kills that commission and returns everything to the legislature. Yesterday, I noted that I was in favor of Prop 20, and against Prop 27. Almost unanimously, papers across the state are against Prop 27. As for Prop 20, however, many are in favor of it: San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, OC Register. A notable exception is the Sacramento Bee, which advocates a NO vote on both. Their rationale is interesting. First, they note we haven’t seen this commission in action yet, and perhaps we shouldn’t extend its reach until we know how it works. The second reason is that drawing new districts could hurt the seniority of our congressional delegation, which will reduce clout in Washington. That’s a valid argument, and one of the drawbacks of “throw the bums out”: with newbee politicians, you also lose a lot of your clout. You need measured change in your politicians so you don’t lose all your clout at once. I’m still leaning in favor of 20, but the Sacbee’s arguments have gotten me thinking.
• Prop. 24: Repeals Legislation regarding Business Tax Changes. This proposition repeals some business tax deals put in place as part of last year’s budget dealings… and almost every paper is against it: Sacramento Bee, LA Times, SF Chronicle, OC Register, LA Daily News. The editorials make some interesting points: we shouldn’t be tinkering with budget deals via initiatives, and the retraction of these deals will be sending bad signals to businesses in California. I tend to find these arguments compelling, and am changing my position on this to NO.
• Prop. 25: Reduces Budget Vote to 50%. This is another interesting battle. It ostensibly reduces the vote threshold on the budget and budget related bills to 50%, whilst keeping the tax threshold at 2/3rd. I don’t believe it touches Prop 13, despite what the scare email going around says. Endorsements are mixed: SF Chronicle and the LA Times are in favor; the Sacramento Bee, OC Register, and LA Daily News are against. Again, here there is an interesting balance: most seem to want to make the budget passing process easier, but the other problems of the bill create significant problems. What other problems? The measure would supposedly eliminate voters’ right to put referendum measures on the ballot to reject new fees or fee increases imposed by the budget, and it appears to make it easier for legislators to increase their own travel and expense accounts with a simple majority, rather than the current two-thirds legislative vote. There is also debate on whether it really preserves the 2/3rd limit for taxes. What this says to me is that this bill suffers from the same problem as Prop. 19: it was written by someone who didn’t think things out. As any game player will tell you: writing rule books is difficult because someone will always try to abuse the rules. The same is true for legislation, perhaps doubly true. This is why initiatives are often good in intent, and bad in execution, and why I may be moving to the “NO” side on this one.
• Governor: Brown vs. Whitman. I’m just noting here that the bulk of the endorsements are siding with Brown here: Sacramento Bee, LA Times, SF Chronicle. Given that I was already a Brown supporter, I don’t have much to add to what they say, but I find the unanimity of opinion quite interesting.
• Senator: Boxer vs. Fiorina. Here the endorsements seem to be splitting. Not all papers are endorsing here, but the LA Times has gone for Boxer, whereas the LA Daily News (Media News Group) has gone for Fiorina. I tend to be a Boxer supporter (mostly due to distaste over what Fiorina did at HP, as well as distaste for the Conservative social line Fiorina draws): my observation here is more the contrast with the Brown endorsements: Boxer may have a battle on her hands. It will be interesting to watch this one shape up. One comment, though: Regarding the “Ma’am vs. Senator” ad: She was talking to a Brig. General, and the military is very big on titles. Using “ma’am” was a way of disrespecting, just as if Boxer had slipped on up the general’s rank. I’m worried that Fiorina doesn’t understand that, which could lead to California being hurt.

Yesterday, I sat down and skimmed the General Election Voter Information Guide for the first time. This is my initial take on the various propositions. Now is your time to convince me otherwise…

• Prop. 19: Marijuana Legalization
  [Legalizes Marijuana Under California but Not Federal Law. Permits Local Governments to Regulate and Tax Commercial Production, Distribution, and Sale of Marijuana. Initiative Statute.]

