2004 November Election Unofficial Voter Guide

Unofficial Crotty Voter Guide

This is one in an occasional series of election guides since 2000 discussing the issues and individuals appearing on the state and local ballot for your consideration and your determination. This voter guide was begun in response to the myriad ballot initiatives California citizens and legislators spawned over the last decade or so, accompanied by clever or stupid or misleading or devious, but certainly confusing (and, if one is running a “no” campaign, confusing is good, because confused voters vote “no’) campaign ads. For many readers, it is an opportunity to learn the (almost) untarnished truth and make and informed decision prior to voting. Others jump to the end of each discussion, see what I recommend, then vote similarly or otherwise …


President


IF YOU ARE ALIVE, HAVE AN ABOVE-ROOM TEMPERATURE IQ & HAVEN’T BEEN LIVING IN A CAVE FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS, THERE’S NO CHOICE TO BE MADE.

The sad thing is that the Republican’s “be afraid, be very, very, f@#$ing afraid” crap works.


U.S. Senate

Who would have ever thought these words could be uttered: “Barbara Boxer is a slam dunk to beat her Republican challenger?”
Actually, I did, several years ago when she ran against that white conservative Republican male … or, was it the other time she ran against that white conservative Republican male … or, was it the other time …

United States Congress

I’ll make this simple. Whether you like it or not, all the incumbents win. Sorry to take the suspense out of it.

United States Representative; District 49
Darrell E. Issa, Republican

United States Representative; District 50

• Democrat Francine Busby may get more than 40% … but, I doubt it.
• Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Republican Incumbent, wins again. He may be a fool, but he’s the Republican’s fool.
• Diane Templin doesn’t know that the American Independent Party is the segregationist party started by George Wallace. She thinks she’s registered as an “independent,” also known in California as “Decline to State (a party preference).”

United States Representative; District 51
Bob Filner, Democrat

United States Representative; District 52
Duncan Hunter, Republican

United States Representative; District 53
Susan A. Davis, Democrat

Statewide Ballot Propositions

Proposition 1A
Local Government Finance. Constitutional Amendment

Should the California Constitution be amended to reduce the Legislature’s authority over major local government revenue sources, including property taxes, sales taxes and vehicle license fees (VLF), and to require that local programs and services mandated by the state be suspended if state funding is not provided?
Analysis

California cities, counties, and special districts provide services and programs paid for with property tax, local sales tax, and the vehicle license fee (VLF). The Legislature, however, has authority over these taxes. And, since they have this “authority,” they steal these funds to plug holes in the State’s budget.

These state “raids” on local government program financing started getting bad while Pete Wilson was Governor. Pete was running for President and didn’t want to have the largest tax increase in the history of the state on his resume, so he reallocated money that should have gone to run state-mandated programs through counties, Cities & special districts to achieve a balanced state budget.

Governor Arnold (I’ll be referring to our current Governor frequently, so we’ll be referring to him as many things, but generally “Arnie” or the “Gov”) pledged to repeal the “car tax” while running in the recall, but voters didn’t realize that the car tax, or VLF had a provision in it that mandated an increase based on a variety of factors … suffice to say, rolling back the VLF left local governments holding the bag.

Although the State Constitution requires California to reimburse local governments, schools, and community college districts when the state “mandates” new programs or higher service levels, the state hasn’t done so … lawsuits pending.

If Proposition 1A passes, the state could not:

• Reduce local sales tax rates or alter the method of allocation
• Shift property taxes from local governments to schools or community colleges
• Decrease VLF revenues without providing replacement funding
• Enforce un-reimbursed mandates.

This measure was placed on the ballot by the Legislature as part of the 2004-05 budget package. For fiscal years 2004-06, property tax revenues due to cities, counties, special districts and redevelopment agencies will be lowered by $2.6 billion. Those funds will be shifted to schools and community colleges, lowering state costs for the next two years.

Starting in 2008-09, in an emergency, by a vote of two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature and the approval of the Governor, property tax could be shifted to schools, but it must be repaid, with interest, within three years. The state could also approve voluntary exchanges of sales and property tax revenues among local governments within a county. These transfers of taxes and funds would not need voter approval, meaning fewer revenue measure campaigns for me to run.

Local governments would have greater and more stable revenues, resulting in increased spending on local programs or decreased local fees or taxes. The measure’s effect on state finances would be the opposite.

If both Propositions 1A and 65 are approved, the provisions of the measure receiving the most votes will go into effect.

SUPPORTERS SAY

Proposition 1A

• Would end state raids on local revenue and provide stability and predictability for future funding of local services

• Would provide the Legislature with flexibility to deal with future state fiscal crises.

OPPONENTS SAY

Proposition 1A

• Would lock into the Constitution a flawed system of funding local governments.

• Would give local politicians a spending guarantee with no fiscal accountability or oversight.

I SAY

Both proponents and opponents are right, but I’d rather fight it out with local elected officials than continue to hear that the state failed to fund program X, therefore “are hands or tied.”

Untie local governments’ hands, force the state to live within it’s means and vote out those who are unable or unwilling to make things happen.

Vote “yes” on 1A.


Proposition 59
Public Records, Open Meetings

Shall the Constitution be amended to include public's right of access to meetings of government bodies and writings of government officials while preserving specified constitutional rights and retaining existing exclusions for certain meetings and records?

Measure amends Constitution to:

• Provide right of public access to meetings of government bodies and writings of government officials.
• Provide that statutes and rules furthering public access shall be broadly construed, or narrowly construed if limiting access.
• Require future statutes and rules limiting access to contain findings justifying necessity of those limitations.
• Preserve constitutional rights including rights of privacy, due process, equal protection; expressly preserves existing constitutional and statutory limitations restricting access to certain meetings and records of government bodies and officials, including law enforcement and prosecution records.

Of course, it exempts the Legislature's records and meetings.

Prop 59 would grant a constitutional right of access to government information. A government entity would have to demonstrate to a somewhat greater extent why information requested by the public should be kept private.

Proponents Say

California's government – all three branches, statewide and local – should be as transparent as possible to the public it asks for funding, power, and trust. But, too often officials and judges choose secrecy over disclosure. Proposition 59 would make transparency a constitutional duty owed to the people, to whom officials are accountable.

Opponents Say

Proposition 59 doesn’t go far enough in guaranteeing access.

I Say

Once again proponents and opponents are right … we should have greater access.

Did you see how the legislature exempted itself? You gotta love Legislative-sponsored initiatives! Kinda like Congressional health care and retirement benefits – they just keep going and going and going …

But, let’s take what we can get while we have the opportunity to get it. Vote “yes” on 59.
Proposition 60
Election Rights of Political Parties

Shall the general election ballot be required to include the candidate receiving most votes among candidates of same party for partisan office in primary election?

• Provides the right for a political party participating in a primary election for partisan office to also participate in the general election for that office.
• Candidate receiving most votes from among that party's candidates in primary election for state partisan office cannot be denied placement on general election ballot.

The State Constitution would require that the top vote-getter from each party in a state primary election advance to the general election. (The current statutory elections process has this requirement.)

California generally holds two statewide elections to elect a candidate to public office, a primary election (in March, but wait, there’s another measure where we can move it back to June, which makes my life much easier) and a general election (in November). In partisan contests, the primary election determines each political party’s nominee for the office. The candidate receiving the most votes among a party’s candidates is that party’s nominee for the general election. In the general election, voters then choose among the nominees for each party as well as any independent candidates.

Proposition 60 places into the State Constitution a requirement that all parties participating in a primary election be able to advance their top vote-getting candidate to the general election.

This requirement is met by the current election process as described above.

Proposition 62 on this ballot also contains provisions affecting which primary candidates advance to the general election ballot. The State Constitution provides that if the provisions of two approved propositions are in conflict, only the provisions of the measure with the higher number of yes votes will take effect.

ANY political party that participates in a primary election would have the constitutional right to have its nominee on the subsequent general election ballot.

That means in general elections, we get to choose from not only Dems & Reps, but also American Independent (George Wallace’s party that some idiots believe is the party you choose to be an independent voter with a little “i,” instead of simply not registering in a party, making you a true Independent as a “Decline to State”), Green, Peace & Freedom, Natural Law, Libertarian, Reform …
Speaking of the Reform Party, what ever happened to Ross Perot? Maybe they really were out to get him ….

A “no” vote means that the California Constitution would not address the right of political parties to appear on a general election ballot.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Proposition 60 protects voter choice by guaranteeing that every political party that nominates a candidate for partisan office in a primary election will then be able to compete in the subsequent general election.
• Proposition 60 gives voters a simple, straightforward alternative to Proposition 62, which is “a radical plan” to eliminate the current primary election system.

