Blaming Obama Is Easy and Irresponsible

15 June 2010

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.

It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other. - President-Elect Barack Obama

When President Obama accepted victory in Grant Park, he called on all of us to join him in ushering in the change we all were seeking. Did we answer the call? Have we rolled up our sleeves and fought for real change?

I would argue that very few did. Most of us celebrated and waited for Obama to do the heavy lifting. The country was facing a devastating financial crisis while conducting two wars. We were celebrating the victory, but not looking at the overwhelming challenges our new leader was facing. We expected sweeping change, but for the most part we left the battlefield and expected Obama to bring us that change.

The Economy

Immediately, Obama took steps that did save us from economic collapse. I am no economist, but I will accept the opinion of Paul Krugman and others that without the bailouts things would have been much worse.

In addition to having this "automatic" stabilizing effect, the government has stepped in to rescue the financial sector. You can argue (and I would) that the bailouts of financial firms could and should have been handled better, that taxpayers have paid too much and received too little. Yet it's possible to be dissatisfied, even angry, about the way the financial bailouts have worked while acknowledging that without these bailouts things would have been much worse. - Paul Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/opinion/10krugman.html)

Ok, not a ringing endorsement, but nonetheless even critics of the bailouts acknowledge that they slowed the decline. That brings us to the present time - where is our anger? The corporations are flush with cash but they are not hiring. Why are we not out in the streets demanding jobs from the institutions that got the bailout money? Instead, we are letting the fringe Tea Party movement blame Obama for the mess that the previous administration left him with. It wasn't just the previous administration, but the greed of corporate America that has put us in this mess, and instead of fighting we have conceded the playing field to birthers, racists, and people who are inspired by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

We can criticize the bailouts all we want, but if more banks and financial institutions had failed, Main Street would have been hurt as much as Wall Street, probably more. It was a decision that no one wanted to face, but Obama was forced to act or be blamed for a depression.

Should the stimulus have been bigger? Probably, but was the political will there? Did we go fight for it and send a message to the deficit hawks that they would pay the price for opposing a bigger stimulus? Obama erred in thinking that the bank bailout would free up capital for small businesses and create more jobs. The administration didn't foresee the sustained job losses, and they low-balled the stimulus package. It was a mistake, and while we should call him on it, the way to do that is to demand more. Giving up and pointing fingers will not solve anything.

There is spending in the energy bill that will help. While we may not want more offshore drilling, more nuclear power and more coal, we must fight for the good in the energy bill. No legislation ever gives us everything we want, but no energy bill will be devastating to our economy.

The Wars

Why are we silent? Other than Cindy Sheehan and other dedicated activists, the rest of us have gone silent. We marched and made noise when we had a president that could care less what we said. Now we have a president who needs our support to win, why not let him know what we want? A hundred thousand people in Washington would have a much larger impact on Obama than it had on Bush. We always make the mistake of thinking our job is over after we elect a Democrat. The truth is, with a Democrat in the White House we should increase the pressure since there is a chance they might just listen.

Many are mistaken that believe Obama pledged to get out of Afghanistan. He campaigned on finishing the job there. There has never been a mass movement around getting out of Afghanistan, so the Obama administration believes they are doing what their constituents elected them to do. The war in Afghanistan will continue until it becomes political suicide to support it. Again, if Liberals and Progressives stood up and demanded an exit from Afghanistan Obama would be forced to listen, we are his base.

While the war in Iraq is winding down, many of us would like it to end faster. We should call for a faster withdrawal of troops. We need a movement that creates a political climate for what we are for, not one that focuses on what we are against. Barack Obama can be an agent of change if we unite and call for the change we want. Calling Obama a war criminal and tearing him down accomplishes nothing. We need to unite around themes that we agree on: money for jobs, not for war; build homes, not bombs. We need to create a climate for the change we seek.

Environment

The disaster in the Gulf should be used to create a climate for green energy. We must demand an end to offshore drilling. The tragedy in the Gulf should also be a call to act against other potentially dangerous forms of energy. Are we prepared for a nuclear disaster? Wind farms and solar energy will not result in the destruction that fossil fuels and nuclear power can lead to.

Obama's support for offshore drilling, nuclear energy and "clean" coal is not ideological; it is political, and can be reversed. He would rather pass an energy bill that does not include increases in any of those options. In the current political climate Obama must compromise to get anything. While it is true that the Republicans still say no, the lobbyists make the deal and the Democrats in their pockets go along.

That has to change.

On that historic night in Grant Park, Obama also said:

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.

I promise you, we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president.

He was right, many liberals and progressives disagree with many of Obama's policies, but let us focus on what we agree on.

While it isn't a perfect bill, millions of Americans will have access to health care that didn't before, and millions more will not lose their health care coverage if they get sick.

Did you know that Obama signed legislation that forces banks to honor your lease if your landlord goes into foreclosure? I wonder if McCain or Bush would have done that?

While the financial reform legislation isn't as strong as we wanted, it is more than we would have gotten from "Keating Five" McCain.

Then there is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 that moves us closer to pay equity for women.

The list goes on, but too often we forget the gains and focus on the areas that we disagree on with the president.

Obama always said he couldn't do it alone; the entrenched powerful interests in Washington are not going to just surrender. We need to support him when he is doing the right thing, and create a new political climate that allows him to change his policies when we think he is wrong.

I believe that he believes in the right things, but he can only achieve what the political climate allows. We have failed to provide the political climate for the change we believe in. It is time for us to organize and seize back the momentum for change.

I hope I haven't offended any of you, if you are active and fighting for change keep going, many of you are doing more than I am. I am speaking to those who went and voted for Obama and expected him to change everything on his own. I am speaking to the people who only criticize him, and are doing nothing to help. And I guess I am asking everyone not to give up.

Taking Environmental Responsibility

June 11, 2010 04:58 AM EDT

Rep. Mike Honda and Fabien Cousteau


In 10 years, when we look back on the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, hopefully we can note that 2010 is when it all changed — when American policymakers and people finally figured it out. 

With an estimated 500,000 to 800,000 gallons of oil spewing daily, devastating the Gulf’s ecosystem and its marine mammals, sea birds, fish, shellfish and sea life stocks for generations to come, we have ample reason to radically transform the way we use energy and environmental resources. 



Consider that 18 million to 29 million gallons of oil have emptied into the Gulf since April 20 compared with Exxon Valdez’s Alaska spill of 11 million gallons. This is the worst single-incident environmental disaster in history. 

Will we learn from it? 

We did not learn much from Exxon Valdez. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Exxon had to pay only a fraction of its fines to cover its rehabilitation and restoration responsibilities in Alaska. 



The same may happen with BP unless we ramp up the urgency and impress upon the public and policymakers three key reasons why we should dramatically change course. 

The first is basic safety. Forget for a moment the drilling site/station safety regulations issues. While important, these issues miss a bigger safety question: Why do we continue to rely so much on sources of energy — oil and gas (the two fossil fuels implicated in the BP spill) or coal (let us not forget recent mining tragedies) — that place Americans directly in harm’s way? 

Yet we do, despite the high risks associated with our energy usage. 



For example, we continue to depend on oil and gas imports from countries that are politically isolated from and by the United States — making our energy supplies vulnerable, volatile and subject to the whim of geopolitical machinations. 

We also depend on energy whose effluents, emissions and exhausts — produced in the extraction, refinement and consumption phases — contribute to increasing cancer rates, chronic illnesses and other disabilities. 

The BP spill exemplifies the adverse effects of our high-risk dependency, and we might as well have hammered a nail in the Gulf’s coffin — sealing off its ability to produce healthy sea life indefinitely.

Second, is financial security. Consider the exorbitant costs of maintaining and managing our oil, gas and coal energy needs — from the hundreds of millions of dollars that the U.S. government and BP will ultimately pay for cleanup and restoration in the Gulf, to the hundreds of billions of dollars that the U.S. government continues to spend in the Middle East and Central Asia. 

Imagine how this money could be spent in America, providing jobs in wind turbine and solar panel construction, new energy grid construction and the development of alternative fuels for transportation. 

This is hardly a fiscally defensible modus operandi, especially when our country is cautiously emerging from a recession.

Throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at an energy supply that is making us more vulnerable and dependent every day is financially irresponsible. 

Third, is stewardship. Consider that our three primary energy sources — oil, gas and coal — are among the most environmentally destructive, leaving a poisonous footprint for future generations. 

Why continue an environmentally unsustainable practice when there are cleaner and greener options? 

We are killing our country’s fish stocks, poisoning our water supplies with our coal mining techniques and making our air less breathable. 

The water, the air and the land won’t repair themselves anytime soon.

We must foster advocacy, conservation and restoration of our natural world in every decision going forward. 

What is needed immediately, however — before another 20-plus million gallons spill into the Gulf — is a radical rethinking of our energy supply. 

If we fail this moment, we will fail in providing our country with the most basic health, financial and environmental safeguards. 

The time to act is now. 



Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) is a member of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition. Fabien Cousteau, founder of Plant a Fish, a nonprofit organization that seeks to replenish undersea life in environmentally stressed areas, is a third-generation ocean explorer, filmmaker and environmental advocate. June 11, 2010, is the centenary of Jacques Cousteau’s birth.

© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

The (Un)official Crotty Voter Guide

For June 8, 2010

9^th or 10^th Edition (I’ve lost track)

The “I almost didn’t do it because I’m too busy” version.

I hope everyone is doing well. I’m exhausted. I really am getting too old for this stuff (whether “this stuff” refers to my political consulting gig or the voter guide, I’m not certain at the moment). Nevertheless, at the urging of many and despite the pleading of some, the brief (only 50 pages this year) missive that follows is my ninth or tenth version of my completely biased guide. It will assist you in breaking through the misleading straight talk, provide controversy where there was none, make things personal when they are not, and get to the bottom of the upcoming – and very exciting … (yawn) … uh, interesting, well … whatever – June Primary Election. I tried to skip the really boring stuff and, of course, the stuff about which I don’t care, because we all know that if I don’t care about it, then ….

My Now-Obligatory Standard Intro:

For those of you receiving this for the first time, let me explain briefly that this is one more in an increasingly occasional series of election guides since 2000, wherein I discuss some of the interesting issues and individuals appearing on the ballot for your consideration and your determination. This voter guide began 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 campaign ads. Of course, if not for the folks who always called to ask how they should vote, this would never have started, so you can’t blame me. You know who you are.

Grab a drink, get comfortable, and let’s begin.

U.S. Senator

For the first time in 18 years, Senator Barbara Boxer looked vulnerable. Now, it looks like the conservative Republicans are going to do it again.