  This is an odd one. I’m in favor of the general notion of legalization: make it legal, regulated, and taxed. But as with most initiatives, I’m sensitive to the argument that the actual legislation was written wrong, and this one just appears to be incomplete in a number of areas. Think about all the different places in the legal code that alcohol imparement is addressed. There should be equivalent areas the define legal imparement for pot. It doesn’t appear they are in this proposal. Conclusion: Reluctantly, No.

• Prop. 20: Redistricting by Independent Committee
  [Redistricting of Congressional Districts. Initiative Constitutional Amendment]

  There are two competing redistricting proposals: one that returns everything to legislative redisticting, and one that moves everything to redistricting by independent committee. I certainly don’t believe it should be done by elected politicians: that’s too rife for partisan tinkering. So, I think the goal of this proposal (and independent commission) is reasonable. I think the argument about communities of interest is a red herring: for such communities could be used for good or bad, and it all depends on the chosen commisioners. Conclusion: Leaning Yes.

• Prop. 21: Fee for California Parks
  [Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs. Grants Surcharged Vehicles Free Admission to All State Parks. Initiative Statute]

  I can see both sides on this: on the one hand, the parks are one entity in the state that doesn’t have a strong voice, and thus is easily cut to the bone in a budget crisis. On the other hand, parks should be funded through the normal avenues, not an addition to the Vehicle License Fee. In general, I feel the VLF should be used to fund vehicle related expenses (roads, air quality, etc.). Conclusion: Leaning No.

• Prop. 22: Restrict State Fund Usage
  [Prohibits the State from Borrowing or Taking Funds Used for Transportation, Redevelopment, or Local Government Projects and Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.]

  This propositions restricts the ability to use collected state funds in various accounts for other purposes in the areas of transportation and redevelopment. Now, I’m the sort of guy you think would support any transportation related thing. But this one seems wrong, for a lot of the budget problems we’ve got are due to tying the hands of the legislature in solving problems. I don’t think this is the right idea, not now, much as I’d like to see more road problems being fixed. Conclusion: Reluctantly No.

• Prop. 23: Suspends Greenhouse Gas Law
  [Suspends Implementation of Air Pollution Control Law (AB 32) Requiring Major Sources of Emissions to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming, Until Unemployment Drops to 5.5 Percent or Less for Full Year. Initiative Statute.]

  Reading this, I just don’t buy the arguments that suspending this law will create any new jobs in California. At best, it might prevent some jobs from moving, at a potential unrepairable climate cost. I do see it suspending the law for a long time. On the other hand, retaining the law would help promote development of green businesses, which will help the state. Conclusion: No.

• Prop. 24: Repeals Legislation regarding Business Tax Changes.
  [Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses to Lower Their Tax Liability. Initiative Statute.]

  This is one of those propositions that most people won’t understand. Basically, what this proposition does is undo some changes made as part of recent budget dealmaking. Specifically, it would prevent carrying-back business losses to prior years or crediting those losses many years in the future, it changes how multistate businesses are taxed, and it affects sharing of tax credits. Such a change cries out that it is a special deal, and so the question becomes: which was the worse special deal: the original change brokered by lobbyists, or this proposition? I’ll also note that I don’t like ballot arguments that use the phrase “never met a tax they didn’t like”. If I had my choice, losses could only be used to offset future profits, not obtain refunds in past years; there would be single formula for calculating state income, and tax credits would only go to the entity that earned them. That seems to be closest to the prior law. Conclusion: Leaning Yes.

• Prop. 25: Reduces Budget Vote to 50%
  [Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass Budget and Budget-Related Legislation from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.]