OPPONENTS SAY

• Proposition 60 does not spell out what type of primary election California will have, leaving the door open for special interest changes that will harm our electoral system.
• Proposition 60 is a “poison pill” measure designed to kill Proposition 62’s open primary initiative by rendering it unconstitutional.

I Say

Proposition 60 is written as an alternative to Proposition 62, which seeks to implement a two-stage general election system in California.

If the system promoted by Proposition 62 had been in effect for legislative and congressional races in 1998, 2000 and 2002, 50 general election contests would have been limited to two candidates from the same party.

In virtually every case, third party and independent candidates would be shut out of the general election completely. Thank God!

A vote for this measure is a vote against Ralph Naders (e.g., spoilers … and, yes, I’m still bitter about that guy who hit me in the head with a Bush sign while participating in the Florida recount …) at the state level.

Vote “Yes” on 60.

PROPOSITION 60A
Surplus State Property

Should the proceeds from the sale of surplus state property be dedicated to pay the principal and interest on the Economic Recovery Bonds approved in March 2004?

Current state statutes generally require a state agency to review annually its real property holdings (land and facilities) and determine what, if any, is in excess of its foreseeable needs. These properties are commonly referred to as "surplus state properties." They include both unused properties and those which are underutilized by an agency. Certain state-owned properties are excluded from being designated as surplus property, including any land designated for use for highway purposes.

Once real property has been identified as surplus, the state attempts to sell the property, or dispose of it in some other manner, such as by giving it to a local government. When surplus property is sold, the sales revenues are deposited into the account that originally paid for the acquisition of the property. In most instances, sales revenues are deposited in the state's General Fund and are available for expenditure on any state program.

Proposition 57 Bonds

In March of this year, voters approved Proposition 57, which authorizes the issuance of up to $15 billion in bonds to finance past budget deficits.
The debt service (principal and interest payments) on these bonds is to be repaid over a 9- to 14-year period from designated General Fund revenues.

This measure requires that proceeds from the sale of surplus state property that occur on or after the passage of this measure be used to pay the principal and interest on Proposition 57 bonds. Once these bonds are fully repaid, proceeds from surplus property sales would be deposited in the General Fund.

The measure only applies to those properties that were purchased with General Fund revenue or bonds secured by the General Fund.

Proceeds from the sale of surplus state property, which fluctuate significantly from year to year, are not a major source of General Fund revenue. Surplus property sales have averaged roughly $30 million a year over the past decade. (Total General Fund revenues in 2003-04 were roughly $75 billion.) By dedicating these surplus property proceeds to the debt service on Proposition 57 bonds, this measure would accelerate the bonds' repayment probably by a few months.

In effect, the state would pay out more for debt service on these bonds in the short term and less in the longer term. This is similar to what happens when you make additional payments on top of your regular car or home loan payments.

While this measure would not change the amount of bond principal, it would reduce the amount of interest payments over the life of the repayment period. The interest savings-- in today's dollars--could be in the low tens of millions of dollars.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Proposition 60A would reduce the overall cost of the Proposition 57 deficit reduction bonds approved in March 2004 by accelerating repayment.

OPPONENTS SAY

• Proposition 60A does not force the sale of surplus state property. It only says that, if property is sold, the proceeds go to pay off the deficit reduction bonds.

I Say

Oh no! Another undedicated source of state revenue! Communism will be next!

Vote “yes,” if it will make you feel better about voting for Anrie’s Prop 57 in March … don’t blame me …

PROPOSITION 61
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL PROJECTS GRANT PROGRAM

Proposition 61 authorizes the state to sell $750 million in general obligation bonds for capital improvement projects at children’s hospitals. The measure specifically identifies the five University of California children’s hospitals as eligible recipients:

1) Mattel Children’s Hospital at UCLA
2) University Children’s Hospital at UC Irvine
3) UC Davis Children’s Hospital
4) UC San Diego Children’s Hospital
5) UC San Francisco Children’s Hospital

Other children’s hospitals in California would also be eligible.

If the $750 million in bonds were sold at an interest rate of 5.25 percent and repaid over 30 years, the cost to the state General Fund would be about $1.5 billion to pay off both the principal ($750 million) and the interest ($756 million). The average total payment would be about $50 million per year. Administrative costs would be 1 percent of the bond funds or less.

Supporters Say

More money for children’s hospitals is a good thing.

Opponents Say

California voters have already approved billions of dollars in bond sales and have mortgaged the future. Additional borrowing is not responsible at this time of deficits and high debt.

I Say

More money for children’s hospitals is a good thing.


PROPOSITION 62
ELECTIONS, PRIMARIES.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

Should the State Constitution be amended to require primary elections that allow all voters to vote for any state or federal candidate (other than for President or party committee) regardless of party affiliation, and to require that the two candidates receiving the most votes for an office advance to the general election ballot?

California generally holds two statewide elections to elect candidates to public office, a primary and a general election. Voters affiliated with a particular political party receive their party’s ballot. The primary election determines each political party’s nominee for the general election. In the general election, voters then choose among all the parties’ nominees, as well as any independent candidates, to elect a candidate to office.

In 1996, Proposition 198 created a “blanket” primary system, which allowed all voters, regardless of party registration, to vote for any candidate in a primary election.
This system was used for the 1998 and 2000 primaries, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the system unconstitutional and the state returned to using party-specific primary ballots.

Under Prop 62, for most state and federal offices, all voters, including those not registered with a political party, would be allowed to vote for any candidate.

The measure does not apply to the election of the U.S. President or political party committees’ candidates.

Only the top two vote-getters, regardless of political party, would advance to the general election.

If approved, the new system would begin with the March 2006 primary.

SUPPORTERS SAY

Proposition 62 will:

• Open up California’s election process
• Expand voter choices
• Increase voter participation
• Create more competition in elections

OPPONENTS SAY
Proposition 62 will:

• Restrict voters to only two choices in the general election
• Force minor parties off the ballot
• Suppress voter turnout
• Decrease competition and opportunities for minority candidates

I Say

Sponsors of Proposition 62 say their open-primary measure would create more competitive elections in California and make it easier for moderates to win office.

Nice idea … in theory.

With redistricting, in many districts Republicans will have no Democrat to vote for in the general election and vice versa.

Minor-party candidates would rarely get enough votes to appear in November, which might not be such a bad thing …

Any real reform would address redistricting.

And, guess what? An initiative campaign is expected in 2006 to propose an independent commission to draw election districts. Wow! Didn’t see that coming, huh?

However, even if it qualifies for the ballot and passes, it may not go into effect until 2011.

Proposition 60, which would lock the present primary system into the state Constitution, was drawn by party leaders to counter Prop 60.

Screw Party leaders. Vote “yes” on 62.

PROPOSITION 63
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES EXPANSION, FUNDING.
TAX ON PERSONAL INCOMES ABOVE $1 MILLION.

Should an additional tax of 1 percent be imposed on taxpayers’ personal income over $1 million to provide dedicated funding for the expansion of mental health services and programs?

Yes. Oops … too soon. Scholarly and unbiased analysis follows:

Counties are the primary providers of mental health care for Californians who lack private coverage, which may include psychiatric counseling, hospitalization and other services. Some counties also arrange other types of assistance such as housing, substance abuse treatment and employment services. Mental health services are currently paid for with a mix of federal, state and local funds.

Proposition 63 would provide funds to the state and counties to expand and develop programs and services for the mentally ill, including prevention, early intervention and education. It also creates a commission to approve certain county mental health programs and expenditures.

Funding comes from a 1 percent tax on taxpayers’ personal income above $1 million.
It also prohibits the state from decreasing current funding levels for mental health services.

The Legislative Analyst projects the following fiscal effects:

• Additional revenues (approximately $800 million by FY 2006-2007 and probably more annually thereafter), with corresponding annual increases in mental health expenditures by the state and counties.
• Unknown state and local savings, as the increase in mental health services decreases the need for other government services.
• This, together with increased availability of matching federal funds, could amount to as much as the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Under this measure, beginning in 2004-05, the State Controller would transfer specified amounts of state funding on a monthly basis into a new state fund named the Mental Health Services Fund. The amounts transferred would be based on an estimate of the revenues to be received from the surcharge. The amounts deposited into the fund would be adjusted later to reflect the revenues actually received from the tax surcharge.