Although polls show Tom Campbell in a statistical tie with Boxer, he isn’t Republican enough for the Tea Baggers and no-taxers that now control the GOP. Campbell hasn’t taken a sip of the purple Kool-Aid. Therefore, he is loath to take the Neanderthal Republican’s "no tax" pledge. He is being excoriated for once proposing a $0.32 per gallon tax increase. And, horror of horrors, he has come out in favor of gay marriage, gun control, and campaign finance reform. The person who arguably has the best chance to beat Barbara Boxer will not be chosen as the Republican Party’s nominee because, as far as the right-wingers are concerned, he’s almost as bad as Boxer herself.

So, who are the Republicans going to rally behind to beat Boxer? Certainly not the right-wing’s choice, Chuck DeVore. DeVore is easily the most conservative Republican primary candidate. Therefore, he is a distant third in most polls.

Then there is Carly Fiorina, who nobody knows but has billions of dollars. How many Republican candidates with lots of cash and an empty suit will run and lose before the wing nuts get it? (Answer: never. Just as with the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party, they would rather be right (as in true to their beliefs, rational or otherwise) and lose, than be flexible and win.) It’s refreshing to see that both ends of the political spectrum refuse to understand that there is no such thing as a “moral victory” in politics. There are just winners and losers.

So, let’s discuss the Republican who will be nominated to lose to Barbara Boxer in the fall. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger, with his low approval ratings for attempting to be environmentally concerned and socially progressive while still appearing to be a fiscally prudent Republican, would have done better against Boxer than these folks.

Fiorina’s claim to fame is her stint as CEO for the Hewlett-Packard Company (1999-2005). When Fiorina became CEO in July 1999, HP's stock price was $52 per share. When she left 5 ½ years later in February 2005, it was $21 per share—a loss of over 60% of the stock's value. During this same time, HP competitor Dell's stock price increased from $37 to $40 per share.

When HP let her go, they provided a golden parachute and she was paid more than twenty million dollars in severance. She burned through that money in a few months.

Her TV commercials are ok, but the rotation is so high that her name is boring into the collective consciousness of not-so-right-wing Republicans who see DeVore losing and who can’t bring themselves to vote for Campbell.

Moderate (and I use that term loosely) Republicans love Campbell. Fiorina has one foot in the conservative camp and the other in the moderate camp. Can she get away with it? It all depends upon how many conservatives are willing to hold their noses and go with Campbell because he’s the only one with a chance against Boxer.

The Vote

As we get closer to Election Day, it looks like the conservatives simply cannot abide Campbell. He’s been trending down steadily, while Fiorina is up sharply.

Don’t you just love the true believers?

Meanwhile, with no primary opponent, Boxer keeps raising money to point out Fiorina’s many flaws this fall.

California Governor

The Republicans win, 8 to 7!

That is, there are eight Republicans with egos large enough to make them think they can cure all of the ills from which our very sick state is ailing. That or they figure things are so bad that they have just as good a chance, perhaps better, of not screwing it up any further. Perhaps they are on to something …

Unfortunately, it appears that until a federal state of emergency is declared or a military junta takes control of the state (Tea Party, anyone?), California will continue to sink. The state cannot sustain the weight of its entitlements, “citizen” initiatives funded by special interests to keep their piece of the pie from being stolen (especially Proposition 13), and the huge structural flaw that makes re-obtaining a surplus and spending scarce resources wisely (even in the best of times) virtually impossible.

Speaking of impossible, let’s discuss Meg Whitman.

Other than the word from within her campaign that she’s a witch to deal with and has few original thoughts concerning anything remotely to do with governing the state, she seems okay. Of course, spending about $68 million of her own money and only getting “okay” in return isn’t quite what her team was shooting for.

Meg’s consultants have come up with “new ideas” that match her successful experience riding the crest of the wave that carried E-Bay up with other dotcoms – job creation, reduced state government spending, and reforming of the state's educational system.

For a Republican, the fact that one of three “new ideas” (education) isn’t the usual conservative pabulum is verging on radical. At least the campaign has ceded to reality and qualifies it’s “running government like a business” baloney by acknowledging that running a state isn’t quite the same as being a top dog at the world’s largest swap meet.

The Seven Deadly (or Mostly Dead) Democrats

Seven Democrats believe that they can do the job, except the one who will win the Democratic primary – Jerry Brown. Former Governor, former Presidential candidate, former Oakland Mayor and as yet to be determined former Moonbeam, Brown’s campaign message has been quite novel.

His principal argument as to why he should be elected is that he doesn’t care, as he’s been there and done that. He claims he can be free of special interests while being careful not to define what that term means to him. It reminds me of “it depends upon what your definition of “is” is.”

Jerry’s other argument is that he is too old to be worried about being re-elected. Great, please double check the health of those candidates for Lieutenant Governor and the other Constitutional offices just in case.

Is that the best Ace Smith can come up with? Hey, we may not like or trust the guy, but he’ll probably die before he does too much damage? Perhaps he means that Brown will refuse to deal with the gridlocked Legislature so they can do no harm … until he dies. At least that will give us all a reprieve of a year or two, which actually could help. Hey, I think I could spin that to make it work …

I have neither the time nor inclination to discuss the also-rans, except to question whether American Independent Party candidates Chelene Nightingale and Markham Robinson are truly racist, desegregationist, state’s right’s advocates like the party’s infamous candidate for President in 1968. Or, as with most California AIP members, are they former Ross Perot supporters who couldn’t find “Independent” on their voter registration card, could not discern what “Decline to State” meant, and therefore chose what seemed to be closest to what they were looking for in the “American Independent Party?”

The Vote

What has our state come to? Jerry Brown or Meg Whitman? I should have something snide, clever, or witty to say, but I simply find it pathetic.

Lieutenant Governor

Much like a Vice President, California’s Lieutenant Governor “assumes the office and duties of Governor in the case of impeachment, death, resignation, removal from office, or absence from the state.”

As Franklin Roosevelt’s Vice President John Nance Garner put it, the office was “not worth a bucket of warm piss." John Adams put it a bit less crudely by saying "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."

So why do all these politicians want to be “buried before they are really dead (Daniel Webster)?”

I think Abel Maldonado simply wants to prove he can do the job so that his appointment by the Governor for voting on a deadlocked Democratic budget will seem less egregious.

For the others, however, it’s the position for which a politician with nowhere else to go runs so s/he can wait to run for Governor.

Take Gavin Newsome. Was running for Governor. Couldn’t raise money. Slept with his campaign manager’s wife. Dropped out of the Governor’s race to “spend more time with family.” After sitting Lt. Governor John Garamendi wins a congressional seat, Gavin’s in the race to replace. Forget the damn family. He never meant it in the first place and he’s got better things to do.

I worked on Janice Hahn’s first campaign for public office (LA City Council). She had dark hair back then. What she didn’t have was a voter base outside of Watts. And, the only reason she had Watts was because of her father, Ken. Then brother Jim gets elected Mayor of LA and Janice needs to do him one better. One thing leads to another and here we are with Janice running for Lt. Governor.

Although he will not win, Republican State Senator Sam Aanestad should be acknowledged as the person best fit for the office. Dr. Sam is an oral and maxillofacial surgeon from Grass Valley elected to the California State Assembly in 1998 to represent the Third District. In 2002, he was elected to the Fourth State Senate District.

I like Sam. He was around when I ran a campaign in Nevada County (in which Grass Valley is located) to increase the County’s sales tax by 1/8^th of a cent per year for 5 years to fund public libraries. I don’t know if he voted for it, but he didn’t campaign against it and we won.

Dr. Sam is a genuine good guy. If I was a Republican (wow, a chill just went down my spine), I would vote for Sam. He won’t win, but maybe you can help him get votes in counties other than Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Nevada, Placer, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity and Yuba.

The Vote

If you are looking for a Democrat to vote for, I know both Gavin and Janice. They’re both ambitious. They’re both full of themselves (as are most politicians). Gavin is intelligent and most often means well. Janice is … most often means well too.

Secretary of State

Incumbent Democrat Debra Bowen will win her party’s nomination and will defeat self-proclaimed “rising Republican star” Damon Dunn (he does have a good story to sell, uh, tell) who will earn that honor by defeating Orly Taitz, a leader of the so-called “birther movement” (which claims that President Barack Obama is not an American citizen) in the Republican primary.

The Vote

I can’t pass up this opportunity to direct you to a clip of Orly making her “birther” claims on MSNBC (www.youtube.com/watch?v=G42vW9UTsC8).

Controller

Just two years into his first term after barely surviving an expensive and brutal campaign for state Senate, Ventura County State Senator Tony Strickland is seeking to be the Republican nominee to run against popular incumbent Democratic State Controller John Chiang … again.

Chiang won the same match-up four years ago. Here is the Republican spin:

The ambitious Strickland has a free ride -- an opportunity to run for higher office and still retain his Senate seat if he loses. In addition, it appears that 2010 will be a much better year for Republicans than was 2006, when he ran and lost for the same office.

The spin is that the rematch will be more favorable for Strickland, especially since incumbency will not be as strong an advantage as it typically is. In 2006, Strickland was out of office and ran under the ballot designation "taxpayer organization president." This time, he can use "State Senator," which presumably is better and doesn’t remind voters that he is an incumbent politician as well (… sorry, that last part was editorial).

In addition, Republicans claim, Strickland can take advantage of work he's done on behalf of others like Mitt Romney and Meg Whitman.

Of course, it wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the Senate seat Strickland barely won 2 years ago will be redrawn in 2012. It’s likely he will be faced with running for re-election in a district that's a lot less favorable to Republicans, being placed in a district in which he'd have to run against another incumbent lawmaker, or both.

At age 40, I’m certain that the statewide name identification he will gain running for Controller had nothing to do with the plans of this ambitious Republican with dreams of sleeping in the governor’s mansion within ten years.

Chiang is the first person in the office of Controller who has effected policy and used it as a vehicle through which to improve people’s lives, whether Democrat, Republican, or otherwise. He is one of a sparse few actually getting something done in Sacramento.

The Vote

Vote for John Chiang. If you’re a Republican, think about it before you vote for Tony or, like the vast majority of Californians, just don’t vote.

Treasurer

Incumbent Democrat Bill Lockyer will get the nod to defend his seat. He has a ton of money. He also has a ton of baggage.

Orange County uber-conservative, illegal immigrant bashing, property rights crusader and Republican State Senator Mimi Walters is the only Republican seeking her party’s nomination. Her political consultant, Dave Gilliard, has Mimi going after Lockyer as “out of ideas and out of touch.” Nice line. We will hear it a great deal from now until November.

Oh, another way Dave is positioning the 47-year old Walters: “Lockyer, of course has been in office so long that the world is a different place since his first election to public office in 1973. In 1973...

