My Recommendations for Candidates--Statewide

I am a "Decline to State" voter who likes to vote on the Democratic ballot so as to influence the Democratic primary outcomes, so that's what I will be doing this time. Here are my picks for voting:

Lieutenant Governor:
I plan to vote for Gavin Newsom, current Mayor of San Francisco (aka "Mayor McHotty"). The Lt. Governor job is largely ceremonial and unimportant but the officeholder does sit on several boards and commissions, providing the swing vote on what I think is called the State Public Lands Commission, a key environmental body. The Sierra Club gave its endorsement to Gavin Newsom after interviewing him and considering his record. That's good enough for me.

In the spectrum of San Francisco politics, Newsom is considered a centrist and a sellout. After years of seeing San Francisco "centrists" elected to the State legislature and end up being some of the most leftwing and effective members up here, I have come to love them: send us your tired, your poor, your San Francisco centrists. It takes a San Francisco "centrist" to go cowboy renegade and issue marriage licenses for gays and lesbians against state law. Wow what would a truly leftwing San Francisco mayor have done? Probably seize and redistribute downtown real estate to recently married gays as wedding presents!

Attorney General:
This is a tough race to decide in because there are so many people running. I definitely would not vote for Alberto Torrico or Rocky Delgadillo who are both more conservative Democrats that have not been there for the people. Kamala Harris, the San Francisco DA is the only woman running in a crowded field so there is some pull towards her (and she'll probably win the primary) but her department is under an investigation right now that casts some doubt upon her respect for civil liberties and she has not displayed the depth of knowledge on some issues that are important to me.

Even though he's a longshot, I'll vote for Pedro Nava, current assemblymember, ethical and nice and smart, the only candidate for A.G. endorsed by the Sierra Club and latino from southern california who may have a better chance against the Republicans in the fall.

Insurance Commissioner:
Dave Jones. See my previous post on this. Both are good assemblymembers and men. Dave will just be the tougher, harder working regulator and I think he'll win.

Member, State Board of Equalization, District 2:
Chris Parker. This is a huge district stretching all the way down the state so even if you're not in Sacramento you may have to vote in it. Parker was recommended to me by a former top staff member of the State Board of Equalization whom I trust.

United States Senator:
Barbara Boxer is doing a great job and will face a tough race in the fall.

Governor:
Although there are 7 candidates listed on the ballot, Attorney General (and former Governor) Jerry Brown is effectively running unopposed for the Democratic nomination. I am not wild about Jerry Brown. I'll probably vote for him in November, but I haven't decided yet. In the meantime, since it will have no effect on the outcome, I'll write in my husband Bill Magavern for Governor since he would be better than Jerry.

Secretary of State:
Debra Bowen, the incumbent, is running unopposed and is doing a good job. I'll vote for her.

Controller:
John Chiang, ditto above.

Treasurer:
Bill Lockyer, ditto above.

Bill Magavern's Personal Ballot Prop Rx

Prop 13 – YES

Would remove an obstacle to seismic retrofits by exempting them from property tax reassessment. Of course, what we really need is wholesale reform of the bad old Prop 13 that has distorted property tax assessments, but that will have to wait for another day.

Prop 14 – NO

The hype is that doing away with party primaries and going to a “Top 2” runoff system would decrease nasty partisanship. The truth is that this system would increase the importance of special-interest money, since all candidates would have to fund 2 elections. The Top 2 system would also virtually eliminate the already-slim prospects that smaller parties have for breaking the 2-party duopoly. It’s not popular to say it, but strong parties are actually healthy for democracy, and parties should be able to decide who votes in their own primaries. The problem with state government is not too much partisanship, it’s the anti-democratic 2/3 requirement for passing budgets and taxes that empowers a dwindling minority to hold the state’s treasury hostage.

Prop 15 - YES

The Fair Elections Act would create a pilot project to make voluntary public financing available to Secretary of State candidates in 2014 and 2018. It would also repeal the current prohibition on public financing.

Public financing is a way to get politicians out of the fundraising game and back to solving California’s problems. Replacing special-interest money with clean money would ensure elected officials are accountable to voters, not donors, and open up the political process so the best candidates, not just the wealthiest candidates, can pursue elected office.

