Recommendations for November Ballot
These are strictly my personal opinions, for whatever they're worth. Feel free
to forward them or post to web, but please do not add the names of any other
individual or organization by way of identification or affiliation. And get
ready for some change we can believe in. -- Bill
Proposition 1A --Yes
Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.
If you’re wondering what happened to Prop 1, the Legislature replaced it with
1A, which is still a high-speed rail bond, but with significant improvements in
both fiscal accountability and environmental safeguards. This bond measure calls
for borrowing almost $10 billion, which is no easy sell, but creating a clean
and fast rail line linking most of the state’s population is a goal worth that
kind of investment. We need clean transportation alternatives to freeways and
airplanes, and if we don’t pass 1A it will be a long time before we have another
shot.
Proposition 2 -- Yes
Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Initiative Statute.
The Humane Society has a simple proposal: farm animals should have enough room
to actually turn around. Decreasing the density of confined animals will also
decrease pollution and help family farmers. The additional cost will be less
than one penny per egg.
Proposition 3 -- Yes
Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Initiative Statute.
Public borrowing for private institutions should have to pass a high threshold
of worthiness, and I think children’s hospitals meet that standard.
Proposition 4 -- No
Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s
Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
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.
A more likely result of passing this measure would be an increase in dangerous
amateur abortions.
Proposition 5 -- Yes
Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Initiative Statute.
Treatment and rehab programs for nonviolent offenders are more effective than
the lock-‘em up policy that the state has relied on in recent decades. These
programs will cost money, but will save higher amounts over time.
Proposition 6 -- No
Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Initiative
Statute.
Does anybody really think that our prison populations are too small, or that
sentences are too short? This measure would throw a lot of money into the
prison-industrial complex without accountability for how the money is spent.
State money that now goes to schools and healthcare would be shifted to building
jails and funding other local responsibilities.
Proposition 7 -- No
Renewable Energy Generation. Initiative Statute.
A billionaire had a good idea – ramp up renewable energy standards. But he got
really bad advice, then his team refused to listen to experts who suggested
changes in the proposal, or to recognize that the Legislature and Governor are
already moving toward the nation’s highest and best clean-power requirement. So the ballot language
would actually obstruct development of the small-scale solar and wind projects
we need. Just about all the state’s newspaper editorial boards and major
environmental groups are opposed.
Proposition 8 -- No
Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional
Amendment.
Why is it that the proponents of this constitutional amendment are so worried
that their marriages will be threatened if gay people are allowed to keep the
right to marry?
Proposition 9 -- No
Criminal Justice System. Victims’ Rights. Parole. Initiative Constitutional
Amendment and Statute.
This measure’s billionaire sponsor, Henry Nicholas, is under indictment for
fraud, drugs and prostitution, but he poses as a champion of victims’ rights.
Victims already have a bill of rights under the state Constitution, and Prop 9
would duplicate existing laws and cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars
a year.
Proposition 10 -- No
Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds. Initiative Statute.
Another billionaire trying to make energy policy through the ballot, but this
one – Swift Boat campaign funder T. Boone Pickens – knows exactly what he’s
doing: trying to enrich his natural gas business. Like Prop 7, Prop 10 also has
drawn opposition from just about all the state’s newspaper editorial boards and
every environmental group that has weighed in, along with taxpayer and consumer
groups. Natural gas vehicles are relatively clean, but shouldn’t be subsidized
by long-term state borrowing and shouldn’t be favored over cleaner alternatives
like battery electric vehicles.
Proposition 11 -- Yes
Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
CA needs to take redistricting away from the legislators, who have a conflict of
interest, and give it to an independent commission, as this measure would do. I
don’t buy many of the arguments of supporters – redistricting reform will not
make the Legislature more centrist or less partisan, which are over-rated virtues anyway. But it will make legislators
more responsive to their constituents, and will yield districts that are drawn
for their communities of interest and geographical compactness instead of the
self-interest of the politicians. Prop 11 isn’t perfect: it doesn’t cover
Congress, and the system of choosing the commissioners is overly complicated.
But it’s a lot better than the status quo, and is probably our best shot at
reform for a while, which is why the League of Women Voters and Common Cause
support.
Proposition 12 -- Yes
Veterans’ Bond Act of 2008.
This system of financing veterans’ home purchases has worked before, at no
direct cost to taxpayers.
Showing posts with label Bill Magavern. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Magavern. Show all posts
Monday, October 13, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Prescription: A healthier global warming plan
By Bill Magavern (published Thursday, October 09, 2008)
Even if pictures of stranded polar bears failed to warm your heart, global warming’s effect on your health should get your circulation going. As the California Air Resources Board takes on climate change with a plan scheduled for Oct. 3 release, Californians ought to scrutinize the effects that plan will have on our bodies.
