Unofficial Crotty Voter Guide 2005
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, exactly opposite, or otherwise …
DISCLAIMER
My involvement with several local campaigns, a number of campaigns for elections in April (Long Beach & LA), and another bunch of state and federal races with June primaries has made it difficult to; 1) get this together; and, perhaps more importantly, 2) make the quality quips for which this Voter Guide has become known.
How can you fault me? Easily, I know.
Regardless, in my defense, while busy hand-holding a bunch of candidates, I have become mesmerized by the sudden occurrence of politically poor judgment by the Bush administration. For a team that’s known for its message discipline, it’s amazing how clumsily they have dropped so many metaphorical balls and taken a national pratfall.
How did Team Bush imploded so spectacularly, on so many fronts simultaneously? Let’s pause a moment and take a look at it briefly:
• The Vice President’s chief aide is indicted on perjury and obstruction charges that potentially implicate Dick Cheney himself, since Cheney personally told Libby of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson’s position. It’s not just Scooter, this investigation puts the dubious origins of the war back in the public spotlight, and will inexorably lead to even more damning evidence that the case for taking America to war in Iraq was based on deliberately faked information.
• The right humiliates Bush on the Harriet Miers nomination.
• The Republican leader and chief enforcer in the House, Tom DeLay, indicted for corrupt campaign money-laundering, while in the Senate, Bill Frist faces potentially criminal conflict-of-interest charges for dumping stock (in a not-so-blind trust) in a public company controlled by his family just before the stock tanked.
• Team Bush is caught flat-footed in the most serious natural disaster in a century, with Michael Brown (11-year commissioner of judges and stewards for the International Arabian Horse Association, a position from which he was forced out after a spate of lawsuits over alleged supervision failures) leading the charge.
• First-term Bush appointees who opposed the Iraq war belatedly go public, including former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, with the unmistakable inference that George Bush Sr. did not support his son’s ill-considered war.
• The 2,000th American combat death in Iraq underscores the continuing decline in public support for the Iraq War and the administration generally.
And, there’s much more. What of this stunning political collapse due to ideological hubris, corruption, and/or stupidity?
Not to worry.
While we Democrats may take some grim satisfaction in the fact that the mendacity, overreach, and/or sheer incompetence of Team Bush is at long-last backfiring, we rush to prove once again that as a political party we are currently incapable of capitalizing on mistakes and reframing the debate in a manner that appeals to anyone but the same (dare I say it …) liberal base that has defined Democrats for all but maybe 2 years of the last four decades.
Democrats know how to argue policy. They do that quite well, and indeed they often win those arguments, if for no other reason than that so many of the policies Republicans support are so antiquated and insubstantial. However, when it comes to hardball partisan politics, they've been fighting a raging fire with a low-pressure garden hose. They've been afraid of actually arguing politics and assertively debating the core principles that are the reason they allegedly are Democrats. Arguing politics means challenging not only the other side's positions but the very moral and cultural underpinnings of those positions. It means using emotional arguments to link the opposition to a set of values alien to this country's best traditions. It means finding the symbolic representations of the enemy's masked agendas and exposing them. It means not only attacking the other side but defending one's own side (and not with policy papers and statistics, but with moral arguments advanced with conviction).
And, finally, it means doing all this on a permanent basis, day after day, with lots of warm bodies standing next to one another, saying the same thing over and over, until the media has to cover it.
Alas, these are things the Democrats no longer know how to do or are unwilling to do.
What Democrats have forgotten is that partisanship is good in and of itself. Sure, too much partisanship is a bad thing. But intelligent, assertive partisanship is a civic virtue. It symbolizes a party's confidence and belief in itself. Democrats seem to live in fear of offending soccer moms or office-park dads, and so they lack the imagination to understand that partisanship, when done right -- with optimism, a joyful spirit and a touch of swagger -- can signal to such voters that at least the party believes in some principles and is committed to a vision of society that is a function of something greater than the gaining a majority.
Instead of employing sensational metaphor, they prefer arguing the facts. Rather than enforcing discipline among the troops, they believe in letting all their voices have their own way. Against the idea that you defeat your opposition with arguments that appeal to raw public emotions, they believe you win arguments with superior reason.