· Richard Nixon was President

· Ronald Reagan was Governor of California

· The Vietnam War was still going

· The Watergate Hearings began

· The cost of first class postage stamp was 8 cents

· The top TV show was All in the Family

· The top movie was American Graffiti

· The cost of an average house was $32,500

· The State budget was $7.4 billion

· George Steinbrenner bought the New York Yankees for $10 million

· Bill Lockyer was elected to the Assembly in a special election, starting a 37 year run as a Sacramento politician”

The Vote

It will be a snoozer on June 8. It will be a barnburner come November.

Attorney General

· Peter Allen (Green)

· Steve Cooley (Republican)

· Rocky Delgadillo (Democrat)

· John Eastman (Republican)

· Robert J. Evans (Peace & Freedom)

· Timothy J. Hannan (Libertarian)

· Tom Harman (Republican)

· Kamala D. Harris (Democrat)

· Chris Kelly (Democrat)

· Ted W. Lieu (Democrat)

· Pedro Nava (Democrat)

· Mike Schmier (Democrat)

· Diane Beall Templin (American Independent)

· Alberto Torrico (Democrat)

First, let us acknowledge Escondido attorney Diane Beall Templin, who is the only member of the American Independent Party seeking its nomination for Attorney General. Templin, 60, has proven to be one of the most persistent perennial candidates in recent memory.

1978: [Independent] Candidate for Congress (lost)

1981-1982: Member, San Marcos Planning Commission

1982: Candidate for San Marcos City Council (lost)

1994: [Republican] Primary Candidate for AD-74 (lost; 6.3%)

1994: Candidate for Escondido Union High School District (lost)

1995: [Reform Party] Primary Candidate for President (lost)

1996: [Independent American Party] Candidate for President (lost)

2003: [American Independent Party] Candidate for Governor (lost)

2004: [Independent American Party] Candidate for Congress (lost)

2004: [American Party] Candidate for President (lost)

2008: [American Party] Candidate for President (lost)

2010: [American Independent Party] Primary Candidate for Attorney General

Democrats

Rocky Delgadillo

Kamala D. Harris

Chris Kelly

Ted W. Lieu

Pedro Nava

Mike Schmier

Alberto Torrico

What a bunch! I could write a book about Rocky. If someone wrote of Kamala Harris, it would be a “who done it?” If there were enough material to write about Mike Schmier, it would simply be “who?”

Ted Lieu

Mike Gordon of Gordon & Schwenkmeyer, a firm I used often for phone banking, was Executive Director of the California Democratic Party from 1983 until 1985. Mike was Mayor of El Segundo from 1996 until 2004, when he was elected to the 53^rd Assembly District. A few months after being sworn in, Mike was diagnosed with a brain tumor. He died in June 2005.

In the special election to fill the 53^rd AD, Torrance City Councilman Ted Lieu beat out three Republicans to win. Ted was re-elected in 2006 and again in 2008. Lieu is currently Chair of the Assembly Rules Committee.

Alberto Torrico

Alberto Torrico worked for Santa Clara County Supervisor Ron Gonzales. He was an attorney with Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfield in Oakland and Los Angeles, taught labor and employment law at San Jose City College, and served as assistant general counsel at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority in San Jose. In 2001, he opened a private law practice in Fremont where he worked with labor unions.

Also in 2001, Torrico was elected to the Newark City Council in 2001. When John Dutra was termed out of the 20^th AD in 2004, Torrico was elected to succeed him. In 2008, he became Assembly Majority Leader. Torrico is widely known for a bill he co-authored to bypass environmental quality regulations to build a stadium in Los Angeles. Alberto is termed out this year.

I like Rocky Delgadillo. However, he lost me in 2006 while running against Jerry Brown for this same office.

Rocky has a great story. He was born and raised in the East Side of Los Angeles. He went to Harvard University, graduated with honors, and received his law degree from Columbia Law School. Rocky has said he made it out of his Eastside neighborhood by winning a football scholarship to Harvard University, where he was an Academic All-American before going on to become a professional football player.

Someone made some phone calls as they always do when the story seems too good to be true … Robert Mitchell, a spokesman for Harvard, said, "Harvard would not have given an athletic scholarship back then (late 1970s),” as the Ivy League did not permit them. Oops … but it gets better …

Rocky had said he was a professional football player for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats of the Canadian Football League. When asked, team spokesman Rom Halverson said he could find no record of Delgadillo being signed to play for the team. Eww … Rocky, that’s just stupid.

However, Rocky lost and went back to being “one of the most successful, effective and admired city attorneys in Los Angeles history (Wikipedia).” But, there have been subsequent screw-ups. The media’s watching and waiting.

I came to know Pedro Nava when he served on the California Coastal Commission. Let’s look at Pedro ….

Nava is married to Susan Jordan, co-founder of the California Coastal Protection Network (CCPN) and Vote the Coast. Pedro is termed out of his Assembly seat in the Ventura/Santa Barbara area. Susan is running for his seat.

Nava served on the Coastal Commission from 1997 until 2004. He earned the highest environmental protection vote awarded by the Sierra Club. He has been a favorite of environmentalists.

Before being elected to the Assembly, Nava was a Deputy DA. Then, he went into civil practice and represented home health care workers.

But, Pedro is at his best working legislation through the capitol. He knows the give and take that’s required to get a bill onto and off the floor, to the Governor’s desk and signed into law. He’s smart. He has a long memory. He’s a street fighter when he needs to be … sometimes when he doesn’t.

It would be interesting to see what type of Attorney General he would make.

Then there is Kamala Harris from San Francisco.

Kamala Harris knows how to work the media. They love her … outside of San Francisco.

Howard University educated with a law degree from Hastings (UC San Francisco), attractive daughter of an Indian mother (a breast cancer specializing physician) and a Jamaican/American father (a Stanford economics professor), Harris was a Deputy DA in Alameda County from 1990 to 1998. She then joined the San Francisco District Attorney's Office. In 2000, San Francisco City Attorney Louise Renne recruited her to join her office, where she served as Chief of the Community and Neighborhood Division, overseeing code enforcement (which can make one hated or beloved). She became active on the boards of a number of community organizations as she prepared to take on incumbent District Attorney Terry Hallinan and there was no love lost between the two. Harris won the 2003 election and was easily re-elected in 2007.

Harris is personally opposed to the death penalty. As DA, she has said that she would make that decision on a case-by-case basis. Harris argues that life without possibility of parole is a more efficient and cost effective punishment, citing the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, which has determined that the death penalty conservatively costs $137 million per year. Conversely, the Commission claims, if the system was changed to life without possibility of parole, the annual costs would be approximately twelve million dollars. Such savings, Harris has noted, could put 1,000 more police officers into service.

However, in two instances where the death penalty could have been called for, she sought a penalty other than death. In April 2004, a police officer was murdered and Harris decided not to ask for “special circumstances,” which would have resulted in the death penalty for the man accused of his killing.

Last year, an undocumented immigrant and alleged gang member (allegedly) murdered Tony Bologna and his sons Michael and Matthew. Ramos had been arrested a month earlier with the gun used in a murder, but the DA's office had declined to press charges. Harris decided she would seek life in prison without the possibility of parole rather than the death penalty in the Ramos case.

Harris’ detractors have more complaining to do …

While she increased conviction rates significantly, the Department of Justice Crime and Clearance Data File in 2008 indicated that crime rates had increased during her first term, including the highest robbery rate in the state, with an increase of 26 percent from 2003.

In November 2009, problems with the City’s crime lab surfaced. San Francisco Police Department drug lab technician Deborah Madden admitted to taking cocaine from evidence samples in the police department's crime lab. The testing unit of the police department lab was forced to close in March 2010. Since then, due to evidentiary requirements, hundreds of drug cases were dismissed or discharged.

While Harris' office was aware of issues at the drug lab before the issue became public, the entire scope of the issues did not become clear until Madden was exposed for removing drug samples. The police department later widened the investigation into the crime lab to include cases that already had been prosecuted.

In addition, it was widely reported that a number of felony convictions were in jeopardy because prosecutors failed to disclose the criminal backgrounds and other information about witnesses of which they were aware and legally required to make known to the court. The San Francisco Chronicle has written that thousands of convictions are in jeopardy.

… Which brings us to Chris Kelly.

Chris Kelly was Palo Alto-based Facebook's Chief Privacy Officer. His campaign for Attorney General has relied on a good guy image and a lot of money from Silicon Valley, including his pals at Facebook.

In addition, up the peninsula, the Kelly campaign pays for a website that chronicles all of Kamala Harris’ alleged misdeeds.

Facebook, which has accumulated nearly 500 million users, came under severe criticism for its privacy practices, including a feature that can share information about which Web sites users visit. Some users have urged other Facebook users to quit.

Meanwhile, privacy advocates and U.S. lawmakers have urged the Federal Trade Commission to examine Facebook’s practices. Almost all of this occurred on Kelly’s watch as Chief Privacy Officer.

The Vote

The engaging Kamala Harris is admired – outside of San Francisco. Similarly, many folks have forgiven Rocky for stretching the truth about football scholarships, but he needs to keep his nose clean. It will come down to advertising, but my guess is that Harris will edge Delgadillo to win the Democratic nomination. Unfortunately, there is a lot of trash for the Republican nominee-to-be to use in the fall.

On to the Republicans …

· Steve Cooley

· John Eastman

· Tom Harman

Steve Cooley was elected as the Los Angeles County District Attorney in 2000 and is now in his third term.

Tom Harman is having a great deal of fun at Cooley’s expense. Let me touch on just a few things for which Cooley is being hammered.

Deborah Peagler

In 1982, Deborah Peagler was accused of conspiracy to murder Oliver Wilson, the man who abused her, forced her into prostitution, and molested her daughters. She was charged with first-degree murder. She admitted that, though she was not present, she had arranged Wilson's murder with two Crips gang members. Instructed by her attorney to plead guilty in order to avoid the death penalty, Peagler was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison.

Twenty years later, DA Cooley originally supported her release from prison. However, Peagler’s attorneys accused Cooley of reneging on a deal for Peagler to plead to a single count of voluntary manslaughter, get credit for time served and be released. Then, Cooley objected to the use of the legal argument of "Battered Women's Syndrome" that "allows defendants convicted of killing their batterers to win reduced sentences if they can show that the abuse, and its effects, led to the killing."

Cooley was so vociferous that an LA Superior Court Judge removed the entire LA DA’s office from the case on the basis that the “District Attorney's officials could not fairly cross-examine their own bosses if Cooley and other top prosecutors are called to testify in the case." The Court of Appeals quickly reversed the decision.

Peagler was later diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and the Parole Board allowed her to be released. Cooley continued his crusade by objecting to the parole decision. Governor Schwarzenegger gave Cooley the digital salute by refusing to review the parole finding, thus allowing Peagler's release.

Jessica's Law

Cooley opposed Prop 83 (Jessica’s Law) on the 2006 statewide ballot that, among other things, forced formerly imprisoned sex offenders to live at least two thousand feet from public parks and schools. Cooley argued that the measure did not clearly identify who was responsible for enforcing the residency restrictions due to the potential cost to his office and said that the proposed law did not appropriately penalize those who violated the rules. The measure passed with 70% of the vote.