Go to http://www.yesfairelection.org/ for more information and to volunteer or contribute to the campaign.

Prop 16 – NO

This is an outrageous attempt by Pacific Gas & Electric to lock out competitors who could supply cleaner electricity at lower prices. PG&E is spending almost $50 million at last count to deceive Californians into granting them full monopoly status. The measure would require a 2/3 vote on any new or expanded public power effort. Why should 1/3 of voters be able to overrule the majority?

To help, go to http://noprop16.org/

Prop 17 – NO

The second of this election’s special-interest initiatives, this one is Mercury Insurance’s attempt to put a loophole into 1988’s consumer-protection Prop 103. It may sound reasonable to allow an insurer to lure customers by offering discounts to the continuously insured, but insurance is a zero-sum game, so the result is that other people – like students, military personnel, and the poor -- would have to pay more.

Yes on Prop 15!

I can't imagine what has taken me so long to write this endorsement. I have been supporting and highly involved (until now) in pursuing public financing of elections in California for years. This is a no brainer. This initiative creates full funding from a fee imposed on lobbyists to pay for elections for the office of Secretary of State. It also repeals a current ban on local areas creating public financing of elections--in and of itself needed.

The only people opposed are lobbyists, but fortunately they don't have any political clout. It's endorsed by almost every newspaper in the state (which the notable exception of the Sacramento Bee. I'm chalking this major mistake up to the existence of Ginger Rutland on the editorial board, who has never met a campaign finance reform measure that she liked.)

Public financing of elections is different from campaign limits mostly because it works. Instead of trying to restrict the flow of money (you can't, it will flow), you match it with public dollars rendering it unable to buy elections. In states like Arizona, Maine and Connecticut the experiment with public financing of elections has largely been successful. Voters have higher confidence in their elected officials in those states because they owe their election to the people who voted for them, rather than the people who financed their campaign. Well, to put that another way, now they're the same people.

Politicians are freed up from dialing for dollars and actually do their work. Vote for this initiative and click on this link to see how you can help in these last two weeks.

The Gnostic Christians

Well, you know I'm in ministerial school, so sometimes all I have in my head is what I'm reading. I'm taking a great course on the Gnostic Christians--fascinating. For those who don't know, the Gnostic Christians were an early Christian sect who co-existed for the first two centuries of the common era with what we now think of as Orthodox Christians. Gnostics believed that Jesus was more of a spiritual than a human being and that Jesus taught how to have a direct spiritual experience, an unmediated "knowing" of the Truth (gnosis in Greek means knowing).

For centuries most of what we knew about the Gnostics was from their orthodox detractors who worked hard to squash them and eliminate all their writings from Christiandom. They were considered heretics and a great threat to the Orthodoxy because they believed in this unmediated relationship with Jesus and the Truth he represented, obviating the need for priests and bishops. They were very egalitarian and women were fully involved in all levels of gnostic worship. They believed Mary Magdalene was the most important apostle and closest to Jesus.

In the late 19th century and mid 20th century scores of authenticated gnostic texts, including new gospels from the apostles Thomas and Peter were found reasonably well-preserved in urns in or around Egypt. This has set the Orthodox Christian world into another round of trying to squash interest in Gnosticism, but it turns out it's harder to do that in the era of the internet and without frequent burnings at the stake.

Dave Jones for State Insurance Commissioner

The race for insurance commissioner may not capture your attention the way it does mine. Having worked as a consumer advocate on health care and other insurance issues, I pay attention to it. The position was created as an elected position by initiative back in the 80's--a stunning upset for the insurance industry who was counting on keeping the commissioner a captured tool of the industry. Since then, we've had a mixed bag of insurance commissioners with the nadir probably being the reign of corrupt politician Chuck Quackenbush from 1995 to 2000. Quackenbush fled in scandal after it was revealed that he allowed insurance companies to radically under-compensate victims of the massive Northridge earthquake.

With the reality of climate change causing massive risks of flooding, wildfire and other disasters rendered "natural" by human greed and waste, I want to know that my insurance company will actually have to compensate me for any losses I sustain.