Unfortunately, Republicans have done such a good job of framing the major issues of the past decade reason, and for that matter, fact, is irrelevant. These days, it’s all about ideology. And guess what? Republicans have one. They know exactly what they're fighting for. Democrats don’t. They stand for a negative expression of their identity: the belief that the right wing is dangerous. But they lack a cohesive positive idea about what they're here to
Democrats should not try to copy Republicans. They shouldn't put partisanship ahead of, oh, the Constitution, as Republicans do on a fairly regular basis. But they do need to understand that partisanship can be a virtue and is a necessity. Why? Because aggressive, hardball partisan politics works.
However, I can always rely on my Democratic compatriots to take an excellent opportunity to reclaim the message and turn the debate, then, almost immediately, screw it up. John Hoy says he has heard that Karl Rove (or, as he is known in my small circle of Usual Suspects, "Keyser Soze") actually secretly advises the Democratic Party …
Please, forgive my rant. Let’s talk about happier things, like the demise of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s political career.
Proposition 73
Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Waiting Period and Parental Notification. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary
Amends California Constitution to bar abortion on unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. Permits judicial waiver of notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or minor’s best interests. Physician must report abortions performed on minors and State shall compile statistics. Authorizes monetary damages for violation. Minor must consent to abortion unless mentally incapable or in medical emergency. Permits judicial relief if minor’s consent to abortion is coerced.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: The net costs of this measure to Medi-Cal and other programs are unknown, but are probably not significant in the context of the total expenditures for these programs.
Who Signed the Ballot Arguments
Yes on Proposition 73:
William P. Clark, California Supreme Court Justice, 1973-1981
Mary L. Davenport, M.D., Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Maria Guadalupe Garcia, United States Congressional Primary, Winner 51st District, 2002
No on Proposition 73:
Robert Black, M.D., F.A.A.P., American Academy of Pediatrics, California District
Ruth E. Haskins, M.D., American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Deborah Burger, RN, President, California Nurses Association
Major contributors supporting Prop. 73 as of September 24 include James Holman of Coronado, Tom Monaghan of Ann Arbor, MI and Don Sebastiani of Sonoma.
Major contributors opposing Prop. 73 as of September 24 include Planned Parenthood local affiliates, Rebecca Q. Morgan of Los Altos Hills and M. Quinn Delaney of Oakland.
How to Vote:
On one side, you have a doctor of pediatrics, an obstetrician/gynecologist, & a RN. On the other, you have a retired California Supreme Court Justice and the winner of the Republican primary in Bob Filner’s congressional district who went on to be crushed.
The “Yes” donors are three old white men.
I’m not going to get into the entire abortion thing, but if a girl wants to get one, she’ll find a way. And she’s not seeking out a judge on her own instead. Let’s make sure it’s the right way, the safe way.
Vote (disregard my wife standing here next to me with a gun to my head) “No.”
Proposition 74
Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal. Initiative Statute.
Summary
Increases length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five complete consecutive school years; measure applies to teachers whose probationary period commenced during or after the 2003-2004 fiscal year. Authorizes school boards to dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown impact on school district teacher salary costs as a result of changes in teacher tenure and dismissal practices.
ANALYSIS
Under current state law, “certificated” employees serve a probationary period during their first two years of service with a school district. During the probationary period, state law currently requires certificated employees to be evaluated at least once a year.
At the end of the employees’ first or second year, school districts may choose not to rehire them without offering specific reasons. If not rehired, probationary employees do not have the right to challenge the decision. At the start of their third year, certificated employees are considered permanent (or tenured).
Under current state law, permanent certificated employees may be dismissed for unsatisfactory performance as well as a variety of other reasons (such as dishonesty and unprofessional conduct). Most permanent employees must be evaluated at least once every two years. If, however, they receive an unsatisfactory evaluation, they must be assessed annually until they achieve a satisfactory evaluation or are dismissed.
Proposition 74 would change existing state law in the following ways.
• Extend the probationary period to five years.
• Modify (i.e., make it easier) the dismissal process for permanent employees.
• Although these changes would apply to all certificated employees, their primary effect would be on teachers.
Fiscal impacts could vary significantly district by district.