Sex Offender Deal

About a week before his 2008 election, it was made public by his political rivals that in 2006 Cooley had had sought two-year hospital commitments for many prisoners declared by courts to be sexually violent predators, even though voters in November 2006 approved legislation that allows prosecutors to seek indefinite hospital terms for such offenders. Critics said the agreement undermined the will of voters and gave dangerous sex offenders an extra shot at release.

Three Strikes

Cooley, as any rational person would, determined that the state's three strikes law doesn’t work correctly. He changed the DA office's position on the law to better reflect proportionality in sentencing and even-handed application countywide. The hardcore law and order types said that Cooley worked with “liberal politicians” in weakening the three strikes law (oh my!).

There’s more, but you get the idea. It’s almost funny. The soon-to-be three-term LA DA Cooley is not “tough enough on crime” to be the Republican nominee for Attorney General.

In Capitol Weekly’s 2009 legislative scorecard, Tom Harman was awarded a 12 on a scale that gives a 0 as the perfect “conservative” score and 100 as the perfect “liberal” score.

Former Huntington Beach City Councilman (1994-2000), State Assemblyman (2000-2006), and current State Senator Tom Harman of Orange County is a “real conservative” (as opposed to all the “un-real” conservatives?). Before seeking political office, Harman was an attorney with Lucas and Deukmejian (yes, State Supreme Court Justice and the former Governor) from 1973-2000.

Other than beating up on Cooley, introducing legislation to make it easier and quicker to kill prisoners on death row, and being a “real” conservative, there’s not much more of note.

John Eastman is an odd duck. Eastman practiced law with Kirkland & Ellis, doing commercial contract litigation. He is Chairman of the Federalist Society’s Federalism & Separation of Powers practice group.

And Eastman served as a law clerk to Clarence Thomas.

Eastman joined the Chapman University law faculty in August 1999, specializing in Constitutional Law, Legal History, and Property. He served as Dean of the Chapman University School of Law from 2007 to February 2010. Eastman also is Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute. He has all of the wing-nut endorsements that assure everyone he is so far out of the mainstream that even Republicans are staying away from him.

The Vote

Eastman will take some votes from Harman, but Harman will still win the opportunity to take on Kamala Harris in the fall (if the SFPD hasn’t recalled her with Chris Kelly’s money by then).

Insurance Commissioner

· William Balderston (Green)

· Richard S. Bronstein (Libertarian)

· Hector De La Torre (Democrat)

· Brian Fitzgerald (Republican)

· Dave Jones (Democrat)

· Dina Josephine Padilla (Peace & Freedom)

· Clay Pedersen American (Independent)

· Mike Villines (Republican)

Republicans

· Brian Fitzgerald

· Mike Villines

Fitzgerald (or “Fitz,” as his website is “www.fitzonthejob.com“) is an “Enforcement Attorney” at the Department of Insurance. True to attorney form, Fitz claims that as Insurance Commissioner, since he has read the law that created “Obamacare” (1,017 pages long in legislative form, not English), he can sue the federal government (you know, the one with the more than $1.17 trillion deficit) for “our share.”

Don’t you just love rational, reasonable and achievable campaign promises?

Before Mike Villines was elected to the Assembly, he was an aid to former Governor Pete Wilson, where he worked to dismantle environmental regulations. Mike Villines has represented the 29th Assembly District since 2004, is former Assembly minority leader, and is being forced from office at the end of this year by term limits.

So, the Central Valley Assemblyman who represents Madera and Fresno Counties wants to be the next California Insurance Commissioner. It seems like a great fit – he represents an area and wants to be in an office that both deal with a lot of bull … manure.

His website includes all of the usual Republican buzzwords that serve as code for the other true believers:

· Insurance consumers in California need to be protected and guaranteed freedom of choice when they are purchasing insurance.

There you go. Freedom of choice for home, property or health insurance, but no choice as to what a woman may do with her own body if she chooses not to bring a pregnancy to term. Can you spell hyp·o·crit·i·cal (hĭp'ə-krĭt'ĭ-kəl)?

· An atmosphere of competition will provide the best product at the best price for Californians. Adam Smith would be proud.

· Assemblyman Villines will also focus on the protection of the California public from the abuses of insurance fraud.

Not from the health insurance companies’ greed, highly suspect decision-making and lobbying to kill health care reform legislation. Because, remember, government’s first and highest priority is pubic safety.

The Democrats aren’t quite as bad, but they are not as exciting as Garamendi, Poizner or watching paint dry.

· Hector De La Torre

· Dave Jones

Both Assemblymen Dave Jones of Sacramento and Hector De La Torre of South Gate are campaigning as consumer protection crusaders who will take on the insurance giants and slay them for us, making the kingdom of the bear the best in the land.

It must be noted, however, that the Insurance Commissioner likely will have a broad influence over consumers' lives. The Commissioner should play a pivotal role in monitoring how the new federal health care reform law is implemented, and investigating insurance companies that continue to defraud or begin to defraud given the confusion as to what and whom is covered and paid for under the new law.

Jones, a former legal aid attorney, touts his record on consumer and health issues during six years in the Legislature, claiming that he has spent every waking hour on consumer protection legislation and health care and insurance reform.

Hector De La Torre focuses on his management skills. He has the dubious distinction of having served as a South Gate City Councilman.

I’ve done work in South Gate. It is the most corrupt and dysfunctional local government agency I have experienced in California.

De La Torre was elected to the Assembly in 2004 and is facing term limit-induced retirement as well. He claims that he will (single handedly, I presume) merge the Department of Insurance and the Department of Managed Health Care, thus creating greater efficiency, improved access to costly earthquake insurance coverage and the implementation of protections for both consumers and businesses. And he says it all with a straight face!

Then there is his Al Gore-like personal tragedy that brought him to this place at this time to do this work … His interest in health insurance regulation, Hector says, is a personal one. It was prompted by his daughter's hospitalization due to a rare infection of infant botulism that kept his then-five-month-old daughter on a respirator for weeks.

De La Torre has over $1 million. Jones has about $800,000 and the State Democratic Party’s endorsement, which generally dooms a candidate’s chances before s/he is even out of the gate. Can’t we bring Willie Brown back out of retirement?

The Vote

De La Torre and Jones are a toss-up, but I like Jones, the former legal aid attorney, to go against Mike Villines in the fall.

Superintendent of Public Instruction

I’m going to miss Jack O’Connell. He is one of my favorite elected officials, as he is never pretentious or self-serving. He loves to tell the story about how he literally walked his entire district when he first won his seat in the Assembly and he seems to have the same vigor now as back then. However, the voters, in their quixotic wisdom, chose to impose term limits and Jack has fallen victim to that evil and ill-conceived concept.

Tom Torlakson is serving his third and final term in the California State Assembly. Tom represents the 11th District, which covers a north section of Contra Costa County. Tom began as a science teacher in 1972. He was a teacher in Bay Area high schools and was an active member of the California Federation of Teachers and the California Teachers Association.

Torlakson was elected to the Antioch City Council in 1978. Then he served on the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors for 16 years. In 1996, Tom successfully challenged George Miller IV, son of popular East Bay Congressman George Miller III, for the 11^th District Assembly seat. Torlakson was elected to the State Senate for District 7 in 2000. At the time, the race was the most expensive state legislative race in state history. Running against incumbent Republican State Senator Richard Rainey, the two candidates spent more than $6 million. Tom won by more than 10%. Termed out of his Senate seat in 2008, Torlakson was elected in 2008 to serve in the 11^th Assembly District once again.

Tom has always focused his efforts on education. He authored legislation to provide $50 million to elementary and junior high schools statewide for after-school programs that eventually was increased to $550 million annually. He was a key architect of the plan for school facilities funding that became Proposition 1A and was approved by 62% in November 1998, allowing $9.2 billion for new schools and for the modernization and rehabilitation of older schools. Tom also helped provide funding for numerous day care and Head Start centers.

In the SPI campaign, Tom is endorsed by Former State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin, Congressman George Miller, Congressman and Former Lt. Governor John Garamendi, and Former Secretary of Education David Long. He has endorsements from all of the teachers, firefighters, law enforcement, building and trade unions, the California State Labor Federation, as well as NOW and the California League of Conservation Voters.

He’s also endorsed by Bob Filner, which will get Tom a few hundred South Bay votes.

Gloria Romero grew up in Barstow, earned her associate's degree from Barstow Community College, a B.A. and an M.A. from California State Long Beach and a Ph.D. in psychology from UC Riverside. She has taught as a professor at state universities and served as a Trustee and Vice President of the Board of Trustees of Los Angeles Community College District.

Romero was elected to the California State Assembly in 1998 and to the Senate in 2001. She represents the 24^th district, which includes East Los Angeles, portions of the city of Los Angeles, as well as a major part of the San Gabriel Valley, including the cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Duarte, El Monte, City of Industry, Irwindale, La Puente, Monterey Park, Rosemead, and West Covina.

Senator Romero is a recognized educational leader and has authored numerous bills addressing educational reform and innovation. Romero wanted to run in the special election for California's 32^nd congressional district to replace U.S. Representative Hilda Solis after Solis was asked to be President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for U.S. Secretary of Labor. Gloria later chose to run for California State Superintendent of Public Instruction instead.

She is primarily backed by EdVoice, a deep-pocketed education advocacy group that supports charter schools.

Within striking distance, especially since Romero and Torlakson are both considered to be under the control of various educational special interests and who are fighting over the same voters, is former teacher and schools superintendent Larry Aceves.

Larry began teaching in 1974. He served in school districts in San Jose, San Diego, and the Central Coast. Aceves served as the President of the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA), the largest educational leadership association in the nation.

The ACSA has formed a PAC and is Aceves’ principal funder to date. The PAC is run by Republican political consultant Wayne Johnson, who never misses an opportunity to bust a union or promote a conservative cause when he has the chance. With the ACSA PAC and Larry Aceves, he gets to do both.

The Vote

Since voters are taking their state budget frustrations out on the unions, egged on by Republicans and corporate interests getting rich from the gridlock in Sacramento and DC, Torlakson may not be able to pull it off. Hopefully, voters will see through the Association of California School Administrators, the Republicans and their puppet, Larry Aceves. The only choice left is a truly reform-minded former educator who knows her way around Sacramento, Gloria Romero.

Board of Equalization

The State Board of Equalization was created in 1879 by an amendment to the California Constitution. Its original mandate was to ensure that property tax assessments were uniform and equal across all counties in the state. Prior to the creation of the state income, sales, and fuel taxes in the 1930s, California's state government was almost completely supported by property taxes, which were and still are assessed at the county level by elected assessors. Assessors were tempted to boost their popularity with county voters by undervaluing voters' property (and thereby lowering their taxes). This presented the risk of counties with honest assessors paying more than their fair share of the burden of operating the state government, so the Board of Equalization was created to equalize the tax burden.