  This initiative would reduce the requirement to pass a budget/budget-related legislation to 50% from 67%, while still requiring 67% for taxes. It would also suspend legislator pay for late budgets. I agree that the budget games in Sacramento have gotten ridiculous, where the excessively partisan politics have held the budget hostage and hurt many, many people. On the other hand, having the lower vote would virtually assure that the party in power would get their way without having to make any concession to the minority view. So there are strong arguments on both sides (as well as many many red herrings). For me, the most telling factor is that the current approach just isn’t working: there’s only been 5 budgets on time in the last 30 years. Conclusion: Reluctantly Yes.

• Prop. 26: Certain Fees: 2/3rds Vote
  [Requires That Certain State and Local Fees Be Approved by Two-Thirds Vote. Fees Include Those That Address Adverse Impacts on Society or the Environment Caused by the Fee-Payer’s Business. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.]

  There should be rule that if you can’t get a proposition title down to one line, you lose. Seriously, this is another confusing proposition, but generally it moves a lot of fees into the category of things that require 2/3rd vote, meaning that they will never be passed. Now, what has caused a lot of our problems in Californai is the extreme difficulty in changing our taxes, and this has resulted in more fees. Although I can understand the furor against those fees, the answer is not make more things 2/3rds majority: the answer is to fix the tax laws. I think this proposal, at this time, would further hurt the state. Conclusion: Leaning No.

• Prop. 27: Legislative Redistricting
  [Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.]

  This is the opposite of Prop. 20: It moves all the redistricting back to the elected officials, with no strong requirements other than geographic in forming districts. To me, legislative redistricting has too much opportunity for partisan politics. Conclusion: No.

As noted at the beginning: these are my first thoughts. My mind may chanage on these propositions as I learn more. More importantly, my mind may change as you convince me otherwise, so start convincing, or tell me why you think I’m right.

By now, we’ve all heard of or seen the GOP Pledge for America. We’ve also see the response to it, both partisan and non-partisan. The general opinion seems to be that it is a partisan pledge, and not a real attempt to solve the problems facing this country.

I mention this not to debate the Pledge for America (and I’ll repeat that: I do not want to debate the Pledge for America), but to discuss the hyperpartisan environment that exists in politics today. Rather, I’m writing this post to highlight an article in the LA Times about moderates who are organizing behind candidates willing to put the hyperpartisanship aside and work together to solve the problems of this country. This article highlights the effects of Mayor Bloomberg in New York, as well as the No Labels effort: putting labels aside to do what is best for America.

I think this is a good thing. For far too long we have been focused on black and white. The notion has been: If the other party is for it, I’m against it. This is wrong. This is something that has been stewing in my thoughts long before the “Pledge for America”, for I’ve been thinking that the Republicans are just as much to blame as the Democrats for the problems with the health bill and the bailout. For both parties, the emphasis has been blocking what the other does, as opposed to working to find a compromise that gets the legislation right the first time. This is all complicated, of course, by the fact that staffers and lobbyists write 80% of the legislation anyway, creating special cases for special interests.

Health care is a good example. For all the furor over the health care bill, and all the push from the Republican side to repeal it… guess what? A new AP Poll shows that a majority of Americans felt that the health care reform should have done more. The problem is not that the health care reform was done, but that the job wasn’t done right. We don’t need to repeal the bill—we need to fix it…. and fix it so it works right for the people, not the insurance companies or the special interests. In order to do this, legislators need to come together and put aside the political labels.

As the LA Times article notes, the voices on the fringe, amplified by the Internet and the pundits, have drowned out moderate reason and compromise and the ability to work together. You can certainly see this, just in the comments on the post, where again the fringe is attempting to shout it out.

I happen to be a moderate. I don’t believe in expansive government: I think government should have real (not imaginary) funding sources for its initiatives, and that there are areas the government should not be involved in. But I also believe government has a role and can be effective. In particular, I believe that government has a role in regulation, using its power to limit some of the excesses that human nature drives people to do. I found this LA Times article quite interesting, and think I’ll look a bit more into this No Labels group. Much as I like tea, it belongs in my French Press and my teacup, not on the political stage.