Beginning in 2004-05, revenues deposited in the Mental Health Services Fund would be used to create new county mental health programs and to expand some existing programs. These funds would not be provided through the annual state budget act and thus amounts would not be subject to change by actions of the Legislature and Governor – that is a very good thing…

Specifically, the funds could be used for the following activities:

• Children's System of Care. Expansion of existing county system of care services for children who lack other public or private health coverage to pay for mental health treatment.
• Adult System of Care. Expansion of existing county system of care services for adults with serious mental disorders or who are at serious risk of such disorders if they do not receive treatment.
• Prevention and Early Intervention. New county prevention and early intervention programs to get persons showing early signs of a mental illness into treatment quickly before their illness becomes more severe.
• "Wraparound" Services for Families. A new program to provide state assistance to counties to establish wraparound services, which provide various types of medical and social services for families (for example, family counseling) where the children are at risk of being placed in foster care.
• "Innovation" Programs. New county programs to experiment with ways to improve access to mental health services, including for underserved groups, to improve program quality, or to promote interagency collaboration in the delivery of services to clients.
• Mental Health Workforce: Education and Training. Stipends, loan forgiveness, scholarship programs, and other new efforts to (1) address existing shortages of mental health staffing in county programs and (2) help provide the additional staffing that would be needed to carry out the program expansions proposed in this measure.
• Capital Facilities and Technology. A new program to allocate funding to counties for technology improvements and capital facilities needed to provide mental health services.
Under the terms of the proposition, each county would draft and submit for state review and approval a three-year plan for the delivery of mental health services within its jurisdiction. Counties would also be required to prepare annual updates and expenditure plans for the provision of mental health services.

The Department of Mental Health, in coordination with certain other state agencies, would have the lead state role in implementing most of the programs specified in the measure and allocating the funds through contracts with counties.

In addition, a new Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission would be established to review county plans for mental health services and to approve expenditures for certain programs. The existing Mental Health Planning Council would continue to review the performance of the adult and children's system of care programs. The Franchise Tax Board would be the lead state agency responsible for administration of the tax provisions of this proposition.

The measure permits up to 5 percent of the funding transferred into the Mental Health Services Fund to be used to offset state costs for implementation of the measure. Up to an additional 5 percent could be used annually for county planning and other administrative activities to implement this measure.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Proposition 63 expands mental health care for children and adults using programs proven to be effective while requiring strict financial accountability.
• Prisons are crowded with mentally ill people who might not be there if they had been treated. We should provide care before people end up on the streets or behind bars, freeing our police officers to focus on criminals.

OPPONENTS SAY

• Proposition 63 is built on a shaky funding scheme. It will drive away the very taxpayers whose support is needed.
• Proposition 63 mandates funding existing mental health programs at their current levels, regardless of proven effectiveness or efficiency.
I Say

It’s estimated that 25,000 to 30,000 taxpayers would be subject to paying the surcharge.

Okay. You’re saying, “way too much bureaucracy!” Well, wait, there’s more … and, it gets better.

The proposition specifies that the revenues generated from the tax surcharge must be used to expand mental health services and could not be used for other purposes. In addition, the state and counties would be prohibited from redirecting funds now used for mental health services to other purposes.
The state would specifically be barred from reducing General Fund support, entitlements to services, and formula distributions of funds now dedicated for mental health services below the levels provided in 2003-04.

The state would also be prohibited from changing mental health programs to increase the share of their cost borne by a county or to increase the financial risk to a county for the provision of such services unless the state provided adequate funding to fully compensate for the additional costs or financial risk.

Additional Federal Funds

The expansion of county mental health services provided under this proposition--particularly the provisions expanding services for adults who are mentally ill--could result in the receipt of additional federal funds for community mental health services under the Medi-Cal Program. The amount of additional federal funds is unknown and would depend upon how the state and counties implement this proposal, but could potentially exceed $100 million annually on a statewide basis.

This is the “make up for what Ronald Reagan did when he was Governor” initiative. Vote “yes.”


PROPOSITION 64
LIMITATIONS ON ENFORCEMENT OF
UNFAIR BUSINESS COMPETITION LAWS

California 's unfair competition law prohibits any person from engaging in any unlawful or fraudulent business act. This law may be enforced in court by the Attorney General, local public prosecutors, or a person acting in the interest of itself, its members, or the public. Examples of this type of lawsuit include cases involving deceptive or misleading advertising or violations of state law intended to protect the public well being, such as health and safety requirements.

Currently, a person initiating a lawsuit under the unfair competition law is not required to show that he/she suffered injury or lost money or property. Also, the Attorney General and local public prosecutors can bring an unfair competition lawsuit without demonstrating an injury or the loss of money or property of a claimant.

Currently, persons initiating unfair competition lawsuits do not have to meet the requirements for class action lawsuits. Requirements for a class action lawsuit include (1) certification by the court of a group of individuals as a class of persons with a common interest, (2) demonstration that there is a benefit to the parties of the lawsuit and the court from having a single case, and (3) notification of all potential members of the class.

In cases brought by the Attorney General or local public prosecutors, violators of the unfair competition law may be required to pay civil penalties up to $2,500 per violation. Currently, state and local governments may use the revenue from such civil penalties for general purposes.

This measure makes the following changes to the current unfair competition law:

• Restricts Who Can Bring Unfair Competition Lawsuits. This measure prohibits any person, other than the Attorney General and local public prosecutors, from bringing a lawsuit for unfair competition unless the person has suffered injury and lost money or property.
• Requires Lawsuits Brought on Behalf of Others to Be Class Actions. This measure requires that unfair competition lawsuits initiated by any person, other than the Attorney General and local public prosecutors, on behalf of others, meet the additional requirements of class action lawsuits.
• Restricts the Use of Civil Penalty Revenues. This measure requires that civil penalty revenues received by state and local governments from the violation of unfair competition law be used only by the Attorney General and local public prosecutors for the enforcement of consumer protection laws.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Proposition 64 will stop frivolous lawsuits that harm small businesses while protecting the rights of those actually harmed by continuing to allow the Attorney General and local public prosecutors to file lawsuits on behalf of the People of California.
• Proposition 64 will put settlement money into enforcement of consumer protection laws instead of into private pockets.

OPPONENTS SAY

• Large businesses have financed Proposition 64 because it will limit the rights of private citizens to bring consumer protection lawsuits.
• Corporations that profit from intentionally polluting air or water or invading personal privacy should be subject to lawsuits regardless of personal injury or loss.

I Say

Follow the money. Following are contributors of $50,000 or more on behalf of this initiative:

Donors Amounts Given

CALIFORNIA MOTOR CAR DEALERS ASSOCIATION FUND TO STOP SHAKEDOWN LAWSUITS $2,000,000.00
CALIFORNIA MOTOR CAR DEALERS ASSOCIATION FUND TO STOP SHAKEDOWN LAWSUITS $500,000.00
ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS, INC. $500,000.00
ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS, INC. $500,000.00
U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND RELATED ENTITIES $495,000.00
ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS, INC. $250,000.00
ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS, INC. $250,000.00
INTEL CORPORATION $200,000.00
BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA $150,000.00
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC. $125,000.00
BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA $115,000.00
INTEL CORPORATION $100,000.00
BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA $100,000.00
ORACLE CORPORATION $100,000.00
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON $100,000.00
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS ISSUES MOBILIZATION PAC $100,000.00
MICROSOFT $100,000.00
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. $100,000.00
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY $100,000.00
CITIGROUP INC. AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES $100,000.00
BANK OF AMERICA $100,000.00
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC. $100,000.00
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS ISSUES MOBILIZATION PAC $100,000.00
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY $100,000.00
ORACLE CORPORATION $100,000.00
TARGET CORPORATION $100,000.00
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION $100,000.00
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL, INC. $100,000.00
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY $100,000.00
SHELL OIL COMPANY $100,000.00
FARMERS GROUP, INC. $100,000.00
CATERPILLAR, INC. $75,000.00
NIKE INC. AND AFFILIATES $50,000.00
AMERIQUEST CAPITAL CORPORATION $50,000.00
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. $50,000.00
21ST CENTURY INSURANCE $50,000.00
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS $50,000.00
MERCURY GENERAL CORPORATION $50,000.00
BP AMERICA AND ITS AFFILIATED ENTITIES $50,000.00
UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS GROUP $50,000.00
21ST CENTURY INSURANCE $50,000.00
IBA WEST INC. $50,000.00
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY $50,000.00
THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY ( THE P&G COMPANY) $50,000.00
BP AMERICA AND ITS AFFILIATED ENTITIES $50,000.00
MICROSOFT $50,000.00
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA $50,000.00

Do I really have to recommend that you vote against it?


PROPOSITION 65
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS AND REVENUES.
STATE MANDATES.