Public health officials have predicted that human-induced warming will cause our elderly, outdoors workers and athletes to suffer increased amounts of heat-related illness, which in 2006 killed more than 100 vulnerable residents.
By taking action to slow global warming, we not only can lessen heat-related illness, we can also reduce the air pollution that plagues most of California. Curbing the pollution that causes global warming could prevent more than 3,000 premature deaths by 2020 and stave off an estimated 110,000 asthma cases, the California Air Resources Board has estimated.
Fortunately, the Global Warming Solutions Act, Assembly Bill 32, was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in 2006. Air Board experts have been developing their scoping plan for meeting that law’s requirement that California return its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. A revised version of the plan should come out Oct. 3.
As they design measures to reduce greenhouse gases, Air Board officials should provide the additional benefit of improving air quality, especially in communities that suffer from the most severe smog, particulates, and toxic air emissions. Low-income communities and communities of color should not have to sacrifice their right to breathe clean air in an environmentally just world.
The good news is that many common-sense measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will also help us breathe easier. By raising the clean-energy standard for our electricity providers to 33%, allowing cities and counties to power up their purchase of renewable energy by combining buying power at the local level, and telling the automakers to put zero-emission vehicles on the road, California can combat climate change and air pollution at the same time.
But some proposals to address climate change could have drawbacks for local air quality if they are poorly designed. If the Air Board sets up a pollution-trading system for greenhouse gases, as it intends to do, permits to pollute should not be given away to the polluters. Handing out a valuable asset to the big oil and power companies would not motivate them to clean up dirty facilities in low-income communities as quickly as possible. Instead, polluters should have to pay for emission allowances through an auction. Funds raised through the auction should be used for public purposes such as energy efficiency, promotion of renewable energy and public transit, aid to low-income consumers, and providing training for green jobs.
Greenhouse gas “offsets” are another controversial issue. Offsets may have a role in reducing greenhouse gas, but they should be limited to assure the integrity of the emission reductions and fulfill the letter and spirit of the law. While projects such as planting trees or building clean energy facilities may benefit individual communities, regulators must not let polluters off the hook or those who breathe the air near polluting plants, landfills and kilns will suffer.
AB 32, which we strongly supported, drew much of its backing from the prospect that an enforceable cap on our state’s greenhouse gas emissions would spur the technological innovations required to fundamentally transform our energy economy, and that California would benefit by creating the green technologies that the rest of the country and the rest of the world will demand. Curbing global warming will require a rapid greening of our vehicles, fuels and power plants. If those sectors are able to comply with AB 32 requirements by outsourcing their emission reductions to other sectors and other jurisdictions, it could hold back the entire clean energy revolution.
We must prioritize offset projects that will provide environmental benefits to California, especially in communities suffering from excessive levels of pollution. AB 32 requires CARB to ensure that its implementation rules “complement, and do not interfere with efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to reduce toxic air contaminant emissions.”
Strengthening our global warming plan will provide a bigger dose of health benefits to California’s poorest and most powerless residents as we reduce climate change.
Plus, it might help the polar bears too.
Even if pictures of stranded polar bears failed to warm your heart, global warming’s effect on your health should get your circulation going. As the California Air Resources Board takes on climate change with a plan scheduled for Oct. 3 release, Californians ought to scrutinize the effects that plan will have on our bodies.
Public health officials have predicted that human-induced warming will cause our elderly, outdoors workers and athletes to suffer increased amounts of heat-related illness, which in 2006 killed more than 100 vulnerable residents.
By taking action to slow global warming, we not only can lessen heat-related illness, we can also reduce the air pollution that plagues most of California. Curbing the pollution that causes global warming could prevent more than 3,000 premature deaths by 2020 and stave off an estimated 110,000 asthma cases, the California Air Resources Board has estimated.
Fortunately, the Global Warming Solutions Act, Assembly Bill 32, was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in 2006. Air Board experts have been developing their scoping plan for meeting that law’s requirement that California return its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. A revised version of the plan should come out Oct. 3.
As they design measures to reduce greenhouse gases, Air Board officials should provide the additional benefit of improving air quality, especially in communities that suffer from the most severe smog, particulates, and toxic air emissions. Low-income communities and communities of color should not have to sacrifice their right to breathe clean air in an environmentally just world.
The good news is that many common-sense measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will also help us breathe easier. By raising the clean-energy standard for our electricity providers to 33%, allowing cities and counties to power up their purchase of renewable energy by combining buying power at the local level, and telling the automakers to put zero-emission vehicles on the road, California can combat climate change and air pollution at the same time.