This is the second of my posts on the upcoming California primary. This one looks at the people. My positions on the propositions were discussed in this post.

First, some political background: I’m a Democrat, learned from my mother. I tend to believe that government can do good and has a responsibility to do good, and to help the people it governs (this falls under promoting the general welfare, and supporting health, happiness, and the pursuit of liberty). I think partisanship has destroyed the effectiveness of our system, with politicians voting against things just because the other side proposed them. We need to be electing politicians that do the best for the people they represent, whether or not that is in the interest of their party. I believe our budgets should be balanced, and that government enterprises should be run as efficiently as possible. However, I recognize that running a governmental entity is not the same as running a business, and often good business skills make people bad public servants. In the large, I’m against “pork”… but I also recognize the political reality that sometimes it is necessary (remember the old adage that laws are like sausages — it is best not to see them being made). Socially, I’m liberal: I believe women should be able to make the decisions regarding their bodies, and that relationships are matters between consenting adults, whatever their form. I believe that religion should be the provance of the churches, synagogues, and mosques, and the state has no business imposing religious views (such as in the area of prohibiting abortions or marriage practices).

That said, here’s my thoughts:

State

• Governor: Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown. Jerry Brown was my first vote for Governor of California (his second term; I couldn’t vote in 1974), and he has changed a lot since then—for the good. I’m not one who believes politicians should never change their views: Brown has grown up and shown the ability to learn, and is turning out to be closer to his father, “Pat” Brown, one of the best governors that California has ever had. I don’t see strengths in any of the other Democratic candidates. Brown is best of the bunch.

  An observation on the Republican side: It has been fun watching the two lead candidates, Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner battle over who is the most Conservative candidate. This, I’m sure, is turning them off from any Democratic voters, and probably bothering the large number of moderate Republicans in the state. The funny part is the 180° turn they are going to have to make after the primary where they are going to have to fight for the moderate votes. It’s going to be a nasty election, folks.

• Lt. Governor: Janice Hahn. Lt. Governor is a meaningless position, and we have two meaningless folks and an unknown battling for the job. I can’t see voting for Newsom—he has struck me as a bit of a flake, for whatever reason. Hahn has been much more reasonable, and isn’t the problem that her brother (Jim Hahn, former Mayor of LA) was.
• Secretary of State: Debra Bowen. No opposition on the Democratic primary ballot. I can’t think of any complaints about the job she has done.
• Controller: John Chiang. No opposition, and he has been the pragmatist in dealing with California’s fiscal crisis, calling the truth as it happens.
• Treasurer: Bill Lockyer. No opposition. I don’t recall problems with him, although I’ll need to see who ends up running against him in the general electio0n.
• Attorney General: Kamala Harris. Although there are a large number of candidates, this is boiling down to a battle between Rocky Delgadillo, Chris Kelly , and Kamala Harris. Harris has the bulk of the endorsements, and wouldn’t do a bad job. Kelly has the most money, but has been involved in the whole Facebook privacy debacle, and I have no confidence in him. I know Delgadillo from Los Angeles, and I was originally for him—but I found it telling that the LA Times did not endorse him, for if he had done a good job here, they would have wanted him to move on. Thus, Harris seems like the best candidate. Believe in a different candidate? Convince me in the comments.
• Insurance Commissioner: Hector de la Torre. This is another difficult choice: both de la Torre and Dave Jones have a strong set of endorsements. I’m impressed with de la Torre’s work in the State Assembly towards protecting consumers, and so I’m giving him the edge. Here, I could be convinced the other way.
• State Board of Equalization: Jerome Horton. Unopposed in the primary.
• State Assembly, 38th District: Diana G. Shaw. Unopposed in the primary. We really need a strong Democratic candidate in this district. The current officeholder, Cameron Smyth (R), is mostly heavily-conservative Santa Clarita, leaving the balancing bit in the San Fernando Valley at a loss. In the election in 2006, the vote was 57% R, 38% D, meaning that Shaw has an uphill battle.
• Superintendent of Public Instruction: Gloria Romero. The Times likes Larry Aceves, a retired Superintendent, but I believe that such a formal official wouldn’t be able to see past the paradigm. I think Romero, a former LAUSD board member who did good things, might be able to think in the creative ways we need.

