Month: June 2010

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…