Signed the Ballot Arguments Yes on Proposition 74:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
George Schulz, Chair, Governors Council of Economic Advisors
Karla Jones, 2004 Educator of the Year, Orange County
No on Proposition 74:
Barbara Kerr, President, California Teachers Association
Jack O'Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Sam Nguyen, Student Teacher
Major contributors supporting Prop. 74 as of September 24 include
A. Jerrold Perenchio of Los Angeles
William A. Robinson of Rancho Mirage
John A. Gunn of Palo Alto and
Governor Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team of Sacramento
Major contributors opposing Prop. 74 as of September 24 include
Alliance for a Better California of Sacramento
Voter Registration 2006 of Sacramento
Marshall Wexler of Encino and the California Teachers Association/Issues PAC of Burlingame.
How to Vote:
Teaching is babysitting on steroids, with brief periods of time (generally equal to the length of a TV commercial or music video) when the child is fed a fact or two. And, that’s before the kids become teenagers and cop an attitude, not to mention drugs, gangs, etc.
We need good teachers, we need to pay them well, and we need to treat them like the professionals we want them to be.
Making it harder to get in and easier to get fired is counterintuitive.
Vote “No”
Proposition 75
Public Employee Union Dues. Required Employee Consent for Political Contributions. Initiative Statute.
Summary
Prohibits public employee labor organizations from using dues or fees for political contributions unless the employee provides prior consent each year on a specified written form. Prohibition does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance, or other purposes directly benefiting the public employee. Requires labor organizations to maintain and submit to the Fair Political Practices Commission records concerning individual employees’ and organizations’ political contributions; those records are not subject to public disclosure.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Probably minor state and local government implementation costs, potentially offset in part by revenues from fines and/or fees.
Who Signed the Ballot Arguments
Yes on Proposition 75:
Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Winner
Lewis Uhler, President, National Tax Limitation Committee
Allan Mansoor, Member of Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
No on Proposition 75:
Lou Paulson, President, California Professional, Firefighters
Barbara Kerr, President, California Teachers Association
Sandra Marques, RN, United Nurses Associations of California
Major contributors supporting Prop. 75 include:
The California Republican Party of Burbank
Protect Prop. 13, Project of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association of Santa Monica
Small Business Action Committee – PAC of Sacramento
A. Jerrold Perenchio of Los Angeles
Robin P. Arkley, II of Eureka
Frank E. Baxter of Pacific Palisades.
Major contributors opposing Prop. 75 include:
Alliance for a Better California of Sacramento
Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Issues PAC of Oakland
PACE of California School Employees Association – Issues of Sacramento
California Teachers Association/Issues PAC of Burlingame
How to Vote:
With all due respect to Uncle Milty, one of the best and worst economists in history (he was the impetus for the joke that you could put 1 million economists end to end and they still wouldn’t reach a conclusion), let’s think about this for a moment.
We know that in San Diego County, 40% of Union households vote Republican.
So, a worker represented by a labor union trusts a union representative to negotiate his/her salary, vacation, health benefits, and pension without “consent” every year, but when it comes to really important things like political contributions, well, that’s going too far.
On top of that, there is the, uh, “open government” aspect. Labor organizations must figure out a way to do it every year, as well as to maintain and submit to the FPPC all records concerning every individual employees and organizations’ political contribution.
Well, maybe the Governator was thinking about full employment of CPAs and political treasurers.
In the words of SAG, “As someone who has benefited from the hard-won protections of union contracts and will continue to reap those rewards as he collects residuals and, ultimately, his pension,” how dare he?
Vote “No.”
Proposition 76
School Funding. State Spending. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary
Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98), permitting suspension of minimum funding, but terminating repayment requirement, and eliminating authority to reduce funding when state revenues decrease. Excludes above-minimum appropriations from schools’ funding base. Limits state spending to prior year total plus revenue growth. Shifts excess revenues from schools/tax relief to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment. Requires Governor to reduce state appropriations, under specified circumstances, including employee compensation, state contracts. Continues prior year appropriations if new state budget delayed. Prohibits state special funds borrowing. Requires payment of local government mandates.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Spending limit could constrain state expenditures over time. Other provisions would have major impacts on state budget decision making, which could lead to varying outcomes regarding the level of state spending and on the composition of that spending among education, transportation, and other state programs. Provisions allowing Governor to reduce appropriations could result in lower state spending in certain years when the state was facing unresolved budget shortfalls.