Here are some of the folks who have served as BoE members since 1980:

William M. Bennett

Ernest J. Dronenburg, Jr.

Paul Carpenter

Brad Sherman

Matt Fong

Johan Klehs

Dean Andal

Brad Sherman

John Chiang

Claude Parrish

Carole Migden

Bill Leonard

Betty T. Yee

Michelle Park Steel

Judy Chu

The Vote

I think it’s safe to say this office is where a politician starts their career, ends it, or just needs to park it for a while. So, let’s talk about these people when they choose to run for another seat or retire, because for now, it’s too boring.

Statewide Initiatives

PROPOSITION 13: LIMITS ON PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT. SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF EXISTING BUILDINGS.

· Provides that construction to seismically retrofit existing buildings will not trigger reassessment of property tax value, regardless of the type of building.

· Sets a statewide standard for the types of seismic retrofit improvements exempt from reassessment.

· Limits the exemption from reassessment to specific components of construction or reconstruction that qualify as seismic retrofit improvements, as defined by the Legislature.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: Minor reduction in local property tax revenues related to the assessment of earthquake upgrades.

PROPOSAL

This constitutional amendment deletes both of the existing exclusions and replaces them with a single exclusion for all earthquake safety upgrades. The exclusion would not be time-limited and would last until the property is sold. This amendment has the practical effect of removing the 15-year limit to the exclusion for safety upgrades on unreinforced masonry buildings.

ANALYSIS

In the late 1970s, property tax bills were increasing dramatically because real estate values were beginning to skyrocket. Politicians in Sacramento were (not surprisingly) gridlocked. In their uninformed, knee-jerk reaction, voters were sold a bill of goods by Howard Jarvis in the form of Proposition 13. Prop 13 was a constitutional amendment in order to make it next to impossible to repeal. Approved overwhelmingly (64.8% to 35.2%) in June 1978, Prop 13 reduced value-based property taxes in several ways:

· It reduced the assessed value of property (for tax purposes) to 1975 levels.

· It introduced limits on changes in the assessed value.

· It set the property tax rate at 1% of assessed value.

Previously, property could be reassessed to the current market price every year. Prop 13 only allowed the assessed value of a property to be reset to market value when there is a change in ownership. While a property has the same owner, only limited changes in its assessed value are allowed:

· Assessed value may be increased by up to two percent per year.

· When new construction to a property occurs, the value of the improvements may be added to assessed value.

Jarvis was joined by Paul Gann in the fall of 1978 and had Proposition 8 placed on the November ballot. Prop 8 provided that new construction would not trigger reassessment when rebuilding was necessitated by fire, flood or other disasters. Some new construction is excluded when reassessment might discourage certain discretionary improvements, such as solar energy installations or access for severely disabled persons. Reassessment is also excluded when qualified fire safety and earthquake safety improvements are made.

Property Reassessment Exclusions for Earthquake Safety Improvements

Under existing law, there are two exclusions from property reassessment after earthquake safety improvements.

The first was created by a legislative constitutional amendment, Proposition 23, approved in June 1984. It provided that when a building is modified to comply with a local earthquake safety ordinance, the reconstructed portion is not considered "new construction" for property tax purposes. It applied only to buildings with unreinforced masonry bearing walls, including walls built with bricks, cement blocks, or other types of masonry material without steel reinforcing bars. It also specified that the exclusion would expire fifteen years after the reconstruction occurred.

The second exclusion for earthquake safety was another legislative constitutional amendment, Proposition 127, approved in November 1990. It authorized the legislature to exclude from property tax assessments earthquake safety upgrades to any existing building, but did not change the earlier exclusion from 1984. It authorized the legislature to define further the safety improvements that would qualify, referred broadly to existing buildings, and had no time limit.

This measure deletes both of the existing exclusions and replaces them with a single exclusion for all earthquake safety upgrades. Unlike the two previous measures, the exclusion in this measure would not be time-limited and, pursuant to Prop 8, would last until the property is sold.

Therefore, this year’s Prop 13 removes any sunset date to the exclusion for safety upgrades on unreinforced masonry buildings.

The Vote

Vote “Yes.”

PROPOSITION 14: INCREASES RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS.

· Encourages increased participation in elections for congressional, legislative, and statewide offices by changing the procedure by which candidates are selected in primary elections.

· Gives voters increased options in the primary by allowing all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference.

· Provides that candidates may choose not to have a political party preference indicated on the primary ballot.

· Provides that only the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.

· Does not change primary elections for President, party committee offices and nonpartisan offices.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: No significant net change in state and local government costs to administer elections.

Primary and General Elections: California generally holds two statewide elections in even-numbered years to elect candidates to state and federal offices—a primary election (in June) and a general election (in November). These elections (such as those for Governor and Members of Congress) are partisan, which means that most candidates are associated with a political party. For these partisan offices, the results of a primary election determine each party’s nominee for the office.

The candidate receiving the most votes in a party primary election is that party’s nominee for the general election. In the general election, voters choose among all of the parties’ nominees, as well as any independent candidates. (Independent candidates—those not associated with a party—do not participate in primary elections.) The winner of the general election then serves a term in that office.

Ballot Materials Under Current Primary System: For every primary election, each county prepares a ballot and related materials for each political party. Those voters affiliated with political parties receive their party’s ballot. These party ballots include partisan offices, nonpartisan offices, and propositions. Voters with no party affiliation receive ballots related only to nonpartisan offices and propositions. Parties, however, may allow voters with no party affiliation to receive their party’s ballot.

Does Not Affect Presidential Elections and Political Party Leadership Positions: Under this measure, there would still be partisan primary elections for presidential candidates and political party offices (including party central committees, party officials, and presidential delegates).

ANALYSIS

The Center for Governmental Studies (CGS) is a California non-profit organization founded in 1983. According to the group's website, it "creates innovative political and media solutions to help individuals participate more effectively in their communities and governments." Although CGS prepares studies on a number of different topics related to California governance, it has a special interest in California's ballot initiative process. CGS released a 102-page analysis of Proposition 14 in late April. According to the CGS analysis:

· Proposition 14 would likely have the result of electing more moderate politicians to the California State Senate.

· Campaign spending would likely increase. ("Candidates will have to spend at least twice what they now spend in the June election to reach all voters because the primary election will be waged as if it were a general election.")

· On page 17, in footnote 11, the report says that in the Massachusetts special U.S. Senate election of January 2010, if Massachusetts had used top-two, Scott Brown would not have qualified for the second round.

· In a notable number of state legislative races, and some U.S. House races, the November election would be between two Democrats. The study also concludes that there would be few, if any, November contests between two Republicans.

Minor Political Parties have added a few concerns of their own. They claim that Prop 14:

· Makes it more difficult for ballot qualified minor parties to remain ballot-qualified.

· Will have an adverse impact, if passed, on Proposition 15, the public funding measure.

· Will cause a problem with the preclusion of party labels for candidates who are members of unqualified parties.

The Vote

Again, according to CGS, more November elections would be between two Democrats; few, if any, November contests would be between two Republicans; and (the greatest selling point) if the Massachusetts special U.S. Senate election of January 2010 had used Prop 14’s top-two system, Scott Brown would not have qualified for the second round and gone on to win. Prop 14 will have a net positive impact on my business and me.

Regardless of its personal appeal, however, is the increase in moderate politicians, which would make fixing the gridlock and budget stalemates in Sacramento more likely, and should be persuasive to any rational-thinking person of any party.

Definitely, vote “Yes” on this measure.

PROPOSITION 15: CALIFORNIA FAIR ELECTIONS ACT.

· This act repeals the ban on public funding of political campaigns.

· Creates a voluntary system for candidates for Secretary of State to qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to limitations on spending and private contributions.

· Candidates would have to qualify before receiving the grant.

· Candidates who demonstrate sufficient public support would receive the same amount.

· Participating candidates would be prohibited from raising or spending money beyond the grant.

· There would be strict enforcement and accountability with published reports open to the public.

· Funded by voluntary contributions and a biennial fee on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: Increased revenues (mostly from charges on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers) totaling over $6 million every four years. These funds would be spent on public financing for campaigns of Secretary of State candidates for the 2014 and 2018 elections.

ANALYSIS

Proposition 15 was initially sponsored by Loni Hancock, a Democratic state senator from Berkeley.

1. Proposition 15 repeals California's voter-approved ban on the public financing of campaigns.

2. Prop 15 is a pilot project that will only apply to political campaigns for the Office of Secretary of State in 2014 and 2018.

3. In those election seasons, under Proposition 15, candidates for California Secretary of State would qualify for political campaign funds if they agree to spending prohibitions and if they are able to raise $5 contributions from at least 7,500 registered voters.

4. Proposition 15, if enacted, will assess fees on registered lobbyists in California and use the additional revenue to provide some funding for political campaigns for those running for the Office of the Secretary of State of California.

5. Lobbyist employers and lobbying firms in California would have to pay $350 per year. This would raise about $1.7 million a year to go into a fund to support the campaigns of candidates for the office of California Secretary of State in 2014 and 2018.

6. Candidates who agreed to limit their spending and the amount of money they raised from non-government sources would be given $1 million by the government for their primary campaign, and an additional $1.3 million from the government to spend on general election campaign expenses.

7. If the opposing candidate is financing his or her campaign from private donations, and accepts no government money, the government-financed candidate would be eligible for additional millions of government financing under Proposition 15.

8. Additional millions could also be given by the government to a government-financed candidate if independent expenditure groups run advertising campaigns during the election that highlight or assert negative information about the government-financed candidate.

9. Other Requirements to Receive Public Funds for Campaigns

A. To receive public funds for the primary or general election campaign, candidates for Secretary of State would have to follow new rules and requirements described below.

B. Private Contributions Restricted. To receive public funding, a candidate could not accept private campaign funding, with four main exceptions:

I. First, candidates must collect the $5 qualifying contributions.

II. Second, beginning 18 months prior to a primary election, candidates could collect and spend start-up contributions, or "seed money." (These funds could be spent, for example, to pay costs for collecting the qualifying contributions.) The measure restricts seed money contributions to $100 for each registered voter, and total contributions would be limited to $75,000 per campaign.

III. Third, candidates could accept a certain amount of contributions from political parties--5 percent of the base level of public funds in each of the primary election and the general election--that is, up to $50,000 for the primary election campaign, and $65,000 for the general election campaign.

IV. Fourth, in the event that the program did not have enough funds to give to eligible candidates, candidates could raise from private donors the difference between what they were entitled to receive from the state and what they actually received.