California’s more than 5,000 local governments (cities, counties, special districts, and redevelopment agencies) fund programs and services with money from local taxes, fees, and user charges, state and federal aid and other sources. The State Constitution and existing statutes allow the Legislature to take over funds from three major taxes: property tax, sales tax and the VLF. In addition, the state has not reimbursed local governments for mandated programs although it is required to do so by the state constitution.

This measure amends the state constitution to reduce the state’s authority over local government, school, and community college programs. Voters would have to approve any:

• Shift in property taxes from local governments to schools and community colleges;
• Change in how sales taxes are distributed among cities and counties;
• Exchange of city sales taxes for increased property taxes;
• Revised formulas used to distribute property taxes among local governments.
Proposition 65 also would suspend any law enacted after November 1, 2003 that would have required voter approval under the terms of this measure. Suspended laws would take effect only if approved at the next statewide election.
In addition, if the state does not provide timely reimbursement for a mandate’s costs, local agencies could choose not to comply with that mandate.

Since Proposition 65 would reduce state authority over local finances, local revenues would be higher and more stable. The effect on state finances would be the opposite of its effect on local finances.

SUPPORTERS SAY

Proposition 65 would stop the state from balancing their budget on the backs of local governments.

OPPONENTS SAY

Proposition 65 has been supplanted by Proposition 1A, which is supported by the Governor, the Legislature and earlier proponents of Proposition 65.



I Say
Look at supporters & opponents.

Supporters, none.

Opponents, Californians to Protect Local Taxpayers and Public Safety, including:

Honorary Chair
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Fire and Emergency Services
California Fire Chiefs Association
California Metropolitan Fire Chiefs
California Professional Firefighters
California State Firefighters’ Association
Fire Districts Association of California
Alameda County Fire Department
Atascadero City Fire Department
Atascadero Firefighters Association
Beverly Hills Firemen’s Association
Burney Fire Protection District
California City Fire Department
Chino Valley Independent Fire District
Corona Fire Department
Eastside Rural County Fire Protection District
Elk Grove CSD Fire Department
Fire Chiefs Association of San Luis Obispo County
Georgetown Fire District
Lathrop-Manteca Fire District
Meeks Bay Fire Protection District
Mokelumne Rural Fire District
Murphys Fire Protection District
North County Fire Protection District of Monterey County
North County Firefighters Association Local 3058
North Shore Fire Authority
North Tahoe Fire Protection District
Novato Fire District
Orange County Professional Firefighters Association
Poway Firefighters Association
Roseville Fire Department
San Bernardino City Fire Department
San Jose Fire Department
Santa Fe Springs Fire Department
Southern Marin Fire Protection District
Law Enforcement
California District Attorney’s Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs’ Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Antioch Police Department
Antioch Police Officers Association
Arroyo Grande Police Officer Association
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Chino Police Management Association
Chino Police Officers Association
El Monte Police Department
Folsom Police Department
Fontana Police Benefits Association
Fontana Police Officers Association
Fort Bragg Police Department
Grover Beach Police Department
Healdsburg Police Department
Hermosa Beach Police Department
Kensington Police Officers Association
Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District
Kings County Sheriff’s Department
Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Los Angeles Probation Officers, AFSCME, Local 685
Monterey County Chief Law Enforcement Officers’ Association
Newark Police Department
Piedmont Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Roseville Police Officers Association
San Bernardino County Police Chiefs and Sheriff Association
San Bernardino Police Department
San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association
San Rafael Police Association
Scotts Valley Police Department
Signal Hill Police Department
Walnut Creek Police Officers Association
Health Care Organizations
California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems
Health Officers Association of California
Statewide Local Government Orgs.
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
League of California Cities
California Association of Public Cemeteries
California Association of Recreation and Park Districts
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
California Public Parking Association
California Redevelopment Association
California Contract Cities Association
Local Government Commission
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Senior Groups
California Legislative Council for Older Americans
California Senior Action Network
Taxpayer/Citizens Oversight Groups
National Tax Limitation Committee PAC
Kern County Taxpayers Association
Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association
North County Citizens’ Oversight Coalition
Northern California Coalition for Limited Government
Orange County Taxpayers Association
Sacramento County Coalition for Limited Government
San Diego County Taxpayers Association
Ventura County Taxpayers Association
Water
Association of California Water Agencies
California Rural Water Association
Big Bear Municipal Water District
Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency
Castroville Water District
Cucamonga Valley Water District
El Dorado County Water Agency
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
Helix Water District
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District
Irvine Ranch Water District
Kern Delta Water District
Laguna Beach County Water District
Lake Hemet Municipal Water District
Lakeside Water District

Do you get the point? Yes on 65.


PROPOSITION 66
LIMITATIONS ON “THREE STRIKES” LAW.
SEX CRIMES. PUNISHMENT.
Initiative Statute

Should California’s “Three Strikes” law be amended to require increased sentences for repeat offenders only when the new conviction is for a violent or serious felony, and should punishment be increased for specific sex crimes against children?

Existing law classifies some felonies, as “violent” or “serious.” The “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law mandates that if a person has two or more previous serious or violent felony convictions, the sentence for any additional felony conviction (not just serious or violent) is 25 years to life. Regarding sex offenses against children, current law requires a prison sentence of 3, 6, or 8 years.

Proposition 66 requires that a repeat offender be subject to a longer sentence only if the new crime is a violent and serious felony instead of any felony. Certain felony offenses currently designated as serious or violent would no longer be so classified. The state would be required to re-sentence offenders currently serving 25 years to life if their third strike resulted from a conviction for a nonviolent and non-serious offense.

Fiscal Effect

The state could ultimately save several hundreds of millions of dollars annually due to a reduced prison population. Local and state governments would incur increased annual costs of tens of millions of dollars for courts and county jails.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• This measure would preserve the original intent of the Three Strikes law keeping violent, dangerous criminals in prison.
• Proposition 66 would make California’s Three Strikes law conform to those working well in 26 other states.
• Taxpayers would ultimately save as much as $700 million a year in prison operating costs and more than $1 billion for new prison construction.
• Proposition 66 would help protect our children by creating harsher penalties for child molesters and removing repeat offenders from society for life.

OPPONENTS SAY

I don’t care what the opponents say.

I Say

This is what “3 Strikes” was supposed to be … even though I didn’t support “3 Strikes” in the 1st place.

It’s the law. The law doesn’t work. Prison Guards ran things under Wilson and Davis, but it’s time to stop providing job security to the CCPOA.

Vote “yes.”

PROPOSITION 67
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES.
TELEPHONE SURCHARGE.

Telephone customers in California pay a monthly surcharge of 0.72 percent with a cap of 0.75 percent on in-state calls to support the 911 emergency system. Revenues are deposited in the State Emergency Telephone Number 911 Account and appropriated by the Legislature for 911 operational costs.

Increases in cellular phones have resulted in the 911 Account maintaining a reserve from $15 to $80 million a year. 2002-2003 revenues were $139 million.

By law, persons seeking emergency medical care must receive it, regardless of ability to pay. The state compensates hospitals and physicians with about $32 million a year, derived from the Tobacco Tax and Health Protection Act, which assessed a $0.25 per pack tax on cigarettes. Due to the decline in tobacco users, funding is expected to decrease.

Each county may establish an Emergency Medical Service Fund with specified revenues from criminal fines and penalties. These funds go to physicians for uncompensated emergency and trauma care, hospitals, and other emergency medical services. Even with these funds, hospital and physician services are not fully compensated.

Proposition 67 would increase funding for reimbursement of uncompensated emergency medical care and other purposes by imposing an additional 3 percent telephone surcharge on bills for in-state calls.

The surcharge applies to each separate phone bill. Surcharges for residential customers would be limited to 50 cents per month. This limit does not apply to cellular or commercial telephone services.

Revenues would be deposited into a new 911 Emergency and Trauma Care Fund allowing specified state agencies to expend funds without appropriation by the Legislature. The measure requires counties to establish a special fund and to transfer a portion of those revenues to the state for reimbursement of county emergency physicians.

The plan shifts financial administration from the county to the state.

Fiscal Effect

Proposition 67 would raise about $500 million annually for reimbursement of emergency medical services and for other specified purposes. It would continue about $32 million in funding from Proposition 99 and $32 million from the county’s funds.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Experts predict that more emergency rooms and trauma centers will close if they are forced to continue to provide uncompensated care.
• Rapid response emergency treatment can make the difference between life and death.
• Proposition 67 will provide needed funds to equip and train firefighters and paramedics and upgrade our 911 system.
OPPONENTS SAY

• Proposition 67 is a $540 million, or 400 percent, increase in phone taxes with no cap on small business or cell phone taxes.
• This increased tax could slow California’s economic recovery.
• Ninety percent of the money will go to large health care corporations and special interests with less than 1 percent going to the 911 system.
I Say

Hospitals and emergency rooms are closing across the country, plagued by a cascade of crises that include a severe nursing shortage, escalating costs for new therapies and shrinking reimbursement from managed-care organizations and federal programs.