Who Signed the Ballot Arguments
Yes on Proposition 76:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Tom Campbell, Director, California Department of Finance
Sandra L. McBrayer, Former National Teacher of the Year
No on Proposition 76:
Brenda J. Davis, President, California State PTA
Henry L. "Hank" Lacayo, State President, Congress of California Seniors
Wayne Quint, Jr., President, California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations
Major contributors supporting Prop. 76 include:
A. Jerrold Perenchio of Los Angeles
William A. Robinson of Rancho Mirage
John A. Gunn of Palo Alto
Governor Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team of Sacramento
Major contributors opposing Prop. 76 include:
Alliance for a Better California of Sacramento
California Teachers Association/Issues PAC of Burlingame
Voter Registration 2006 of Sacramento
Marshall Wexler of Encino
How to Vote:
This is quite simple. The money from our taxes that used to be guaranteed by a statewide ballot initiative that was overwhelmingly approved by California voters to go specifically and solely to education has been legislatively eviscerated.
So, Arnold now wants to reduce the amount of Prop 98 funds that are left and spend it on … well, just about anything, with no checks or balances, while reducing teacher’s salaries and school budgets, as well as prohibiting borrowing to pay for schools.
Gee, that sounds great! An entire generation of kids who speak like Arnold (can you say “kal-ē-for-nē-a?).”
Please, vote “No.”
Proposition 77
Reapportionment. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary
Amends state Constitution’s process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. Requires three-member panel of retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and again after each national census. Panel must consider legislative, public proposals/comments and hold public hearings. Redistricting plan becomes effective immediately when adopted by judges’ panel and filed with Secretary of State. If voters subsequently reject redistricting plan, process repeats. Specifies time for judicial review of adopted redistricting plan; if plan fails to conform to requirements, court may order new plan.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would have the following major fiscal impact: One-time state redistricting costs, probably totaling a few million dollars. Comparable savings for each redistricting effort after 2010 (once every ten years).
Who Signed the Ballot Arguments Yes on Proposition 77:
Ted Costa, CEO, People's Advocate
Arnold Schwarzenegger
John A. Arguelles, Former California Supreme Court Justice (must be looking for a job)
No on Proposition 77:
Daniel H. Lowenstein, Former Chair, Fair Political Practices Commission
Judge George H. Zenovich, Associate Justice Retired, 5th District Court of Appeal
Henry L. "Hank" Lacayo, State President, Congress of California Seniors
Major contributors supporting Prop. 77 include:
Governor Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team of Sacramento
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Steve Poizner for Insurance Commissioner
Reed Hastings of Los Gatos
Major contributors opposing Prop. 77 include:
The Committee to Protect California's Future - No on 74, 75, 76 & 77 of Sacramento
Voter Education & Registration Fund of Sacramento
Voter Registration 2006 of Sacramento
Marshall Wexler of Encino
How to Vote:
Let’s review. Instead of legislators drawing lines, the leadership gets to pick three retired judges to draw lines.
But, wait, there’s more.
The old folks in robes go on the road, considering “legislative, public proposals/ comments” AND holding public hearings (equivalent to listening to a passionate theoretical physics PhD candidate (it’s excruciating, my grad school roommate was one) while watching paint dry).
Now, here’s the brilliant part. The redistricting plan becomes effective immediately when adopted by judges’ panel and filed with Secretary of State.
THEN it goes on the ballot for voters to reject. So, the whole thing starts over.
How fun! Different districts every election cycle!
Not.
Proposition 78
Prescription Drugs. Discounts. Initiative Statute.
Summary
Establishes discount prescription drug program, overseen by the Department of Health Services. Enables certain low- and moderate- income California residents to purchase prescription drugs at reduced prices. Imposes $15 application fee, renewable annually. Requires Department’s prompt determination of residents’ eligibility, based on listed qualifications. Authorizes Department to contract with pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at agreed-upon discounts negotiated in advance, and to negotiate rebate agreements with drug manufacturers. Permits outreach programs to increase public awareness. Creates state fund for deposit of rebate payments from drug manufacturers. Allows program to be terminated under specified conditions.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: One-time and ongoing state costs, potentially in the millions to low tens of millions of dollars annually, for administration and outreach activities to implement the new drug discount program. A significant share of these costs would probably be borne by the state General Fund. A largely one-time state cost, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars, to cover the funding gap between the time when drug rebates are collected by the state and when the state pays funds to pharmacies for drug discounts provided to consumers. Any such costs not covered through advance rebate payments from drug manufacturers would be borne by the state General Fund. Unknown savings on state and county health program costs due to the availability of drug discounts.