But some proposals to address climate change could have drawbacks for local air quality if they are poorly designed. If the Air Board sets up a pollution-trading system for greenhouse gases, as it intends to do, permits to pollute should not be given away to the polluters. Handing out a valuable asset to the big oil and power companies would not motivate them to clean up dirty facilities in low-income communities as quickly as possible. Instead, polluters should have to pay for emission allowances through an auction. Funds raised through the auction should be used for public purposes such as energy efficiency, promotion of renewable energy and public transit, aid to low-income consumers, and providing training for green jobs.
Greenhouse gas “offsets” are another controversial issue. Offsets may have a role in reducing greenhouse gas, but they should be limited to assure the integrity of the emission reductions and fulfill the letter and spirit of the law. While projects such as planting trees or building clean energy facilities may benefit individual communities, regulators must not let polluters off the hook or those who breathe the air near polluting plants, landfills and kilns will suffer.
AB 32, which we strongly supported, drew much of its backing from the prospect that an enforceable cap on our state’s greenhouse gas emissions would spur the technological innovations required to fundamentally transform our energy economy, and that California would benefit by creating the green technologies that the rest of the country and the rest of the world will demand. Curbing global warming will require a rapid greening of our vehicles, fuels and power plants. If those sectors are able to comply with AB 32 requirements by outsourcing their emission reductions to other sectors and other jurisdictions, it could hold back the entire clean energy revolution.
We must prioritize offset projects that will provide environmental benefits to California, especially in communities suffering from excessive levels of pollution. AB 32 requires CARB to ensure that its implementation rules “complement, and do not interfere with efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to reduce toxic air contaminant emissions.”
Strengthening our global warming plan will provide a bigger dose of health benefits to California’s poorest and most powerless residents as we reduce climate change.
Plus, it might help the polar bears too.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Bill Magavern's 2008 California Ballot Rx
Well, they're here! The long-awaited Bill Magavern ballot recommendations. With so many people absentee voting, we get requests for these LONG before the election. Hold your horses, people!!! Unless you are leaving for Europe or a tour of duty, what is the friggin' hurry on voting? I still walk to the neighborhood precinct on voting day, but if I voted two or three or four weeks out I would often regret it. New info really crystalizes in the final weeks of a campaign.
So without further ado:
THE BILL MAGAVERN BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS, FEBRUARY 2008
PROPOSITIONS
91 – NO
Even its authors have disowned this one. Its effect would be to expand the
circumstances under which all of the sales tax on gasoline – not the gas tax,
but the sales tax – could be spent only on transportation, which would bind the
hands of the governor and legislature during times of fiscal crisis.
92 – NO
91 and 92 share one of the worst features of ballot-box budgeting, because they
both would carve out slices of the budget pie without doing anything to enlarge
the pie. In this case, the cause is a worthy one – community colleges. But 92
wouldn’t raise any revenue, it would just direct existing revenues toward
community colleges, meaning other programs, like health, K-12 education, parks,
etc – would be cut. And capping community college fees is not as progressive as
it may sound. A much more equitable policy would be to raise fees on those who
can afford to pay and use the money to provide more financial aid for low-income
students.
93 – YES
CA’s legislative term limits are just about the tightest in the country, and
still would be even if 93 passes. The difference would be that a legislator
could serve up to 12 years in one house, which would greatly increase the
continuity and institutional memory in the Assembly. Currently, the lower house
looks like a revolving door, as freshmen arrive in Sacramento already eyeing
their next move, usually to the Senate. The situation means that fundraising –
almost all of it from special interests – never stops.
To me, this measure is not about who happens to be in office now, but about what
is the best policy for the long run. Allowing a legislator to make a 12-year
career in one house would definitely improve the quality of deliberation in the
Capitol – and I say that as someone who spends many of my working hours in that
particular sausage factory.
94-97 – NO
I’m certainly not thrilled that so much of California’s ballot space and
political advertising goes into gambling issues, when so many more important matters go neglected. In this expensive battle I side
with the labor and tribal interests who are trying to overturn 4 casinos’
agreements with the state. These agreements do not protect the rights of casino
employees.
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY – OBAMA
He opposed the Iraq war from the start, unlike his opponents. As a legislator,
he’s managed to pass tough bills by working with unlikely allies. My informed
source in Illinois politics has spoken highly of him for years. Obama’s theme of
participatory democracy – government by and for the people, not the corporate
lobbyists – could actually have a transformative effect. With Kucinich out of
the race, and Edwards’ campaign faltering, Obama is the progressive choice – and
also the one with the best chance of winning the White House.