Use of Funds. The public funds could only be used for direct campaign expenses. The measure contains various restrictions to prevent funds from being used for other purposes.

Other Requirements. Publicly funded candidates also would be subject to other requirements. For example, they would have to participate in debates with other candidates before each election and submit campaign expenditure records to the commission. In addition, aside from initial seed money, candidates could not use their personal funds to pay for campaign costs or raise funds for other candidates in other campaigns or for political parties.

Rules for Those Not in the Public Funding Program.

• Secretary of State candidates could choose not to participate in the public funding program. As soon as a nonparticipating candidate begins to spend more than the base amount of funding for participating candidates, the nonparticipating candidate must report his or her campaign spending to the commission electronically within 24 hours.

• Other individuals or groups that spend more than $2,500 in a year to influence the outcome of the Secretary of State's race also must report such spending within 24 hours.

• Expires January 1, 2019. This measure would end public financing for Secretary of State campaigns on January 1, 2019. Public financing, therefore, would be in place for the 2014 and 2018 elections. The Legislature, however, could extend this expiration date by passing a bill signed by the Governor.

First, why are they making the Secretary of State their state funding Guinea pig? Maybe because they want the Secretary of State to administer the program and they want to drive anyone with more than a room temperature I.Q. out of the office.

I have run campaigns where public funding for candidates exists. Nine out of ten times, the campaign ends up opting out because once a candidate applies for public funds, s/he is stuck with the limitations for pretty much the entire campaign with very few and very confusing exceptions.

If you think the San Diego City “Ethics” Commission is arbitrary and capricious in enforcing existing finance regulation, consider an entire department dedicated solely to determining how, when, and where public funding is available and then how much and under what circumstances. All of this assumes that funding not only exists to give to candidates, but also to run an entirely new state bureaucracy.

Sorry, folks. Nobody has made it simple and easy because there is no way to do so. I like the idea of increasing the opportunity for candidates without access to the huge amount of funds necessary to win a campaign at any level these days.

My solution is, in fact, relatively simple and easy: No campaign contribution limits with the requirement that all contributions and contributors are disclosed fully within 24 hours of receipt of the funds. In addition, the campaign is not required to make the disclosure, the donor is. Talk about transparency in elections!

Unfortunately, nobody will ever champion my idea because since Richard Nixon, campaign finance reform has always focused on limiting access to funding, whether it is contribution limits or some preposterous idea that “leveling the playing field” involves government giving candidates money to run their campaigns. The problem is, as with everything, there is a catch regardless of how pure one’s intentions. It’s pretty much been proven that for every “campaign finance reform” measure enacted, there is someone who figures out a way of getting around it.

It’s the American way!

Now, for another issue that has been with campaigns since the beginning – the big lie …

PROPOSITION 16: IMPOSES NEW TWO-THIRDS VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL PUBLIC ELECTRICITY PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

· Requires local governments to obtain the approval of two-thirds of the voters before providing electricity service to new customers or expanding such service to new territories using public funds or bonds.

· Requires same two-thirds vote to provide electricity service through a community choice program using public funds or bonds.

· Requires the vote to be in the jurisdiction of the local government and any new territory to be served.

· Provides exceptions to the voting requirements for a limited number of identified projects.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: Unknown net impact on state and local government costs and revenues due to uncertainty as to the measure’s effects on public electricity providers and on electricity rates. These effects are unlikely to be significant in the short run.

Potential Impact on State and Local Government Costs and Revenues. This measure could affect local government costs and revenues due to its potential effects on the operation of publicly owned utilities and CCAs. It could also affect the finances of state and local government agencies in California because of its potential impact on electricity rates. These effects would largely depend upon future actions of voters and local governments. We discuss these potential effects in more detail below.

First, the new public voter approval requirements for the start-up or expansion of publicly owned utilities or the implementation of CCAs could result in public disapproval of such changes.

Also, the existence of these new voter approval requirements could deter some local government agencies from proceeding with such plans. To the extent that this occurred, these local government agencies would be somewhat smaller in size and have fewer customers than would otherwise be the case. As a result, they would have lower total revenues and costs.

Second, the enactment of this measure could also affect the finances of state and local government agencies in California due to its potential impact on electricity rates. As noted above, some local government agencies might not start up or expand a publicly owned utility into a new territory or implement a CCA as a result of the measure’s new voter approval requirements. In this event, the rates paid by electricity customers in that and neighboring jurisdictions could be higher or lower than would otherwise have been the case. For example, if this measure prevented the expansion of publicly provided electrical service that depended upon the construction of new energy infrastructure, rates might be held lower than might otherwise occur. On the other hand, if this measure lessened the competitive pressures on private electricity providers by reducing the opportunities for expansion of publicly provided electrical service, the rates charged to electricity customers might eventually be higher than otherwise. These impacts could affect state and local government costs, since many public agencies are themselves large consumers of electricity. To the extent that changes in electricity rates affect business profits, sales, and taxable income, these factors could also affect state and local tax revenues.

In the short run, the net fiscal effect of all of these factors on the finances of state and local government agencies is unlikely to be significant on a statewide basis. This is due to the relatively limited number of local government agencies considering the start-up or expansion of electricity services into new territory. In the long run, the net fiscal effect of the measure is unknown and would depend on future actions of local governments and voters.

ANALYSIS

Proposition 16 was placed on the ballot to achieve one goal: Kill Community Choice Aggregation (CCA).

Two ancillary benefits are drastically limiting choices as to who provides electricity and making it easier for PG&E and other for-profit utilities in California to raise electricity rates.

Community Choice Aggregation (CCA)

In the early days of the California energy crisis, Paul Fenn formed Local Power (local.org and localpower.com) and drafted new CCA legislation for California. In a campaign organized by Local Power, the City and County of San Francisco led Oakland, Berkeley, Marin County, and a group of Los Angeles municipalities who all adopted resolutions asking for a state CCA law in response to the failure of California's deregulated electricity market. Fenn's bill was sponsored by then-Assembly Member Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) in 2001, and the bill became law (AB117) in September 2002.

San Francisco adopted a CCA Ordinance drafted by Fenn in 2004, creating a CCA program to build 360 megawatts of solar, green distributed generation, wind generation, and energy efficiency and demand response to serve San Francisco ratepayers. Specifically, the ordinance combined the power purchasing authority of CCA with a revenue bond authority also developed by Fenn to expand the power of CCA, known as the H Bond Authority to finance the new green power infrastructure, worth approximately $1 billion.

In 2007, the City adopted a detailed CCA Plan also written primarily by Fenn that established a 51% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2017 for San Francisco. CCA may be considered another attempt of the San Francisco Water Department to take over distribution of electricity within the city from PG&E. People in the city have long wanted to remove PG&E's stranglehold on the citizens of San Francisco. Almost every city election in the past ten years has included some attempt to shift the balance of power away from PG&E and the company fights vigorously to retain its monopoly over the city in which it is headquartered. Inspired by climate protection efforts, CCA has spread to cities throughout the Bay Area and throughout the state. In 2007, forty California local governments were in the process of implementing CCA, virtually all of them seeking to double, triple or quadruple the renewable energy standards (currently set by state law to reach 20% renewable energy by the end of 2010 and 33% by the end of 2020) of the state's three investor-owned utilities.

Marin, Oakland and Berkeley were jointly seeking to employ San Francisco-style revenue bonds and implement a 51% RPS by 2017, but they found the cost of distribution without actually becoming utilities themselves was prohibitively expensive.

Recently, communities in Southern California have started to investigate the feasibility of forming CCAs because the program allows some flexibility in choosing the mix and sources of power production.

The Local Government Commission (LGC) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, membership organization that provides inspiration, technical assistance, and networking to local elected officials and other dedicated community leaders who are working to create healthy, walkable, and resource-efficient communities. The LGC's membership is composed of local elected officials, city and county staff, planners, architects, and community leaders who are committed to making their communities more livable, prosperous, and resource-efficient.

The LGC released a study in February of 2009 that evaluated forming a CCA. It has been published on the California Energy Commission website (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-2006-082/CEC-500-2006-082.PDF).

As of April 2010, PG&E began to air advertisements on San Francisco area TV asking voters to vote for Prop 16, and has since dumped almost $50 million into its statewide campaign. It’s not unlikely that the amount will be more than $60 million by June 8.

Michael Peevey, the chair of the California Public Utilities Commission and certainly not anyone who could be mistaken for being anything other than conservative, recently wrote an opinion piece in the San Jose Mercury News in which he warned that Prop 16 would secure PG&E's monopoly in the state constitution.

"Pure and simple, Proposition 16 is a clever, brazen, buzzword-driven effort by one company to manipulate the California Constitution to protect its current monopoly," the otherwise business-friendly Peevey wrote.

Unfortunately, nobody has been able to raise anywhere close to the amount of money PG&E has spent, so there is virtually no viable opposition. With a ballot title like the “Taxpayer Right to Vote” measure, Prop 16 will pass.

The Vote

Register your opposition to the continued perversion of the citizen initiate process in California. Vote with your heart. Vote “no” and feel a little bit better about yourself. Then, hope for a successful legal challenge.

PROPOSITION 17: ALLOWS AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES TO BASE THEIR PRICES IN PART ON A DRIVER’S HISTORY INSURANCE COVERAGE.

· Changes current law to permit insurance companies to offer a discount to drivers who continuously maintained their auto insurance coverage, even if they change their insurance company, and notwithstanding the ban on using the absence of prior insurance for purposes of pricing.

· Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not have of continuous insurance coverage.

· Establishes that lapses in coverage due to nonpayment of premiums may prevent a driver qualifying for the discount.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: This measure could result in a change in the total amount of automobile insurance premiums earned by insurance companies in California and, therefore, the amount of premium tax revenues received by the state for the reasons discussed below. On the one hand, the provision of continuous coverage discounts could reduce premium tax revenues received by the state.

This would depend, however, on the extent to which insurers choose to offer such discounts to their customers, and the size of the discounts provided. On the other hand, insurers offering such discounts could make up for some or all of these discounts by charging higher premiums to some of its other customers.

The net impact on state premium tax revenues from this measure would probably not be significant. This is because overall premiums are predominately determined by other factors—such as driver safety, the number of miles driven, and years of driving experience—which are unaffected by the measure. Just screws regular folks.

ANALYSIS

If it passes, Proposition 17 will allow insurance companies in the state to give what are known as "persistency discounts" to new customers. "Persistency discounts" are discounts for those who have had continuous or nearly continuous auto insurance coverage.

Under current law in California, an insurance company can offer a persistency discount to its own customers, but under the terms of Proposition 103, auto insurers can't offer that same discount to new customers who had continuous coverage for some period of time but from a different auto insurance company. Proposition 17 would give insurance companies the right to offer persistency discounts to customers of other insurers who have not let their policies lapse for more than 90 days in the previous five year period.