The guy to do that is Dave Jones, currently our Assemblyman in Sacramento, running in the Democratic primary. Initially for a lot of people who knew them both, this was a tough race to decide in. Jones' opponent, Hector de la Torre is also a smart, effective liberal Democratic assemblyman. And he's from Los Angeles, where most of the votes in the live. And he's latino.

If Hector de la Torre were running in virtually any other contest, I'd almost certainly vote for him, but in this race, against this candidate, the choice is clear, it has to be Dave. The reason? Dave Jones will run the insurance commission the way he has run his campaign, relentlessly. He is a tireless campaigner, a tireless advocate for consumers. His personality is absolutely that of a tough, never say die regulator. And he really doesn't care who he pisses off. You might not want Dave being a mayor or a governor (you might, but you might not), but you definitely want him for this job (and then for Attorney General).

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights June 2010 Voter Guide

This is the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights June 2010 Voter Guide. I agree with their recommendations on the propositions. I will put something out soon with my recommendations on candidates--Sara

Ella Baker Center June 2010 Voter Guide

Every time there is an election, it's important that we make informed choices on each candidate and proposition on the ballot. Here are the Ella Baker Center recommendations for the propositions on the June 2010 election.

Download the printable version to take to the polls or use with your mail in ballot.
Prop 13
YES Prop 13 makes sure tax incentives for seismic retrofitting are available for all types of buildings. This encourages owners to make their buildings more quake-resistant without facing a tax reassessment.
Prop 14
NO While touted as an "open primary" bill, Prop 14 will allow candidates to conceal their party affiliation during primary elections. Only the top two candidates from the primary will be listed on the general election ballot (potentially from the same party), and no write-in candidates will be allowed. It will become virtually impossible for small party or independent candidates to run for state-wide offices. Prop 14 would add pressure on non-incumbents and/or nonfrontrunners to drop out, lest they "split the vote" of their party's voters, giving more power to party insiders, and less to voters. Ranked Choice Voting would be a more more equitable way of implementing the type of change that Proposition 14 claims to support.
Prop 15
YES Prop 15 is a step towards public funding for state campaigns. It will repeal the current ban on public funding for campaigns, and institute a pilot program where qualifying candidates for the office of Secretary of State could choose to receive public funds to pay for their campaign costs. Ella Baker Center recommends a YES vote because Prop 15 is an important first step towards elections where candidates are judged on the merit of their platforms rather than the amount of corporate money they are able to amass.
Prop 16
NO PG&E has introduced this bill to protect its monopoly and profits. If passed, Prop 16 would kill innovation in local and state alternative energy planning and employment as well as eliminating public power and community choice. This Prop is against everything we stand for. It's Anti-Green Jobs and Anti-community-empowerment. Watch and share a video about Prop 16.
Prop 17
NO This initiative is the insurance industry's attempt increase industry profits by manipulating voters into voting against their own interests. It ends hard fought consumer protections won through Prop 103 and court decisions. Prop 17 allows auto insurance companies in CA to surcharge drivers who cancel their insurance and then restart it, penalizing low and middle income Californians who may not have continual access to vehicles and therefore don't need ongoing coverage.


Key Election Dates

Early Voting Begins: Monday, May 10th
Last Day to Register to Vote: Monday, May 24th
Last Day to Request a Mail-In Ballot: Tuesday, June 1st
Election Day: Tuesday, June 8th

For more details about voting, to register to vote, or to request your mail-in ballot, visit www.sos.ca.gov

The Rich get Savings and the Poor get Bupkis

Just returned from a weekend in Yosemite with my husband (celebrating 20 years of marriage thank you very much!) so I'm tired and will keep this brief but lately I've just been noticing how many ways you can save money if you have it, but not if you don't. What set me off was noticing that you can buy an annual pass to Yosemite for $40 twice the one time entry fee)--it's a great deal, but if you're choosing between food and a pass on a given day, you'd pay the one time fee and buy the food.

Other examples abound, if you can afford to pay off your credit cards every month, you can get frequent flier miles and dollars back. If you can afford to become a member of the co-op, you can get your 10% discounts. If you fly enough, you can get free trips. The list goes on and on.