National

• Senator: Barbara Boxer. On the Democratic side, she’s the only viable candidate. She’s also done a reasonable job fighting for California in the Senate, and using her political knowhow to get things done. The battle here is on the Republican side, between Carly Fiorina and Tom Campbell, and again it has been like the Governor’s race: who is the most Conservative. This would be bad for California, for it would invite even more gridlock. Especially now, California needs the seniority Boxer brings, and it needs her political savvy.
• Representative: 30th District: Henry Waxman. He’s running unopposed, and for good reason: He’s done a good job, fighting the good fight, working for the right things. I see no problem with his work, and have no desire to change.

Party Central Committee

• County Central Committee, 38th District: Don’t Care. I have no idea who these people are. I’ll likely vote for teachers, engineers, and incumbants. Recommendations are welcome.

Los Angeles

• County Assessor: John Wong. Times endorsed, but I like Wong because he has been on the appeals board, and thus recognizes the decline in property values in the county.
• Sheriff: Lee Baca. Running unopposed, so I’m stuck. He has some connections to Scientology, although that’s more of a problem in Riverside county.
• Supervisor, 3rd District: Zev Yaroslavsky. I’ve been familiar with Zev since he started running, and in general, he’s done a good job for his district and for Los Angeles. He is, perhaps, a bit too biased towards his Westside constituency, which hurts those of us in the valley… but he’s unopposed, so there’s not much we can do this election.
• Judicial Choices: Nº 28/Randy Hammock, Nº 35/Soussan (Suzanne) Bruguera, Nº 73/Laura A. Matz, Nº 107/Tony de Los Reyes, Nº 117/Alan Schneider, Nº 131/Maren Elizabeth Nelson. For Judges, I often defer to the LA Times endorsements, as they have the time and ability to investigate the candidates. Also useful are the Bar Association ratings.

That’s it. My positions on the June 8, 2010 California primary. Feel free to convince me otherwise on these candidates.

Here is the first of a series of posts on the upcoming California election. I promised this over a week ago, and a series of project deadlines, combined with being sick, got to me. This post focuses on the propositions and similar measures. The people will be covered in a subsequent post.

Statewide Measures

• Proposition 13: Limits on Property Tax Assessment: Seismic Retrofitting of Existing Buildings.

  Don’t care. This proposition fixes a minor quirk in the original Prop 13 rules for reassessments regarding seismic retrofitting. Unreinfored brick (masonry) buildings were originally excluded from reassessment for 15 years; other earthquake safety modifications had no time on the exclusion, except that both terminated on sale. This would get rid of that 15-year limit, making all earthquake safety modificati0ns the same. One the one hand, I’m in a “no” mood, and I’m getting tired of all these Prop 13 exclusions (that don’t apply to me :-)) that end up making the rest pay. On the other hand, though, this is an exclusion that is already there, the time limit wasn’t being enforced, and it simplifies the law. There were no arguments against this one. I really don’t care.

• Proposition 14: Elections: Increases right to participate in Primary Elections.

  No. This proposition would change the primary system in California from party primaries, where the winners from each party run in the General Election, to a system where the primary is in essence a general election with no party affiliation, and the top two placers go on to a runoff in the general election. The argument for this is that it breaks the party stranglehold on elections, and that people could vote for any person they want… and by doing so, will elminate the partisanship. The argument against this is that the current approach, although party-based, has strengths as well. It ensure that candidates from minor parties have a chance by getting on the ballot. It ensure that there will be a wide spectrum of positions on the General Election ballot. I also see an effect on campaign spending: the “open primary” would means that more money would be spent to get in the top two positions: this eliminates the chance for lesser-funded candidates, and increases the power of special interests. Much as I agree that politics has gotten too partisan, this particular proposition is not the answer.