But, the crisis that dwarfs all others is the huge number of people with no medical insurance. Charged by federal law to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay, emergency departments have become de facto providers of universal care. When the costs drive hospitals out of business, it becomes everyone's problem. Having insurance won't help you one bit if the surviving ERs are filled up when you need one.

Conservatives and Republicans (yes, I know they are generally the same, but there are at least 3 Republicans I know who are moderates, especially on social issues, so I remain hopeful) like to blame this dire situation on undocumented persons (that’s the most appropriate nomenclature), but more than 2/3rds of those who show up in emergency rooms without insurance are U.S. citizens and legal residents who, like their undocumented counterparts, work at low-paying jobs or small companies that don't offer insurance.

On top of all this, Arnie has pledged to cut $400 million from Medi-Cal (the state insurance program that helped me survive on my own in college, grad school & law school), which will make matters worse. Because each state dollar draws a federal match, the cuts would total $800 million — and leave even more Californians uninsured and dependent on emergency rooms as their last resort.

The good news is that Arnie has postponed the Medi-Cal restructuring, which means he has not yet gotten to fiddling with it to come up with an easy but specious “fix.”

Rather than wait and see whether Arnie decides to be conservative or moderate and if he's willing to use his popularity to work with state legislators and the federal government to forge a real solution – a risk no one who needs affordable health care can wait for – we’ve got Prop 67.

Like most good liberals, I’m willing to pay the tax if it results in funds actually going to physicians for uncompensated emergency and trauma care, hospitals, and other emergency medical services.

Ask me about being uninsured and needing medical attention. I’ve got stories that will make you so … well, we won’t go there today.

Just vote “yes” on 67.

LISTEN UP! THIS IS ONE WHERE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO THINK …
PROPOSITION 68
NON-TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION.
TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS.
REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment

Card club and race track owners wanted a piece of the Indian gambling revenue, so they placed this measure on the ballot to permit up to 30,000 slot machines at 16 existing racetracks and card rooms and not on Indian reservations unless all Indian tribes with existing tribal state gambling compacts (currently 5 tribes) agree to:

1. Within 90 days of the proposition’s passage, have the Governor re-negotiate new, revised compacts with all tribes. The renegotiated compacts will require compliance with multiple state laws and payment to a state trust fund of 25% of slot machine revenues to support smaller tribes, public safety, firefighting and children’s services.

2. If all tribes do not accept such revisions within 90 days, existing non-tribal racetracks and existing non-tribal card rooms may operate up to 30,000 slot machines, paying 30% of the slot machine revenues to the state fund, 2% to the city and 1 % to the county in which they are located.

Racetracks would pay an additional 20% to benefit the horse racing industry and increase purses.

Under the compacts allowing them to operate gaming casinos on their own land, the tribes pay over $100 million per year, supporting smaller tribes. The state can use these payments for any purpose. Currently there are 53 casinos with over 54,000 slot machines. Other tribes are expected to sign compacts, with expected total payments in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Both Propositions 68 and 70 affect the numbers of California slot machines. If the two approved provisions are in conflict, only the measure with more yes votes will take effect.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• California needs the billions of dollars that would be generated.
• Indian tribes in other states like New York and Connecticut pay their fair share of net revenues.
• If the Indian casinos won’t pay their fair share, they deserve to lose the slot machine monopoly.
Supporters say squat.

They’re polling showed that no one understood this measure and fewer than 25% of voters were inclined to vote for it. They closed up shop in early October.

OPPONENTS SAY

Opponents, mostly Indian Tribes, oppose it. Duh.

I Say

It would have allowed casinos in urban areas in the San Francisco Bay Area, in Los Angeles, and in San Diego County. That’s supposed to be a bad thing.

The revenues are specifically dedicated under this measure, so Arnie and pals can’t use the money to balance the state budget (and if Prop, 65 passes, Arnie’s really screwed … and that’s supposed to be a bad thing. Ha-ha).

This measure would end the compacts already made with the tribes. That’s supposed to be a bad thing.

Even if this thing was viable, why should I care? Vote “no,” or don’t vote at all because it doesn’t matter. It’s not going to pass.

BUT, please see PROP 70!

PROPOSITION 69
DNA SAMPLES. COLLECTION.
DATABASE. FUNDING.
Initiative Statute

Someone with way too much time on their hands thought, “hey, why don’t we have the state expand mandatory collection of DNA retroactively to all convicted felons and some non-felons and, in 2009, to individuals arrested on both nonviolent and violent felony charges?”

BE AFRAID!!!! BE VERY, VERY F!@@#%ING AFRAID!!!! See, it really works!

California law already requires collection of blood samples for DNA from felons convicted of sexual assault and other violent crimes such as murder and manslaughter. Persons convicted of certain crimes in California may be ordered to pay fines, part of which support state programs and activities.

Proposition 69 would amend current law to significantly expand the state’s DNA database to include people convicted of nonviolent felonies and individuals arrested on any felony charge. On passage, the initiative would require:

• Immediate collection of DNA from
1. adults and juveniles convicted of any felony offense who are in custody, on parole or probation;
2. adults and juveniles convicted of any sex or arson offense, including misdemeanors;
3. adults arrested for or charged with felony sex offenses, murder or voluntary manslaughter.
• Beginning in 2009, collection of DNA from adults arrested for any felony, violent or non-violent.
• It would also raise criminal financial penalties and make tampering with or misusing DNA evidence a crime.
And, it would allow collection of DNA blood samples upon request by the California Department of Justice.

Excuse me, but may I have your DNA?

SUPPORTERS SAY

BE AFRAID!!!! BE VERY, VERY F!@@#%ING AFRAID!!!!

OPPONENTS SAY

Don’t you dare touch my precious bodily fluids!

The threshold for the state to take our DNA would be an arrest – and the Supremes have expanded “stops” to lead to “reasonable cause” (not suspicion or inference) for … ARREST!!!!

So, the state would sanction the drawing of a DNA sample for permanent storage because a person is arrested. Rightly or wrongly.

Somewhere Aldous Huxley and George Orwell are laughing.

Aren’t there these things called fundamental human rights? Something like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and everything this country was founded upon?

I Say

BE AFRAID!!!! BE VERY, VERY F!@@#%ING AFRAID … of the government.

If you don’t vote no, I’m going to call the cops and tell them you’re growing pot in your back yard … let’s see if you get arrested …


AND, ANOTHER ONE WHERE YOU HAVE TO USE GREY MATTER …
Proposition 70
Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights.
Contributions to State of California
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

Should the California Constitution be amended to let Indian tribes have 99-year rights to build an unlimited number for casinos with unlimited Nevada-style gaming?

Oh, the gaming tribes would pay the state (none of which goes to local governments) at the state’s current business tax rate, which is 8.8%.

Since 1999, 64 Indian tribes have signed compacts allowing them to operate gaming casinos on California Indian land. Currently there are 53 casinos with over 54,000 slot machines. Slot machine casinos are not legal in California outside Indian tribal lands.
In June 2004, the Governor signed compacts with five leading tribes promising to preserve their casino gambling monopoly and allowing unlimited slot machines. The five tribes are required to make annual payments to the state. The state can use these payments for any purpose.

Other tribes don’t want to sign compacts because they would be expected to make payments to the state totaling the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Here’s the catch. There is ALWAYS a catch.

Payments to the state would be based on income generated instead of number of machines.

And, Prop 70 does not provide for any type of audit by which to determine how much income the Indian casinos generate, which means, according to Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Raymond Cadeii, who heard the case in August, "taxpayers will never know if they are getting a fair deal or raw deal."

Game over. The house loses for once.

Drive home safely.


ONE OF MY PERSONAL FAVORITES …

PROPOSITION 71
STEM CELL RESEARCH. FUNDING. BONDS.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

Should California issue $3 billion in general obligation bonds to fund stem cell research and research facilities in California; establish a new state institute to issue grants, loans, and regulate such research; and establish a constitutional right to conduct stem cell research?

A stem cell is an “unspecialized” cell that has the potential to develop into different types of specialized cells in the body. Researchers work with both embryonic and adult stem cells.

California law permits stem cell research and the University of California conducts such research. George Bush needed a wedge issue, so he and his whacko right-wing fundamentalist friends forced the federal government to cut funding for stem cell research, and limit the number of embryonic stem cells upon which to conduct research.

I agree, $3 billion in general obligation bonds is a lot.