Of course the grand-daddy of all rich get richer schemes are tax deductions which benefit people in the top tax brackets way more than the people at the bottom.

I've noticed that some people with money avoid taking advantage of these little savings, feeling, I guess, that having so many dollars it is beneath them to watch the pennies. But studies show that people with money who keep money over decades are immensely careful with every penny.

I'll never forget when I worked in coalition in Washington, DC with a bunch of discount kings, self-made men who created successful discount furniture, clothing and other retail stores. When I would go out to lunch with these guys, they would haggle with the waitress over the price of cottage cheese and not one of them would offer to pick up the check. It would always be the trial lawyers, notorious for losing their money as quickly as they win it.

P.S. "Bupkis" is Yiddish for goat droppings.

Kagan and the Supremes

So it's Kagan. All in all, I'm pleased and optimistic. When I speculated on an appointment, I said that we needed someone who could surprise us; someone who hadn't already locked in her positions. That someone could be Kagan. Since she's never served on a court before even though much is known about her she's a bit of a wild card. She's also certainly female, apparently jewish, only 50 (a spring chicken in supreme court terms) and possibly lesbian.

My husband informs me that if she's sworn in (and she probably will be), it'll mark the first time we've had not a single protestant on the court (mostly catholic, a coupla other jews)--wild!

The single best thing I've heard about Kagan is probably that she clerked for the late great Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and considered him her hero. He's one of mine too, and she couldn't have picked a better one. He "did more to promote justice over the course of his legal career than did any lawyer in his lifetime," Kagan said earlier this week.

I think it's a good pick by Obama. Especially if she turns out to be a lesbian (sources tell me she's widely believed to be--maybe not quite actor David Hyde Pierce who was known to live with and go everywhere with a handsome man on his arm. When asked if he was gay, he replied, "my life's an open book but I'm not going to read it to anyone"). The right was going to throw a fit anyway. Might as well put someone on who really rattles their cages.

I also think it's an advantage that as a prior legislative, executive and judicial staffer and dean of Harvard Law School she's obviously developed serious political skills. Maybe Kagan is basically who Obama would pick if he were lucky enough to nominate a Chief Justice to the court. In a small body of 9, one person who really knows how to create consensus can make all the difference. Look for young energetic Kagan to forge unlikely majority or plurality opinions on key issues (which is about as good as we're going to get with this bunch).

Now we can hold our breaths and pray for her to be confirmed, and for her to come out as an avowed lesbian communist. In that order...

Our "coalition" government

In explaining to our children the new "coalition government" formed in the United Kingdom by the Conservative Party with the Liberal Democrats I found myself realizing that the Democratic Party in leadership has long been a coalition government. What else would urge late liberal Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) to say he was from "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party"?

In a parliamentary system like they have in most European Democracies, it's pretty obvious where the fault lines are drawn and what the concessions one party is making with another to merge (one concession the Conservative party will be making to the liberal democrats is political reform to allow their seats to better match their percentage of votes).

In this country, while everyone on the inside knows where the divisions lie, it's more nebulous. Our Democratic party contains a grown plurality of liberals, with a significant number of centrist to conservative Democrats (this is true particularly in those Congressional seats that were recently Republican controlled).

In this country, interest groups like the Sierra Club, AFL-CIO and NRA function more like the smaller parties that can spring up in a parliamentary system. Food for thought.

Roger Dickinson for Assembly

Six years ago I worked hard for Dave Jones against Roger Dickinson in the Democratic primary to fill Sacramento's assembly district. I argued that Dave was a real progressive and that despite Dickinson's length of public service, Dave would be the more reliable vote and the better, smarter, more aggressive assemblyman. I was right, and so was enough of the Democratic electorate to elect Dave handily. He's been a smart, aggressive, politically shrewd assemblyman and he's now in line to win the Democratic primary race for Insurance Commissioner (he'll be a great one).