• Proposition 15: California Fair Elections Act.

  No. This is an experimental proposition that creates a voluntary system for candidates for Secretary of State to qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to limitations on spending and private contributions, and each candidate demonstrating enough public support would receive same amount. Participating candidates would be prohibited from raising or spending money beyond the grant. The key aspects to me are that this only applies to one office (right now), and is voluntary. As we’ve seen in this election, if you have enough money, you simply won’t volunteer. Further, applying it to one office makes it pointless. I can’t see any reason for this.

• Proposition 16: Two-Thirds Voter Approval Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers.

  Hell No. This has been one of the most misleading campaigns I can recollect, save that for Proposition 8. This proposal requires two-thirds voter approval before local governments provide electricity service to new customers or establish a community choice electricity program using public funds or bonds. It has been funded almost entirely by the Northern California mega-corp Pacific Gas and Electric, and is on the ballot primarily to preserve their monopoly on electrical service. Municipal electrical service has its strengths and weaknesses (as us LA DWP customer’s know): rates used to be lower, but the city can raid utility funds to balance their budget (as I write this, LA DWP folks are facing water rate increases of 8%). I don’t necessarily have a problem with providing people the ability to vote before municipalities start providing such service, but two-thirds is too high of a bar, as we’ve seen in the state budget battles.

• Proposition 17: Allows Auto Insurance Companies to base their prices on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage.

  No. This is another single-company funded proposition, in this case, Mercury Insurance. Obstensibly it permits companies to reduce or increase cost of insurance depending on whether driver has a history of continuous insurance coverage. Mercury claims it will allow them to give discounts for long periods of continuous coverage. However, companies can already do that: they are called loyalty discounts. More significantly, this allows companies to increase rates (i.e., give surcharges) for new policy holders: newly-minted drivers (not based on record), people shopping for better rates. We have enough problems with rate setting in the insurance industry. We don’t need this.

Local Measures

• Measure E: Emergency Neighborhood School and Teacher Retention Measure (LAUSD)

  No. This measure would impose a parcel tax (i.e., a fixed amount per each entry on the property tax rolls) of $100 for the next 4 year to obstensibly offset severe state budget cuts, promote student achievement in reading/mathematics/science/arts, maintain vocational education/job training programs, limit class size increases, reduce teacher/staff layoffs, and keep schools safe/bathrooms clean. The measure would exempt low-income seniors, and provide no money for central district administrators’ salaries, require mandatory audits, and have all funds going to neighborhood schools. On the one hand, $100 is a small amount, and over a year, at the level of noise for many people… and as a parent of a student in a LAUSD school, I know that the local schools can well use the money. By being district-wide, it would be more egalitarian: schools in poorer areas with more rentals wouldn’t suffer as greatly. On the other hand, there should be an exemption process for those whom the $100 would be a hardship (senior citizen or not—although I wonder whether someone living that close to the edge should really be a homeowner vs. a renter, for there are too many unexpected home expenses that are much more than $100). More significantly, LAUSD has been coming back for more and more money every election—recently, for a lot of construction funds. They still prefer to cut at the edge (affecting students), as opposed to getting their managerial house lean and efficient and streamlining the processes. Managerially, LAUSD should operate like a non-profit charity, meaning administrative overhead should be the legal minimum, with the bulk of income going to the recipients. They don’t do this now, and I think this measure would only encourage them to continue. Ballotpedia shows that LAUSD couldn’t raise enough funds to run a campaign for this, and most papers have come out against.

  Want to help your local schools. Vote “No” on this, and double the amount (up to what you can afford) and give it to your local school’s booster association or donate it directly to the school. You’ll bypass the downtown bureauocracy, and help the students much more directly.

Still to come: my opinions on the candidates…