But, Prop 71 would require the establishment and financing of the “California Institute for Regenerative Medicine” to issue grants and loans for stem cell research and research facilities, and to regulate such funded research.
Consistent with current statute, this measure would establish a right to conduct stem cell research and would prohibit the Institute’s funding of human reproductive cloning research.

This cloning thing spooks some people. Trust me, there are too many idiots running around as a single organism. No one wants to clone you. Trust me.

Oh, the political consultant for the “yes on 71” campaign threw in an “Independent Citizen’s Oversight Committee” to govern the Institute. Polls say voters don’t trust politicians or governments to spend their money, so we consultants came up with a gimmick by which voters would feel more comfortable allowing the government to spend our tax dollars. But, this “Independent Citizen’s Oversight Committee” crap … I’ve used it dozens of times. Big deal.

The measure would allocate bonds subject to an annual limit of $350 million. Bonds would be repaid through the General Fund.

After the initial five years when no General Fund payments on the bonds are permitted, a 30-year repayment schedule would result in a total cost of about $6 billion, or an average of $200 million per year in payments from the General Fund.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Stem cell research could lead to treatments and cures for many diseases and injuries, cutting California’s health care costs.
• Proposition 71 prohibits funding for human cloning, reinforcing existing state law.
• Proposition 71 will generate thousands of new jobs and millions of dollars in new state revenues.
OPPONENTS SAY

• California voters have already approved billions of dollars in bond debt this year. Additional borrowing now is not responsible.
• Big pharmaceutical companies and venture capitalists are using taxpayers to fund the very narrow field of stem cell research.
• Since Proposition 71 is a constitutional amendment, neither the governor nor the Legislature can control how this money is spent (well, duh, I told you no one trusts politicians or government when it comes to handling money!)
I Say

Supporters say that significant research success could stimulate “undeterminable general statewide economic activity,” whatever that means.

All I know is that because of stem cell research, someone who suffered the exact same spinal cord injury I did while playing football 25 years ago, if treated properly, can walk within a few months … sometimes weeks.

I’m not like Christopher Reeve was, thinking I may walk again. But, don’t try to put a price tag on this, or scare someone with cloning, or try to obfuscate the issue by bringing abortion into the debate … I just don’t want another kid to have to go through what I’ve gone through.

Vote yes.


PROPOSITION 72
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS.
Referendum

In October 2003, the Governor signed SB 2. Proposition 72 will allow the provisions of SB 2 to go into effect.

These are the major provisions of SB 2:
• SB 2 will extend health care insurance coverage to many uninsured workers and families, including part-time and seasonal workers, under new employer requirements.
• Employers’ requirements will depend on the number of their employees:
o With 200+ employees, coverage for employees and their dependents will start 1/01/06;
o With 50 to 199 employees, coverage for employees only will begin 1/01/07;
o With 20 to 49 employees, coverage for employees only if a tax credit is enacted.
• Coverage will be provided either by employers directly or by a state program funded by fees paid by employers (“pay or play”).
• Employers’ share of insurance premium costs must be at least 80% and workers’ share no more than 20%. Lowest-wage workers’ share can be no more than 5% of their income.
• Fees will be collected by the Employment Development Department, deposited into a new State Health Purchasing Fund, administered by the state Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board. The Board will establish a purchasing pool and negotiate contracts with health care insurers.

Fiscal effects obviously could be significant. However, many costs will be offset by fees and tax revenues. But, ultimately, the amounts depend on responses of employers, employees, insurers, and the health care and insurance marketplace.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Too many people are uninsured, and their numbers are growing as employers struggle to control costs. SB 2 will insure more than a million Californians.
• Uninsured workers and families are a costly burden on public agencies and a threat to public health.
• Rising costs are forcing businesses to reduce or eliminate health coverage for employees. SB 2 will give the state clout to bargain for cheaper insurance and health care costs.
• Opponents exaggerate SB 2’s costs and other impacts on business and the state economy.

OPPONENTS SAY

• The cost of this bill is too high. Somehow, they’ve come up with $5.7 billion for employers and $1.5 billion for employees … I’m sure there’s some way to justify those numbers … remember, if you put all economists end to end, you still wouldn’t end up with a conclusion.
• SB 2 will severely impact businesses. Workers compensation and pensions are already too much.
• With the state’s finances in deep trouble, this is no time to take on a costly new program.

And, of course, they also run out the boogeyman of a “government run health program.” Like the HMO’s & insurance companies are doing such a swell job!

I Say

Greater costs for businesses with many employees. Businesses with many employees make enough money to continue with many employees. Larger risk pools make for better deals.

Small businesses, like mine, have to figure out a way to get their employees health coverage without going broke. I’ve figured it out. In fact, if a small business person can’t figure out how to make their business work, which includes paying employees health care costs, without going under because of worker’s comp or health care … they don’t deserve to be running a business.

Besides, when is someone finally say enough-is-enough with these health care and insurance companies?

Right now. Enough-is-enough with these health care and insurance companies, damn it!

Vote yes … or you’re a wus. Or, worse … a wus who’s a bad businessperson!

State Senate

State Senate; District 39

Christine Kehoe
State Senator, Democrat

Assembly member 2000-2004
Councilmember City of San Diego 1993-2000
City Manager's Office, Economic Development, 1993
Community Development Specialist, San Diego, 1992-1993
San Diego Councilmember John Hartley’s Legislative Aide 1989-1992
Legislative Aide, State of California, 1992
Executive Director, Hillcrest Business Association, 1988-1989
Coordinator, San Diego AIDS Assistance Fund, 1987-1988
Editor, San Diego Enyzette, 1984-1986

Larry Stirling
Republican

Superior Court, 1999-2003
Municipal Court, 1989-1998
California State Senate, 1988-1989 (Quit to be appointed Judge)
California State Assembly, 1980-1988
San Diego City Council, 1977-1980
Director of Finance, 1974-1977
Operations Analyst, City of San Diego, 1969-1974

Registration
Democrat 40.38%
Republican 32.44%
Decline to State 21.65%

Larry would have to get 40% of Decline to States to break Republican to win.

Never happen. Especially for Larry Stirling.

Ask me about the time he called my boss because I said bad things about him and he threatened to kill all of her bills before the Public Safety Committee …

State Assembly

State Assembly; District 76

Lori Saldana, Democrat, Community College Professor

Lori is one of those hard core Sierra Clubbers & community activists. We all know the story – Vince Hall & Heidi Von Seleski battled it out and, with some cash from the Latino Caucus, slid in under the mud-slinging.

Against any other candidate than Tricia Hunter, Lori would be toast. She still might give it away … have you seen those TV commercials with her parents? Ugh.
Tricia Hunter, Republican, Lobbyist

In 1996 Howard Wayne narrowly beat out Tricia for what was then the 78th Assembly District. In the Republican primary, she slammed my good friend Scott Harvey and Bruce Henderson with a last-second blizzard of hard-hitting direct mail. Look out for more of the same.

Tricia already has attack ads up on TV, and expect more. However, if her consultant sticks with the anti-immigrant issue, it simply proves again that Republicans don’t know how to run in Hillcrest, North Park, Kensington Talmadge, etc.

And, if Lori’s consultant’s are worth their salt, they won’t forget what won it for Howard in ’96. Tricia had moved to San Diego from Palm Desert, she had a background as a registered nurse, and she accepted tobacco industry contributions and voted against state funding for breast cancer research while briefly in the Assembly. Hence, Demo political consultant Gale Kaufman’s great campaign against “the tobacco nurse from Riverside County.” The California Nurses Association endorsed Wayne over one of their own because of her tainted record.

Lori wins in a race that will be closer than it should.


State Assembly; District 78

Shirley Horton, Republican Incumbent

Chula Vista Mayor, 1994-2002*
Chula Vista City Council, 1991-1994*
Chula Vista Planning Commission ??

Patty Davis, Democrat, Chula Vista City Councilmember

City Council, 1998-present
Chula Vista's Planning Commission and Economic Development Commission
Realtor 24 years
U.S. Army

*I ran Shirley’s election (following an appointment) to City Council in 1992 and her Mayor’s race in 1994. We had a falling-out 2 years ago, and she doesn’t have anything good to say about me. But, ask her what I told who I told what she said she wanted to do, and to whom! Yes, small-town politics is like High School.

Shirley was shepherded from Planning Commission to City Council to Mayor by David Malcolm. However, she was so shy in ’92 & ’94, I was only able to get 1 photograph of her looking into the camera. Back then, she was an independent (with a little “I,” not a Republican, and not yet too full of … but, I digress …
How things have changed. She now seems self-assured and in control. However, unlike Shirley, Patty Davis isn’t shy and has always been self-assured and in control. Perhaps I like her because she was in the Army and I’m an Army brat?