Who Signed the Ballot Arguments
Yes on Proposition 78:
Kristine Yahn, RN, Executive Director, Californians for Patient Care
Carolyn Peterson, RN, MS, AOCN, Chief Operating Officer, Community Hospice
Doris Luna, RN, Certified Pediatric Oncology Nurse, UC Davis Medical Center
No on Proposition 78:
Nancy J. Brasmer, President, California Alliance for Retired Americans
Richard Holober, Executive Director, Consumer Federation of California
Jacqueline Jacobberger, President, League of Women Voters of California
Major contributors supporting Prop. 78 include:
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America California Initiative Fund of Sacramento
Pfizer, Inc. of New York, NY
Johnson & Johnson of New Brunswick, NJ
Merck & Co. of Whitehouse Station, NJ
Glaxosmithkline of Philadelphia, PA.
No major contributions opposing Prop. 78 have been made.
How to Vote
This is the measure put on the ballot by the drug companies to fool voters and draw votes away from Prop. 79.
A “No” vote on this measure is necessary because whichever measure gets the highest number of votes becomes law.
Proposition 79
Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates. Initiative Statute.
Summary
Provides for prescription drug discounts to Californians who qualify based on income-related standards, to be funded through rebates from participating drug manufacturers negotiated by California Department of Health Services. Rebates must be deposited in State Treasury fund, used only to reimburse pharmacies for discounts and to offset administration costs. At least 95% of rebates must go to fund discounts. Prohibits new Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing the Medicaid best price to this program, except for drugs without therapeutic equivalent. Establishes oversight board. Makes prescription drug profiteering, as defined, unlawful.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: One-time and ongoing state costs, potentially in the millions to low tens of millions of dollars annually, for administration and outreach activities for a new drug discount program. A significant share of these costs would probably be borne by the state General Fund. A largely one-time state cost, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars, to cover the funding gap between the time when drug rebates are collected by the state and when the state pays funds to pharmacies for drug discounts provided to consumers. Any such costs not covered through advance rebate payments from drug makers would be borne by the state Genera Fund.
Unknown costs and savings as a result of provisions linking drug prices for the new drug discount program to Medi-Cal prices, including the potential effect on the state’s receipt of supplemental rebates; unknown savings on state and county health program costs due to the availability of drug discounts; and unknown costs and offsetting revenues from the anti-profiteering provisions.
Who Signed the Ballot Arguments
Yes on Proposition 79:
Henry L. "Hank" Lacayo, State President, Congress of California Seniors
Elizabeth M. Imholz, West Coast Office Director, Consumers Union
Lupe Alonzo-Diaz, Executive Director, Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
No on Proposition 79:
Tom Murphy, Chair, California Arthritis Foundation Council
John Kehoe, Executive Director, California Senior Action League
Rodney Hood, MD, President, Multicultural Foundation
Major contributors supporting Prop. 79 include:
The Alliance for a Better California of Sacramento
California State Employees Association Issues PAC of Sacramento
California Teachers Association/Issues PAC of Burlingame
The California Correctional Peace Officers Association Independent Expenditure Committee of Sacramento
The major contributor opposing Prop. 79 is the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America California Initiative Fund of Sacramento (Total Contributions 1/1/2005 - 10/22/2005 = $80,304,902.00)
How to Vote:
As my friends at Woodward McDowell would argue if they were running the campaign against this measure, that it’s “well intentioned, but fatally flawed.”
Unfortunately, they would be right.
The campaign for 79 says it based on successful programs in Maine & Ohio, but these programs have not yet proven successful, and have been mired in legal challenges. In fact, the Maine program, which contains the enforcement mechanism, was only able to survive a court challenge by saying it had no plans to invoke the enforcement mechanism.
The nonpartisan LAO estimates that costs for the measure could run to the low tens of millions annually – costs primarily to the state’s General Fund.
I have a vested personal interest in this drug-discount thing because I am required to purchase and pop a lot of medicine. There’s got to be an answer, because I can’t afford to be disabled any more.
However, this ain’t it.
No.