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY – PAUL
His domestic platform is straight out of the 19th century, but he’s the only
Reep candidate opposed to the war, so if you’re in the GOP this is your chance to send a message.
I’m Bill Magavern, and I approve of this message.
So without further ado:
THE BILL MAGAVERN BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS, FEBRUARY 2008
PROPOSITIONS
91 – NO
Even its authors have disowned this one. Its effect would be to expand the
circumstances under which all of the sales tax on gasoline – not the gas tax,
but the sales tax – could be spent only on transportation, which would bind the
hands of the governor and legislature during times of fiscal crisis.
92 – NO
91 and 92 share one of the worst features of ballot-box budgeting, because they
both would carve out slices of the budget pie without doing anything to enlarge
the pie. In this case, the cause is a worthy one – community colleges. But 92
wouldn’t raise any revenue, it would just direct existing revenues toward
community colleges, meaning other programs, like health, K-12 education, parks,
etc – would be cut. And capping community college fees is not as progressive as
it may sound. A much more equitable policy would be to raise fees on those who
can afford to pay and use the money to provide more financial aid for low-income
students.
93 – YES
CA’s legislative term limits are just about the tightest in the country, and
still would be even if 93 passes. The difference would be that a legislator
could serve up to 12 years in one house, which would greatly increase the
continuity and institutional memory in the Assembly. Currently, the lower house
looks like a revolving door, as freshmen arrive in Sacramento already eyeing
their next move, usually to the Senate. The situation means that fundraising –
almost all of it from special interests – never stops.
To me, this measure is not about who happens to be in office now, but about what
is the best policy for the long run. Allowing a legislator to make a 12-year
career in one house would definitely improve the quality of deliberation in the
Capitol – and I say that as someone who spends many of my working hours in that
particular sausage factory.
94-97 – NO
I’m certainly not thrilled that so much of California’s ballot space and
political advertising goes into gambling issues, when so many more important matters go neglected. In this expensive battle I side
with the labor and tribal interests who are trying to overturn 4 casinos’
agreements with the state. These agreements do not protect the rights of casino
employees.
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY – OBAMA
He opposed the Iraq war from the start, unlike his opponents. As a legislator,
he’s managed to pass tough bills by working with unlikely allies. My informed
source in Illinois politics has spoken highly of him for years. Obama’s theme of
participatory democracy – government by and for the people, not the corporate
lobbyists – could actually have a transformative effect. With Kucinich out of
the race, and Edwards’ campaign faltering, Obama is the progressive choice – and
also the one with the best chance of winning the White House.
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY – PAUL
His domestic platform is straight out of the 19th century, but he’s the only
Reep candidate opposed to the war, so if you’re in the GOP this is your chance to send a message.
I’m Bill Magavern, and I approve of this message.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
I'm Grateful for Bill Magavern reducing Diesel Emissions
Every day I start my day making a list of 10 things for which I am grateful (well, truth be told, the first thing I have to be grateful for is that I often start my day cuddling with a sleepy 10 year old girl and prodding her gently to get on with her day).
I do this because it makes me have a better day. It shifts the focus of my attention away from what I don't have, to what I have (which is plenty!). Even though I have a conscious relationship with God, I am not grateful to God. God doesn't need my gratitude. The universe is providing what it's providing, whether I'm grateful or not.
No, the gratitude is for me. The gratitude is, cliche and rhyming but nonetheless true, an attitude. I need the gratitude.
I do this especially when I'm at my worst. I try to make every single thing on the list unique. In other words, I am not grateful for my husband and children and mother every day (even though I am).
Today I am grateful for the way N. head-butted me and grunted at 9:45pm last night when I told him it was time for lights out. I am grateful for Emily's 4th freckle below her right eye.
I am grateful that even though I missed the Capitol Public Radio report last week, I (and you) can hear Bill talking about reducing diesel emissions it by clicking here (or above).
I do this because it makes me have a better day. It shifts the focus of my attention away from what I don't have, to what I have (which is plenty!). Even though I have a conscious relationship with God, I am not grateful to God. God doesn't need my gratitude. The universe is providing what it's providing, whether I'm grateful or not.
No, the gratitude is for me. The gratitude is, cliche and rhyming but nonetheless true, an attitude. I need the gratitude.
I do this especially when I'm at my worst. I try to make every single thing on the list unique. In other words, I am not grateful for my husband and children and mother every day (even though I am).
Today I am grateful for the way N. head-butted me and grunted at 9:45pm last night when I told him it was time for lights out. I am grateful for Emily's 4th freckle below her right eye.
I am grateful that even though I missed the Capitol Public Radio report last week, I (and you) can hear Bill talking about reducing diesel emissions it by clicking here (or above).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)