Shirley and Patty are close on all the issues. Shirley is close to Arnie. I’m sure he likes that.

This is the only contest that I think is a toss-up. The Dems have done a lot of voter registration in the 78th. But, Shirley has Arnold. The district includes San Diego’s 4th City Council District (where Shirley no longer has George Stevens because he left her staff to run for Council again), which, in addition to eastern Chula Vista, Dem turn-out should outstrip Rep turn-out and Patty could pull off the upset.


State Assembly; District 79

Juan Vargas, Incumbent Democrat

Paco wins in a walk. Next stop, Mayor (if Donna loses & Murphy wins)?



County of San Diego Initiatives:


Proposition B
Repeal of the Gregory Canyon Landfill Ordinance
Majority Approval Required

It’s the Pala Indians and their gambling plans versus Richard Chase and his voter-approved landfill.

Proposition B would repeal the Gregory Canyon Landfill and Recycling Collection Center Ordinance, a citizen's initiative that was approved in 1994 by the voters of the County.
The 1994 Gregory Canyon Landfill Ordinance amended the County's General Plan and County's Zoning Ordinance to allow a municipal solid waste landfill to be constructed and operated at the Gregory Canyon site in the North County on State Route 76, approximately three miles east of Interstate 15 and two miles southwest of the community of Pala.

To undo the effects of the 1994 Gregory Canyon Landfill Ordinance, Proposition B would also designate the Gregory Canyon site as "(18) Multiple Rural Use." It would amend the zoning classification for the site to "A-70-Limited Agricultural Zone." These are the designations that were in place for this land prior to voter approval of the 1994 Gregory Canyon Landfill Ordinance.

Arguments for Proposition B

Proposition B will stop the development of a garbage dump in Gregory Canyon.

The Gregory Canyon Landfill developers then avoided the normal process for sitting a landfill by sidestepping the land use approvals of the County and going to the ballot box in 1994 – and winning with 68% of the countywide vote.

The argument is whether the proposed dump threatens a river that supplies drinking water to municipal customers downstream.

Arguments against Proposition B

This proposition is all about gambling. The casino owners wrote Proposition B and paid over $600,000 to get it on the ballot.

The real story is that the Gregory Canyon landfill uses the same two-lane road as do patrons of the Pala casino, and Pala doesn’t want to pay to widen the road.

Prop B would block construction of North County's only landfill. Sixty-eight percent of County voters approved the landfill in 1994 with the requirement that it meet environmental standards imposed by the State and County.

The landfill's environmental system, featuring a five-layer, five-foot thick protective liner system, will make Gregory Canyon the most protective landfill in San Diego County ... which is really not saying a lot.

The only other landfill in North County (San Marcos) has closed.

I Say

My former boss Lucy Killea and former law professor Bob Simmons support Prop. B. I wrote waste management legislation for Lucy that actually reduced waste.

No on B.

Proposition C
Consolidation of Various Agencies into One
County of San Diego (Unincorporated Areas Only)
Advisory Vote Only - Majority Approval Required
35 separate agencies provide fire and emergency medical services in San Diego County's unincorporated area. These agencies vary in size, personnel, funding, equipment and levels of service.

This Proposition C is an advisory measure.

Since the measure involves the unincorporated area of the County, the Board of Supervisors decided to present it only to voters residing in the unincorporated area of the County.

After Firestorm 2003, is there really any question?

Uh, that means “no, there’s no question.” Vote Yes.

City of San Diego Initiatives:

Proposition D
Right of Access to Information

Shall the City Charter be amended to provide that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business?

Of Course.


Proposition E
Independent Legal Counsel for Ethics Commission
Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required

Should the City’s Ethics Commission retain its own legal counsel, or continue to be represented by the City Attorney, whose clients include City Officials who may be investigated by the Ethics Commission?

Absolutely, “yes.”

Proposition F
PAY ATTENTION. THIS ONE COULD BE REALLY FUN.
Strong Mayor Amendment

The current San Diego City Charter provides for a Council-Manager form of government. Basically, the City Manager runs the day-to-day affairs of the City. The Mayor and the Council ostensibly sets policy for the City. However, the Mayor is just one of nine votes.

The Mayor and the Council are forbidden by the Charter to interfere with or give direction to, City employees. I, like me, you simply have to master the art of political persuasion. “Come on, John, don’t make me go get 5 votes to override your decision … why can’t we settle things right here and now and not fight publicly…”

I’ve been in the Mayor’s office. The Mayor, in the eyes of the public, is responsible for everything and accountable for anything that goes wrong. Especially since District-only elections, where the only citywide elected official is the Mayor. It’s really embarrassing when Roger Hedgecock is screaming about you (me) personally, on the radio, saying someone (I) put a citizen’s life at risk … which wasn’t the case, but I couldn’t say or do anything about it … but, again, I digress.

A Mayor can’t very well say, “hey, it’s not my fault, I’m just one of nine votes,” because he or she looks weak. Unless the Mayor is very good at horse-trading (and many feel Dick Murphy, or, rather John Kern is), he or she can’t get much accomplished. In fact, in the late ‘80’s and early ‘90’s, Maureen O’Connor had the City hijacked from her by Bob Filner and the “Gang of Five” progressives on the Council (which included the 5 months I spent as Linda Bernhardt’s Chief of Staff – sorry, Maureen).

This initiative would create a Mayor-Council form of government for a five-year trial period, beginning January 1, 2006, and ending December 31, 2010. Voter action would be required to extend or make this change permanent; otherwise after the December 31, 2010, the measure would sunset.

Approval of this measure would remove the Mayor from the Council. The Council would not be affected. The Mayor would have the authority to give direction to all City officers and employees, except those that are independent, like Council offices, City Attorney, Personnel, Retirement, and the Ethics Commission.

The Mayor would retain the power to veto those resolutions and ordinances adopted by the Council establishing policy. The veto power would not extend to matters of internal governance of the Council or to the application of existing municipal rules to specific decisions of the Council, such as the issuance of land use permits.

The really big deal would be that the Mayor would be responsible for the annual budget. A good City Manager like John Lockhart or Jack McGrory can run the city by obfuscating the budget process. The Mayor and Council only see what the Manager allows them to see when it comes to allocating the City’s budget. Therefore, the Manager takes care of his projects and leaves the Mayor and Council to squabble over table scraps.

The Council would appoint an Independent Budget Analyst to review and provide budget information to the Council, independent from the Mayor, like the Congressional Budget Office does in Congress. It would take five votes by the Council to take any action, and five votes would override any mayoral veto.

The Council would establish its own rules, elect a presiding officer, establish committees, and set the legislative agenda for the City.

The Mayor would appoint the City Manager with Council confirmation. The City Manager would serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. The Mayor would appoint the City Auditor and Comptroller, Police Chief, and Fire Chief, subject to Council confirmation. All other managerial department heads formerly under the City Manager would be appointed by the Mayor and serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. As under the current Charter, the Mayor would appoint all other members of City Boards and Commissions, subject to Council confirmation.

Supporters Say

The city's chief executive would be more accountable as an elected mayor than as an appointed manager. They say the manager-council form of government, created in San Diego 71 years ago, is outdated because of San Diego's growth, and that the mayor needs power over the budget and department heads to make gains in the city.

Opponents Say

A mayor would be less accountable to the public. The mayor would have veto power, but would not sit on the City Council; the mayor could preside over closed-door council meetings. They characterize the change as a "power grab" by special interests and developers, who would drain public services away from neighborhoods.

I Say

If we really want to be a big city, we’ve got to do it. Can you see Rudy Giuliani, Richard Daley, or Willie Brown cow-towing to a strong City Manager, and constantly having to create 5-member coalition of Council members to get something done?

On the other hand, most folks I know like the small-town atmosphere that San Diego operates within. A few hundred people all know each other and make all of he City’s big decisions. I know most of them. They like it this way.

Besides, what if the Dick Murphy, Malin Burnham, and the gang’s dream of a strong Mayor came true … with Donna Frye as the strong Mayor? They would make sure she only wielded power from 2006-2008, but what she could do in those two years would really be a kick.

So, with my experience in the Mayor’s office and as a Council staffer, along with the slim hope that Donna can win, let’s do it and see what happens!

Proposition G
Changes to City Contribution to Retirement System
Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required

No pros, cons, or platitudes. At least it does something. Not enough, but something.

Oh, by the way, Dick? The stock market had very little to do with it. There is a very big problem. And, it’s nothing like the County’s.

Remember when Orange County went bankrupt? We’re next. It won’t be pretty.

Vote yes and hope for the best.