Proposition 80
Electric Service Providers. Regulation. Initiative Statute.
Summary
Subjects electric service providers, as defined, to control and regulation by California Public Utilities Commission. Imposes restrictions on electricity customers’ ability to switch from private utilities to other electric providers. Provides that registration by electric service providers with Commission constitutes providers’ consent to regulation. Requires all retail electric sellers, instead of just private utilities, to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010, instead of current requirement of 2017.
Imposes duties on Commission, Legislature and electrical providers.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Annual state costs of up to $4 million for regulatory activities of the California Public Utilities Commission. These costs would be fully offset by fee revenues. Unknown impact on state and local costs and revenues, as the measure’s impact on retail electricity rates is uncertain.
Who Signed the Ballot Arguments
Yes on Proposition 80:
Robert Finkelstein, Executive Director, The Utility Reform Network (TURN)
Richard Holober, Executive Director, Consumer Federation of California
Nan Brasmer, President, California Alliance of Retired Americans
No on Proposition 80:
Les Nelson, President, California Solar Energy Industries Association
Karl Gawell, Executive Director, Geothermal Energy Association
James Sweeney, Co-Director of the Energy, Natural Resources and the Environment Program at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research
Major contributors supporting Prop. 80 include:
The Alliance for a Better California of Sacramento
California State Employees Association Issues PAC of Sacramento
California Teachers Association/Issues PAC of Burlingame
California Correctional Peace Officers Association Independent Expenditure Committee of Sacramento
Major contributors opposing Prop. 80 include:
The Constellation Energy Group, Inc. of Baltimore, MD
APS Energy Services, Inc. of Phoenix, AZ
Mirant Services, LLC of Atlanta, GA
Strategic Energy, LLC of Pittsburg, PA
How to Vote:
Most of the electricity used in California comes from large investor owned utilities (IOUs) which are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Smaller amounts come from largely unregulated publicly owned utilities and electric service providers (ESPs). Customers of ESPs receive their electricity via the local utility's distribution system in "direct access" accounts. Customers are mostly large businesses seeking less costly electricity as well as individuals seeking "green" electricity from alternative energy sources. New "direct access" accounts for individuals were temporarily suspended as a result of the 2000-01 statewide energy crisis.
Proposition 80 will give the PUC more control over California's electricity providers. It will keep customers from switching from private utilities to other providers. All electricity sellers will be required to use more renewable energy resources, with a goal of 20 percent by 2010 (instead of by 2017.)
Electric service providers would come under PUC control and regulation. Also, the suspension of new accounts for direct access electricity would become permanent. Priority would be given to "cost effective" energy efficiency and conservation programs and "cost effective" renewable resources. Several current PUC practices will be put into law by this measure.
The PUC administrative costs could range from very little up to around $4 million annually. Consumers would pay fees to cover the increase. It is not possible to determine the effect of this measure on electricity rates or on state and local government finances.
Supporters Say:
• Proposition 80 ensures that all electricity providers are regulated so traders cannot manipulate the system again. It can correct California's failed experiment with electricity deregulation.
• Requiring adequate supplies for long-term needs provides the market stability needed for investments in new, clean electricity sources.
• Competition between independent generators and utilities will assure low rates for consumers.
• It speeds up the shift to renewable energy and gives priority to energy efficiency programs.
Opponents Say:
• Proposition 80 is the wrong way to make energy policy and it won't prevent another energy crisis
• More regulations could stall investment in the creation of new power plants needed to prevent future blackouts.
• Growth of the alternative "green" energy industry (solar, wind, geothermal) would be hindered by the ban on new direct access accounts.
• Energy policy is too complex for the initiative process and should be developed through a comprehensive approach that includes public hearings.
I Say:
I actually worked on deregulation, and I’m not sure I understand this.
It took California decades to get to the point we were. Then Steve Peace wrote the deregulation plan, Gray Davis screwed up, and in a few years everything was worse. Actually worse than regulations mostly written by the industry!
This is a genuine attempt to put Humpty Dumpty back together again … but, how can we get there when old Humpty is fried? If ever there was an initiative that would make Republican claims about “ballot box legislation” seem feasible, this is it.
All I know is that I have friends as Sempra and friends involved with solar & wind power, and none of them support this (they made believe that they did know what this would do, but I know they really had no clue).