This year I surprise myself by finding that I support Roger Dickinson against Kevin McCarty. Surely Roger is no Dave Jones but neither is Kevin McCarty (who inherited Jones' city council seat and now wants to follow him into the assembly). However, as a county supervisor, in a room full of supes who live for unbridled development, Roger has been a consistent sane vote for smarter growth. He hasn't always done the right thing, but he has been there way more often than not. McCarty, who may be the truer progressive in his ideology (not sure but there are signs of it), has not distinguished himself on the city council and lacks anything in particular to make up for his inexperience.


Dickinson on the other hand has years of experience in public service. He is reliable. He is supported by the Sierra Club, California Nurses Association and the local labor federation. He is the right choice for Sacramento.

The Help revisited

Just a note to say that at least one of my readers (who shall remain anonymous for now) found The Help "dangerously paternalistic and verging on stereotyping." I have to say, I can see why she thought that. I can see the paternalism. It is inherently offensive in some way to have it be a white woman who brings all these maids together and is their savior.

As to whether the characterizations and the voices are authentic, I'll defer to those black friends of mine who grew up in the deep south (if they care to crack the pages). To my ear, it sounds accurate.

To read a comparison from the Chicago Tribune between Stockett and an earlier white writer attempting a black voice, William Styron, click here. Most of the reviews of Stockett's book have not criticized her the way Styron was.

I'd like to think we've evolved as a society to the point where it isn't per se illegitimate to attempt to write from the perspective of those whose sandals we haven't trod in.

4 Snouts Up for The Help by Kathryn Stockett

(:)(:)(:)(:) for The Help by Kathryn Stockett. Not every 'New York Times Bestseller' is worth a read, but this one is. The book, set in Jackson, Mississippi in the mid-1960's (at the time of Medgar Evers' murder) is a fictional account of life in that time for 3 women, two black and one white, who work together in fear and secret to write a groundbreaking book of stories about what it's really like for the entirely black serving class to work for their white bosses and live their lives.

Stockett, from the race and class of the bosses, was born and raised in Jackson around the time the book is set. The voices and dialects of the black women feel authentic from my vantage, but what do I know?

My point of reference, actually, is my mother who was born in Charleston, South Carolina and raised in a succession of southern cities. She has often spoken to me of feeling closer to her "Mammy" Lulabelle then she ever did to her mother. The Help, among others, tells a heartbreaking story of one maid Aibileen who loves the white children she raises fiercely, telling little Mae Mobley several times a day, "you is perfect. You is smart. You is pretty" to counteract the opposite message Mae Mobley's mother conveys.

This book is not Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye, an authentic experience told from an African-American vantage. Although this book seeks to give us a sense of the real experiences of that time, it is mostly a good story set in a dramatic and interesting time. What makes this book good rather than great also makes it a fun beach read despite its dramatic content. While the author takes pains to convey the terrifying risks that the maids undertake to tell their stories, even anonymously in that day, ultimately that risk plays more as a device for dramatic tension that gets rather too neatly resolved at the end. Read it and tell me what you think...

The Wire is Alive and Well in Sacramento

In response to the Sacramento Bee's article on the front page of today's local section, "DA challenger faces uphill fight" I wrote this letter to the Bee:

Andy Furillo (the Bee's best reporter) undoubtedly gets it right: Jan Scully's challenger Julius Engel is a mixed bag and a long-shot for District Attorney. Yet, I plan to vote for him and I urge all Sacramentans to do so. Have you ever seen HBO's "The Wire"? Well, Jan Scully is the D.A. version of Police Chief Burrell whose sole focus is arresting low level drug users in order to look tough on crime. And it works, she does. Every year she diverts thousands of federal dollars that could be used to reduce the root causes of crime to spend it arresting narcotics violators. Scully is a key conservative voice statewide in protecting our failed 3 strikes law. She recently spent tens of thousands of dollars prosecuting one woman on a MISDEMEANOR who was volunteering to help get clean needles to drug addicts to reduce HIV transmission. Meanwhile cities like San Francisco and L.A. elect 21st century D.A.s who prosecute companies that rip-off seniors or chronic polluters in addition to protecting us from violence. Sacramento County is big and contains a range of viewpoints, but I know we can do better than Jan Scully. Vote for Engel.