Mercury Insurance is Proposition 17's primary sponsor. Through May 28, Mercury Insurance was responsible for about 98% of the funding for the "Yes on 17" campaign, having contributed $14.6 million.

California has 23.7 million licensed drivers who collectively pay billions of dollars in auto insurance premiums. Currently 80% of drivers maintain auto insurance and qualify for a persistency discount. About 20% of California's drivers fall into the category of those who have had lapses in their insurance coverage to the extent that they would not be eligible for the persistency discounts.

The San Francisco Chronicle summarized Prop 17 well:

“Proposition 17 might provide a slight price break to Californians when they switch insurers. Mercury has projected that it could cut premiums to new customers by about 5 percent.

But there is no free lunch. One customer’s discount is another’s surcharge. Critics warn that a discount offered to the 80 percent of Californians who carry insurance would result in substantially higher rates for drivers who were not previously insured – even if it was because they did not own a car, had a brief lapse in coverage or were attending college or serving in the military and were thus away from home for an extended time. The measure offers protection for troops stationed overseas – but not for those on stateside stints.

This measure would represent the first major revision of Proposition 103, a 1988 measure designed to make auto insurance more affordable and readily available to Californians.

Under Prop. 103, premiums must be approved by the Department of Insurance and companies must show a connection between price and risk. There are three primary factors:

· Driving record, including accidents and moving violations.

· Miles driven.

· Years of driving experience.

Insurers also are allowed to submit evidence of enhanced or reduced risk on a limited menu of other variables in their rate-setting requests. For example, some companies provide discounts for vehicles with air bags or anti-lock brakes, or factor a driver’s age or marital status in the premium. Companies are allowed to provide discounts to their long-term customers – and many do. But they are not allowed to discriminate against new customers who are not insured.

There are sound policy reasons for this prohibition. Affordability is one of the main reasons drivers lack insurance. Surcharges on the previously uninsured would only increase the barrier for those who want coverage but cannot afford it.

Also, insurers have shown a quantifiable link between price and risk to justify the discounts to their long-term customers. Drivers who stay with the same company tend to have had fewer claims.

Mercury representatives claim that, if Prop 17 passes, they could show a similar correlation to justify discounts to customers they lure from other companies. But the key word is claim. When asked for evidence to support their argument that the continually insured – with the same driving record, same annual miles, same years of experience – posed a lower risk, they could not.

Auto insurance is highly competitive, and rates vary widely. A married couple with a clean driving record might pay anywhere between $2,000 and nearly $6,000 for standard coverage, under a sampling entered on the Department of Insurance Web site www.insurance.ca.gov.

It’s apparent that many Californians are staying with their insurance companies because they are not shopping around for price – or perhaps because they are satisfied with their carrier. Incidentally, Mercury scored low marks in the 2009 J.D. Power survey of customer satisfaction.

The Prop 17 formula is likely to produce, at best, a marginal benefit to Californians shopping for a new company – and a daunting additional cost for those who are desperate to get coverage.

Two California companies are spending millions of dollars on June initiatives that each believes will give it a competitive advantage. This is not what Gov. Hiram Johnson and other reformers had in mind a century ago when they established direct democracy as a tool for the citizenry to bypass a Legislature that had become captive to special interests, notably the Southern Pacific Railroad.

Both propositions should be rejected.”

The Vote

Vote “no.”

U.S. CONGRESS

District 49

Darrell Issa (R)*

Howard Katz (D) - Management Consultant, Substitute Teacher, Retired IBM Program Manager & Democratic Activist

Issa wins the Republican primary and crushes whoever Howard Katz is in November. Mr. Katz, the overwhelming majority of voters in the 49^th CD are Republicans. I expect you put “Democratic Activist” in your ballot title to “rally” Democratic support, but you’re the only one in the Democratic primary. In the fall, just for fun, stop after “Substitute Teacher.”

District 50

Brian Bilbray (R)*

Francine Busby (D) - Ex-Cardiff School Board Member, College Professor & '04/'06 Nominee

Tracy Emblem (D) - Attorney & Democratic Activist

Now, this is a difficult one. Francine, who has proven that she can’t beat Bilbray even with high Democratic voter turnout, hundreds of thousands of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee money, and running in a year (2006) in which Democrats across the country beat incumbent Republican Congressional members to take back the House, or Tracy Emblem, who volunteered on at least one of Francine’s congressional campaigns.

I’ll tell you what. Close your eyes and stick the tail on one of these two Democratic donkeys, because either one of them will end up on the short side of a 60% to 40% loss to the reinvented “conservative” Brian Bilbray in November.

District 51

Bob Filner (D)*

William “Bud” McLeroy (R) - Businessman, Firefighter & Army Veteran


Nick Popaditch (R) - Iraq War Veteran & Author

I’m sure that if the Republicans take back the House in the fall (which I think is a pretty big “if”), either one of these two Republicans would make a fine Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. However, neither one would participate in a vote to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military.

Bob generally fits his district. In those places where his politics don’t align with a constituent’s, he simply works his ass off to deliver for them and nobody has complained yet.

District 52

Duncan D. Hunter (R)*

Joe Ryan (Write-In) - Businessman & '08 Candidate

Write-in campaigns are difficult in the best of circumstances. This isn’t the best of circumstances. Give it up Joe, unless you are walking the District for exercise.

District 53

Susan Davis (D)*

Randy Arrington (R) - Retired Navy Pilot, Author & Movie Producer

Michael Crimmins (R) - Teacher, USMC Veteran & '08 Nominee

Matt Friedman (R) - Businessman

Charles Merriman (R) - Sales Agent

C. Mason Weaver (R) - Business Consultant & Navy Veteran

Watch Susan Davis. Watch the Republicans who want to run against Susan in November. See them beat each other up? Beat, beat, beat. A negative campaign? No, says Mason Weaver, “no, no, no.” See whoever survives the Republican primary try the same stuff with Susan in the fall. “Oh no ……” See the Republican get run over by a steamroller. Roll, roll, roll.

State Legislature

State Senator; District 36; Republican Party

Kenneth C. Dickson, Republican

Jeff Stone, Republican

Joel Anderson, Republican

Greg Stephens, Republican

Will someone, somewhere, somehow say something about Joel Anderson’s money laundering? Please? Just one. It’s been in the newspaper, so he can’t sue you. Nobody in Sacramento likes him. They won’t come down to Alpine for any reason. Much less to defend or support Joel. Stop talking about the budget and immigration. Take on the bozo in the Assembly. You’ll win. I promise. I do this stuff for a living. In fact, the Assembly Caucus leader just might come down … okay, ask you to come up to Sacramento and thank you personally.

State Senator; District 40; Democratic Party

Juan Vargas, Democratic

Mary Salas, Democratic

Why Juan, why? I’ll tell you why. There is only one thing Juan Vargas cares about more than beating Bob Filner in the Congressional Democratic primary. Well, he actually cares more about beating Bob (at anything, for anything), but it’s not going to happen any time soon, so it’s actually the next best thing. Juan wants to be Mayor of San Diego. He especially wants to be a “strong Mayor.”

It’s actually easy to follow. First, San Diego city voters will approve continuing the “strong Mayor” form of government even though the trial run crashed and burned horribly (don’t watch what goes on with the pension and the deficit, it’s the Democratic majority on the City Council that’s at fault … yeah, it’s them and the damn unions).

Juan has nowhere to go and nothing to do for the next 2½ years. He likes the money he gets from the insurance companies when he’s in Sacramento. So, he wants to go to Sacramento, raise his profile a bit because he’s been out of office and Ben Hueso has been getting all of the good press in the South Bay. He can get lots of money to store up for 2012. And, the best part is that unlike the Assembly, where he would have to run for reelection in two years, in the Senate, he isn’t up for reelection for four years … that’s 2014. Even if he runs for Mayor of San Diego and loses, he will still have a job to go back to. Who says term limits don’t work?

State Assembly; District 75; Republican Party

Nathan Fletcher, Republican

Nathan Fletcher will run for Mayor of San Diego in two years. He can beat Kevin Faulconer. It will be fun to watch him go up against Carl DeMaio. Then there’s Juan Vargas … and probably three or more others. How fun!

State Assembly; District 76; Republican Party

Thomas Warschauer, Republican

Ralph Denney, Republican

Naomi Bar Lev, Republican

Democratic incumbent Lori Saldana won reelection with 64.5% a year and a half ago.

Does it really matter which one of these folks goes up against well-funded, well-liked, well-organized political veteran Toni Atkins? (Hint, the answer begins with “n” and ends with “o.”)

State Assembly; District 77; Republican Party

Brian Jones, Republican

Bill Wells, Republican

Christine Rubin, Republican

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Republican Assembly, National Rifle Association, California Pro-Life Council, California Medical Association, National Electrical Contractors Association, Brian Nestande, Steve Baldwin, etc.

Looks as though Bill Wells is the anointed one ...

State Assembly; District 79; Democratic Party

Ben Hueso, Democratic

Jack Doyle, Democratic

Pearl Quinones, Democratic

I had entirely forgotten that Jack Doyle is a Democrat. I like Pearl – she should have waited and run for something she could win against somebody she could beat … and she can beat a lot of people, except Ben Hueso for the 79^th Assembly District in 2010. Call me, Pearl, and I’ll help you get elected to something soon.

San Diego Countywide Office Holders

Assessor-Clerk-Recorder, San Diego County

Jeff Olson

• Occupation: Chief, Assessment Services, SD County Assessor's Office
• 20 years of experience in the Assessor's Office
• 13 Years of experience appraising real estate
• Advanced Appraisal Certification, CA Board of Equalization
• Society of Certified Appraisers, Member, Past Treasurer
• BBA, Finance, San Diego's National University
• AS, Information Systems, Grossmont Community College

Howard Johnson

· Occupation: CEO/Treasurer/Entrepreneur

David L. Butler

• Occupation: Appointed Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk
• 36 Years of Service in County government
• 34 Years of Appraisal Experience with the Assessor's Office
• Advanced Appraisal Certificate
• B.A. with Honors, University of California, Riverside
• Native San Diegan, Life-Long Chula Vista Resident

Dennis E. Bell

Ernest "Ernie" J. Dronenburg

• Occupation: Taxpayer's Advocate
• Assessor for 20 years on the State Bd. of Equalization. Administered an 8 County district, of 700 employees, 8 offices and auditing of 8 County Assessors.
• Authored the Prop 13 implementation rules, California Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, and a property exemption for church pre-school property.
• I am a Taxpayer's Advocate for individuals and major corporations in America representing them in tax controversies with State and Local governments.
• SDSU Business Administration graduate and resident of San Diego County for over 50 years.
• Business owner, Certified Property Tax Appraiser and flower farmer.