Proposition H
Change the Composition of the Retirement Board

Ditto.


Proposition J
Increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Charter Amendment - 2/3 Voter Required

The current city budget contains a $130 million payment to the woefully under funded pension plan. The actual cost of the retirement system this year, including health benefits, is $307 million or more.

Therefore, the Mayor and City Council are shortchanging the pension fund by about $177 million – just this year. The system's unfunded liability, including health benefits, of $1.7 billion continues to grow out of control.

Prop J would raise hotel room taxes (transient occupancy taxes, or TOT) by $28 million a year.

Proponents say it would help pay for police and fire equipment. But, because it’s a GO Bond, the money will simply go into the City’s General Fund, with no guarantee that it will, in fact, go to public safety.

But, that’s really not too bad, if the Council tells cops and firefighters to wait in line with the rest of us and put the money directly into the pension system. Of course, throwing $28 million at an annual shortfall of $177 million might be just a drop in the proverbial bucket.

We need to raise revenue by raising the TOT. Forget what ConVis and the Chamber say … when was the last time you checked a City’s TOT rate and said, “damn, that room tax is too high. I’m going to Toledo instead!?”

Unfortunately, now is not the time. Hell, what would the Council do with $28 million? Would, or could, they tell the POA and SDFFA “no?”

Besides, City Manager Lamont Ewell brought Prop J forward after a state appeals court struck down an earlier voter-approved measure that required two-thirds approval for most tax increases in San Diego. Proponents argue that a simple majority is all that is needed to approve Proposition J.

However, the appeals court ruling is being appealed to the state Supreme Court. What if the high court hears the case and reinstates the two-thirds requirement, forcing the city to refund the TOT money collected?

I can’t believe I’m on the same side of this issue as the Union Tribune! It must be the fluoride in the water …


City Attorney
City of San Diego
Leslie Devaney was 2 years ahead of me in Law School at the University of San Diego. Leslie began in 1985 in the City Attorney's Criminal Division.
In 1992, Leslie left the City Attorney's office to become the Senior Litigator for New York-based American International Group (AIG), an insurance company with offices in San Diego.
Leslie re-joined the City Attorney's office in 1996, when Casey Gwinn appointed her Executive Assistant City Attorney.
Leslie scares me. She’s like a Stepford wife.
She, like Casey, is wears her Christianity on a billboard, not her sleeve.
Mike Aguirre touts the fact that he was a federal prosecutor, fraud victim trial attorney, municipal law expert, U.S. Senate investigator and public interest lawyer … yada yada yada.
He always reminds you that he earned his law degree in 1974 from University of California Berkeley’s Boalt Hall, where he was student president and that he holds a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from Harvard University and sits on the Alumni Council at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.
He forgets to talk about the fact that his bid for city attorney is his fifth attempt to win public office since 1982. He has run once for Congress, twice for City Council and once for county district attorney.

But, his persistence has finally paid off. Voters are looking for an “outsider.” That’s how he’s perceived.
Aguirre wins.
Council Member
Council District 1

Phil Thalheimer

Phil is running a campaign right out of the 1980’s … “I will not take money from developers and registered City lobbyists during my campaign or after my election to the City Council.”
He’s the anti-everything candidate.
If not for Scott running an unfocused “rose garden” campaign with Kathryn Burton and Phil in the race, it would have been over in March.
Scott Peters
Scott Peters is an okay guy.
He earned his undergraduate degree from Duke and spent a year in Washington, D.C., as an Economist for the United States EPA (I worked as for the EPA in San Francisco, and that’s when I decided to become a lawyer and save the environment … the EPA does strange things to a person – Scott Peters, me, Christie Todd Whitman…).
Scott then attended New York University School of Law.
Before he was elected to the City Council, Scott practiced the same type of law I did … whatever pays the bills law.
Scott joined San Diego County’s County Counsel’s office as Deputy County Counsel. He ended up supervising the County's environmental land use litigation unit. In 1996, Scott opened his own environmental law firm, working for some good guys and working for some not-so-good guys. He was elected to the Council in 2000.
To win reelection, you need to tell voters:

1) Who you are and what you offer (to them)
2) What you’ve done (for them)
3) what you’re going to do (for them)

Scott’s campaign has been pretty skimpy on #3.

It takes a little more than being anti-everything to unseat an incumbent.

Scott Peters wins.


Mayor
City of San Diego

Ron Roberts

Ron was fun to have drinks with at Dobson’s on Thursday evenings after Planning Commission meetings. Not fun when you’re opposite him politically.

In 1987, Ron was elected to the 2nd City Council District Seat. He ran for Mayor in 1992, after a weak re-election showing in 1991. In 1994, Ron was elected to the 4th District Seat on the County Board of Supervisors – a seat that had been held forever by Leon Williams, an African-American Democrat. How things have changed. In 2000, Ron ran for Mayor again. He’s hoping that the third time’s a charm.

As an elected official, Ron Roberts is intense, impatient, and often feared by bureaucrats and staff.
Ron could stay on the Board of Supervisors until death because it’s one of the few elected offices left that doesn’t have term limits.

Roberts is selling himself as the candidate best-qualified to repair the city's finances and restructure the bureaucracy. Watch out staff.


Dick Murphy

Mayor Dick Murphy decided to run for reelection, then two weeks later said he would not run, and few weeks after that decided he would, in fact, seek reelection in 2004.

I’ve talked about the pension problem. There are also out-of-control housing costs, clogged freeways, the Charger’s sweetheart deal with the City, the City’s papered-over budget deficit, the FBI indictment of three members of the City Council.

The City’s under-funding and mismanagement of it’s pension fund are under investigation by the FBI, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Mayor Murphy seems like a nice enough guy, but his entire vision for San Diego is reduced to ten simplistic, largely meaningless, and mostly unachievable points. The one promise Murphy has fulfilled is the creation of an ethics commission. Even that unoriginal goal was bungled. And, John … the time to settle scores is in your second term, not the first few months of the first term.

But, Murphy has incumbency and history on his side. San Diego hasn't voted out an incumbent mayor in more than 30 years.


Donna Frye

Donna Frye grew up in Clairemont. She received her Associate of Arts from Cosumnes River College and her Bachelor of Business from National University. Donna has moved back to Clairemont with her husband, the legendary surfer Skip Frye, her mother, Laura and her dog, Diogenes.

Grassroots activism usually ends with a successful campaign, but like Maureen O’Connor, Frye brought her populist approach into office with her. Like Maureen, Donna spends hours meeting with constituents … and actually enjoys it.

Donna’s been an environmental activist since the early 1980’s, when she founded and was sole member of Surfer’s Tired Of Pollution (STOP). From her OB environmental base, Donna was elected in the special election to complete Valerie Stallings’ unexpired term in June 2001. She was re-elected to a full, four-year term in March 2002 by 65%.

Donna has carved a niche as the sole “no” vote on numerous City deals and projects. A few of those “no” votes were cast against pension under-funding.

Take that, add a ton ($500,000 worth) of Labor support, stir in the fact that she’s a Democrat (albeit a very fiscally conservative one) and a woman in a race between two, tired old white Republican guys, and presto! A viable write-in candidacy for Mayor.

It wouldn’t have worked in the March primary, because the only people concerned with the pension problem were Dianne Siphone and Phil LaVelle.
She’s got a quirky personality that the media find charming. They give her a ton of free media.

She’s tapped in to a frustrated Democratic base that’s been registering voters for four years and who will turn out in droves for … well, not for Kerry, but against Bush.

There are several things that will hinder her.

She can’t control what Labor (e.g., Steve Peace) does with it’s independent expenditure.

She has no real, citywide election-type money.

She’s a write-in. Never overestimate the ability of voters to screw things up … remember, I was in Florida in 2000.

Fill-in the circle and write the name “Donna Frye,” or “Donna Fry,” or just “Donna” on the line. Simple, huh? So were butterfly ballots.

Still, a recent poll showed Ron and Dick in the mid-20’s and Donna at 30%. Although it shows Donna ahead, it also shows 30% undecided.

She takes anti-Murphy, anti-status quo votes away from Roberts. She takes lazy environmentalists (the Sierra Club decided last week to dual endorse – thanks Carolyn!) and a large percentage of those voters who don’t give a damn about what the City’s going through, so long as their personal, neighborhood or community issues are addressed away from Murphy.

It all comes down to whether she not only has the name identification and the turn-out, but the ability of her supporters to vote for her correctly.


You’ll have to figure this one out on your own … I’m helping Donna. What can I say, I can’t pass up those populist Democratic women politicians (Maureen O’Connor, Lucy Killea, Betty Karnette … my wife …)


Good luck!