I’m voting no. You’re on your own.
San Diego Mayor
Tony Perry said it well in a story in the LA Times:
“He's a Republican, former Red Cross and United Way official and born-again tax-fighter. She's a Democrat and surf-shop owner who has dared suggest the city may need a half-cent boost in sales tax to dig its way out of the worst fiscal mess in its history.
Even in a mini-era in which everything else at City Hall is topsy-turvy, mayoral politics seem to be following the pattern seen repeatedly in the last three-plus decades.
A moderate beats a liberal. A Republican beats a Democrat unless the Republican is tarred as a lackey of land developers. The candidate who pledges fealty to the local anti-tax orthodoxy has an advantage over one who does not.”
It’s regular San Diego politics, plain and simple …
In addition, she is running her own race and she doesn’t know what she’s doing.
This is the last time I’ll tell you about my attempt to help Donna Frye during her write-in campaign because she was a Democrat.
I arranged to have 1.5 million slate mailers to high-propensity Republicans, Independents, and Democrats carry a message in support of Donna and reminding voters TO FILL IN THE BUBBLE AND WRITE IN HER NAME. I persuaded the vendors to offer a ridiculously low price. Donna’s campaign (which was comprised of ineffectual Donna-worshipers who didn’t have a clue) said “no.” Why? Too expensive? Don’t believe slate mailers make a difference?
How about because the slates were carrying a “yes on F (strong mayor)” message and Donna refused to be on a mailer with a measure she opposed. Principled, you say? I say Loser.
The Republican vendor happily doubled his price and sold to Ron Roberts.
The Democratic vendor didn’t want to sell to Murphy or Roberts. Nor did the Independent slate vendor. They thought the idea of a liberal surfer chick as Mayor of San Diego was (well, they’re from LA) too good to be true. So, they decided to mail the remaining 700,000 pieces with Donna on them … FOR FREE!
So, I called with the news. “No,” I was told. Donna could not be on a mailer with evil Prop F, the so-called “power grab” to make San Diego a strong Mayor town!
“I’m sorry,” I replied (not sorry at all), “they’re doing it for free, it’s out of my hands.”
And it came to pass the mighty Steve Peace was advising Donna. “Killer Tomatoes,” Gang of Five, combative, ruthless, strong-willed, shoot from the lip, take no prisoners, Steve Peace.
Steve called. “Have the vendors take her off,” he said of the offending 700,000 pieces of mail that said “REMEMBER TO FILL IN THE BUBBLE AND WRITE IN HERE NAME.”
“It’s no longer within my control,” said I, “it’s up to the vendors.”
Steve got a hold of some powerful Labor and Democratic players in Sacramento. He called the vendors and said that these very big players with lots of money that they threw at slate vendors during legislative and other state races would no longer use these vendors if they carried Donna on their slates. They acquiesced.
Donna subsequently had about 4,000 ballots disqualified because some voters had not both filled in the bubble and written in here name, thus losing to Murphy by about 2,500 votes.
DOES ANYONE THINK THAT IF 700,000 PIECES OF MAIL THAT SAID “REMEMBER TO FILL IN THE BUBBLE AND WRITE IN HERE NAME” HAD GONE OUT TO HIGH-PROPENSITY VOTERS, PERHAPS 2,500 TO 4,000 VOTERS (0.357%) WOULD HAVE GOTTEN IT RIGHT?!?!
I don’t believe this woman deserves to be Mayor.
But, that’s just me. You decide (and live with the consequences).
San Diego City Council Districts 2 and 8 (if anyone cares, and from the latest polling, very few voters do)
In the 2nd, barring a miracle, it will be Kevin Faulconer and Lorena Gonzalez in the January run-off. It probably will turn into a Vince Hall-Heidi Von Selesky-like slugfest that will be both painful and enjoyable to watch. Kevin eventually wins and brings Don Solem down from San Francisco to be his Chief of Staff (I know, it’s an inside joke, but I’m writing it. Besides, if you learned the facts, you might find it funny too).
In the 8th … Hueso, Acle and Bermudez … I like Remy, but she has no money. Another exciting match-up between Hueso and Acle? Who knows? Who cares? Developers do. They want Hueso because he’s amoral. What they want these days, they usually get.
Next time, let’s talk about the 79th Assembly seat … that will be fun!
