Once again, it's time for my husband Bill Magavern's ballot recommendations for California and Sacramento. Bill's been sending these out for several years now and has, without trying, created a large demand for them. I frequently get begging, pleading emails from people all over the state (and even California absentee voters out of the country) asking for these recommendations as early as mid-October. I in turn beg Bill for them and he says: give me a break, it's mid-October! So they tend to come a week or two before the election.
Most of you who are reading this know me and Bill personally. For those who don't, Bill Magavern is the senior advocate for Sierra Club California. He is a former director of the Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project and Congress Watch.
He hasn't opined on candidates, so I will a little bit. Although I occasionally veer to the Green Party, I am pretty much planning to vote a straight Democratic line this year (note: I won't vote to re-elect U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, I just have to work too hard to get her to do the right thing especially on the Judiciary Committee).
I'll note that consumer advocate (and personal hero of mine) Harvey Rosenfield, founder of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights and architect of the successful insurance reform measure Proposition 103 has endorsed Republican Steve Poizner for State Insurance Commissioner.
I'll also note that while Republican incumbent Secretary of State Bruce McPherson is not the worst Republican on the planet, in my opinion his Democratic opponent State Senator Debra Bowen is perfect for the job of Secretary of State. She is clean. She is smart. She cares deeply about these issues and knows the details really well. She is a person who cares deeply about doing public policy right and she is not a party hack. She's in a tight race and I'd personally like to see everyone give her as much as they can in the next day or two.
Click here to donate to Debra Bowen's campaign on-line.
And now, the moment you've all been waiting for:
Bill Magavern's Recommendations:
BALLOT MEASURES, NOVEMBER 2006
CALIFORNIA-WIDE PROPOSITIONS
1-A, NO
This is a bad idea – channel all sales taxes on gasoline to transportation projects, mostly roads. Note that these are sales taxes, not gas taxes. All sales taxes should go to the General Fund, where they can be directed to the greatest needs in a given budget year.
1-B, NO
I’ve wavered on this one, because I do think we need to invest in improved transportation infrastructure. But the price tag is too high, almost $40 billion by the time it’s paid off. We should not borrow from our future when an increase in the gas tax could fund these investments on a pay-as-you-go basis, without paying interest. And not enough of the money would go to public transportation.
1-C, YES
Affordable housing and emergency shelters are badly needed, and appropriate uses of bond funds. There’s also money here for smart growth planning
1-D, YES
Many of our school facilities still are overcrowded or in need of repair, and it’s hard to think of a better public investment than public education.
1-E, YES
I’d be a lot more enthusiastic about it if the Legislature had accompanied this funding with the necessary policy reforms, but we’ve got to get the levees fixed before a Katrina-type flood hits the Central Valley.
83, NO
This was put on the ballot by publicity-seeking politicians, and will waste a lot of money that could be better spent on actually catching sex offenders. The odd thing about this measure, which is sure to pass, is that it will require sex offenders to move out of urban areas and into the rural and exurban areas that are usually represented by the Republicans who are supporting this so they can look tough on crime.
84, YES
This bond would supply needed funds for water quality, parks and land conservation, as previous funding is running out.
85, NO
Sure, it would be great if minors discussed all important life decisions with their parents, but having government require it is not going to make it happen.
86, YES
Taxing cigarettes is a good way to stop teens from ever getting addicted. Plus, the money would go to good causes like children’s health insurance, smoking cessation programs, and emergency rooms. Don’t bother waiting for the Legislature to raise tobacco taxes – it takes a 2/3 vote in each house, and almost every Republican legislator has taken a no-tax-increase pledge. In an interesting controversy, the national NAACP has endorsed this initiative, overruling its California branch.
87, YES
California is the only oil-producing state without an extraction tax, and that tax is a suitable way to fund clean-energy programs. I think the governance could have been structured better, but, again, the tax would never pass the Legislature, so this is our best chance to direct this money to a good cause, instead of boosting the profits of oil companies.
88, NO
As a parent of 2 public-school students, I’m in favor of putting more money into education, but this is the wrong way to do it: a regressive new tax that invades the turf of local government.
89, YES
Clean Money is the reform that makes other reforms possible. It’s already worked in Maine and Arizona, and California badly needs an alternative to dirty-money politics. I see the corrupting influence of campaign contributions all the time in the Capitol. The public funding system envisioned under 89 would allow candidates to run competitive races without being independently wealthy or dependent on the special interests.
90, NO
This is the most dangerous measure on the ballot, because it would create a huge obstacle to planning and land-use protections. Don’t be fooled by the “save your home” rhetoric – the poison pill here is the provision requiring that property owners be compensated for any governmental action that reduces the theoretical value of their property. So a restriction on building in a wetland, for example, or a zoning that prevents your neighbor from putting a nuisance next door to you, would cost local governments so much that they’d probably let the property owner do whatever he wanted (which is what is happening in Oregon after passage of a similar measure).
These recommendations are my personal opinions. You can find a full list of Sierra Club California’s endorsements of candidates and ballot measures at http://www.sierraclubcalifornia.org/elections/index.shtml.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY MEASURES
J and K, YES
I think district elections for school board should make the members more responsive, and more knowledgeable about the community’s needs.
L, YES
SMUD isn’t perfect, but it has lower rates, a cleaner environmental record and more responsive leadership than PG&E. Expanding SMUD into Yolo County will bring that better service to Yolo, while giving Sacramento ratepayers some economies of scale.
Q and R, NO
It’s amazing that so many of our local “leaders” have lined up behind a proposal to raise our sales tax to fund an arena that would not have to be located at the railyard, would not necessarily keep the Kings in town, and would require a contribution of only 10-15% by the wealthy Maloofs – who aren’t even talking to those local leaders. I’m a Kings fan, and would love to see the railyards redeveloped, but putting all the risk on the public and all the profit on the Maloofs is not prudent or fair.
No comments:
Post a Comment