David Butler was appointed to fill the position a year ago by the County Supervisors. He has worked for the County for 36 years and is the best qualified candidate because he’s the only one who has actually done the job. He has a record for fiscal responsibility, having trimmed his budget by 12 percent. His priorities are to speed up the recording of files by offering electronic filing and proactively reassessing property values so people whose homes have lost value since they bought them do not have to file for reviews or appeals.

And, he’s a Democrat. Works for me. Vote “Yes.”

District Attorney, San Diego County

Bonnie Dumanis

For some reason, Bonnie and I aren’t … let’s say the best of friends. I received the following in an email. Therefore, I am doing my civic duty by forwarding Bonnie’s preferred candidates in the June 8 primary election.

“As your District Attorney, public safety is my primary concern. There are several critical elections taking place on June 8th that could have a significant impact on crime in San Diego County. I would ask you to join me and retired Sheriff Bill Kolender in voting to elect the following candidates:

• Sheriff Bill Gore
• Judge Lantz Lewis, Superior Court Seat 14
• Deputy District Attorney Richard Monroy for Judge, Superior Court Seat 20
• Judge Robert Longsteth, Superior Court Seat 21
• Judge Joel Wolfheil, Superior Court Seat 34

The Vote

Please join me in furthering my civic duty by noting whom Bonnie supports, then voting for anyone else. Oh, nobody’s running against Bonnie, so why bother?

Sheriff, San Diego County

Jim Duffy

Jay LaSuer

Bill Gore

As I have said, Bonnie supports Gore, so he's out. I remember when Jay LaSuer was allegedly serving the 77^th Assembly District. I rarely make it to the East County, but it was kind of scary out there. He did come through a time or two following the Cedar fire, so that's a plus. Then there is Jim Duffy, son of John Duffy. The younger Duffy is a bit more political, taking a job as Supervisor Ron Roberts Chief of Staff when his days at the Deputy Sheriff's Association were growing short and he had already decided to run for Sheriff.

The Vote

More importantly for my purposes here, I have no idea what Jim Duffy's politics are, other than to be elected Sheriff. Thus, my dilemma -- nobody I trust is seeking the Sheriff's seat. Sorry, folks, you're on your own if you want to cast a vote for Sheriff.

County of San Diego Elected Officials

Member, Board of Supervisors, San Diego County, District 4

Juan Del Rio

Margaret Moody

Shelia L. Jackson

Stephen Whitburn

Ron Roberts

Donna Frye screwed things up again. Lori Saldana was raising funds and putting together a decent team. Donna kept dropping hints that she would run, while never committing. Because of her indecisiveness, her desire to run for Mayor again, perhaps selfishness or worse, ambivalence led her to wait so long before announcing she would not run for Supervisor left no time for another viable candidate to put together a campaign to unseat 18 year incumbent Ron Roberts. Therefore, Roberts wins easily.

Member, Board of Supervisors, San Diego County, District 5

Tom Bumgardner

Steve Gronke

Fabio Marchi

John Van Doorn

Bill Horn

I don't know what it is about Bill Horn that keeps allowing him to be reelected. Maybe, like Randy Cunningham, he must be dragged away in shackles … but I have a feeling that the folks up north would see it as his "independence" and continue voting for him. Bill Horn, Supervisor for life.

City of San Diego Elected Officials

Member, City Council, City of San Diego, District 6

Lorie Zapf

Howard Wayne

Kim Tran

Ryan Huckabone

Steve Hadley

Even with all that money from the Republicans, does Lorie Zapf know what to do with it?

Steve Hadley works his ass of as Chief of Staff for Donna Frye and runs for her seat when she's termed out. What does she do? Allows him to use her name. Money? No. Media, no. Her name. Wow, that really helps running against the former Assemblyman who represented most of that district and has a few hundred thousand dollars to spend.

The only two questions in this race are whether Howard wins in June and, if not, whom will he face and likely beat in the fall?

Member, City Council, City of San Diego, District 8

James Wright

Lincoln Pickard

Adrian Vazquez

B.D. Howard

Nick Inzunza

Felipe Hueso

David Alvarez

Nick and Felipe are relying on name ID and money. David Alvarez has been working his tail off. In the 8^th District, with a likely turnout of around 12%, it will take fewer than 2,000 votes to win.

David has knocked on the doors and spoke with more than that many voters. Alvarez and Hueso or Inzunza will go to November.

City of Chula Vista Elected Officials

Mayor, City of Chula Vista

Jorge Dominguez

Cheryl Cox

Steve Castaneda

Is it just me, or is everyone tired of the Steve and Cheryl show? She oversteps, he overreacts. She orchestrates an investigation, he is cleared of charges. Over and over and over again. I don't really care anymore. Actually, I'm not certain I ever did. I mean, it's not like either of them are people you get excited about.

City of Chula Vista, City Attorney

Glen Googins

Robert Faigin

They decided that they wanted to be like San Diego and elect their City Attorney … even after having watched Mike Aguirre do his thing. I was hoping Mike would run.

Member, City Council, City of Chula Vista, Seat 2

Larry Breitfelder

Jill Galvez

Patricia Aguilar

Humberto Peraza

I’m a little upset that none of the folks I know gave me a call about helping out. Then I looked at the amount of money the candidates have raised. Not even Humberto could afford to hire me!

I like everyone I know, but it’s a testament to one’s strength of character to have served on Bob Filner’s staff and still feel good enough about yourself to run for City Council.

If I lived in Chula Vista, I’d vote for Humberto.

San Diego Unified School District Elected Officials

Trustee, San Diego Unified School District - Seat B

Katherine Nakamura

Stephen D. Rosen

Kevin Beiser

I’m conflicted out of this race. But, I will say that you should vote for my candidate and it’s not Beiser or Rosen.

Trustee, San Diego Unified School District - Seat C

Scott Barnett

John De Beck

Michelle R. Crisci

This is surreal. The former teacher, elected again and again and again for 20 years with Teacher’s Union help, is passed over by the union for a Republican who used to work for the Taxpayer’s Association, the Lincoln Club and Money Laundering Assemblyman Joel Anderson? What parallel universe did I fall into?

The Vote

I’m sorry, I’m too disoriented to make a recommendation.

LOCAL INITIATIVES

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO: PROPOSITION A: EAST OTAY MESA RECYCLING COLLECTION CENTER AND LANDFILL ORDINANCE.

Shall this Initiative be adopted for the purpose of siting a new recycling center and class III solid waste landfill in the East Otay Mesa area of unincorporated San Diego County?

Background (with thanks to the San Diego Taxpayers Association – they put together a great summary, then went neutral – just another day in dysfunctional San Diego)

The County of San Diego has five active landfills for municipal solid waste: Miramar Landfill (City of San Diego), Sycamore Landfill (Santee), Ramona Landfill (Ramona), Otay Landfill (Chula Vista), and Borrego Landfill (Borrego Springs). In addition, Las Pulgas and San Onofre Landfills (Camp Pendleton) accept solid waste generated by military facilities.

In November of 1994, San Diego County voters approved Prop C, which proposed the Gregory Canyon Landfill project. The project is intended to be a 1,770 acre solid waste disposal site in rural San Diego County. 196 acres is to be used for solid waste disposal and 112 for a recycling center. Development has been delayed by subsequent lawsuits and mandated revisions of the environmental impact report, and is still pending final judicial review.

The County claims that we will run out of space to dump garbage by 2016 and that the only options are the Gregory Canyon Landfill and expansion of the Sycamore Landfill. The County didn’t really say how long those facilities would put off garbage Judgment Day, but let’s assume, heck, five years. But, wait! Both of those facilities are in the middle of lawsuits too. Is it me, or is there a trend developing?

The Gregory Canyon Landfill site has really steep slopes and biologically sensitive habitat.

Proposal:

Oh, did anyone mention that the County wants to turn the 450 acre site in eastern Otay Mesa into a privately owned and operated recycling collection center and solid waste disposal site? In addition, the private owners retain the right to adjust the size and location of the solid waste collection site and/or adjust the proposed facilities.

The official proponent of the ordinance is David Wick, President of National Enterprises, the firm that would be the primary developer of the project.

Policy Implications:

On November 4, 2009, the County of San Diego presented an impact report regarding the proposed development. The key findings of the report were:

· A full assessment of the County’s solid waste disposal needs has not been conducted since 2005. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the full extent of the County’s need for increased disposal capacity.

· Directly amending the County General Plan allows the developer to avoid an approval process through which the County would evaluate the merit of the project based on General Plan goals and policies, as well as surrounding infrastructure and land uses of adjacent property.

· The proposed amendment to the County Zoning Ordinance would designate the site as a “by right” use. The developers would therefore not be subject to the County’s Major Use Permit process. This would limit the County’s ability to impose requirements related to infrastructure improvements, environmental mitigation, and operation practices.

Anyone smell something other than garbage?

The proponent, National Enterprises, has provided limited information as to the specifics of the plan to develop the site. It is not clear whether National Enterprises has conducted adequate planning and preparation to ask San Diego County citizens to support the validity of their plans to develop the East Otay Mesa site. Many possible questions must be addressed, such as whether or not existing infrastructure can support the site and if the landfill is compatible with the County’s General Plan goals and zoning designations of adjacent properties.

Proponents: East Otay Mesa Property Owners’ Association

Opponents: Those pesky Native Americans

The Vote

Prop A stinks, and not because it’s about a landfill. Vote “No.”

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO: PROPOSITION B, PROPOSED TERM LIMITS AMENDMENT TO SAN DIEGO COUNTY CHARTER.

Shall the San Diego County Charter be amended to impose a limit of two terms for persons serving on the San Diego County Board of Supervisors?

Background

The five current Supervisors (Pam Slater-Price, Diane Jacob, Greg Cox, Ron Roberts, and Bill Horn) have held their respective offices since 1995. Presently, voters in each of the County's five districts elect an individual from their district to serve on the Board for a four-year term and to hold office until the incumbent quits or is defeated at the polls.

Analysis

In an analysis prepared by the Public Policy Institute of California (a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank) on the effects of terms limits on the functions of the California State Legislature, the authors conclude that:

“Neither critics nor proponents of term limits perfectly predicted their consequences. Term limits resulted in more diversity among new members but no less careerism. The new members do not look like part-time legislators in other states; rather, they resemble the ambitious young professional politicians that California has produced for three decades. The new Legislature is highly partisan, very demanding in terms of what new members must learn, and thrusts responsibility upon them very early. They are mastering the process quickly with the help of staff and lobbyists, but their policy focus is more short-term and less expert in many instances.”

According to a report from the County of San Diego Registrar of Voters, Districts 1 and 4 contain more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. After being in elected office for at least fifteen years, it is clear that the Board of Supervisors have been able to attain respectable name recognition. In the past 18 years, the current Supervisors have regularly won the primary election by more than 50% of the vote. In most cases, when the Supervisor runs for office, they win with a significant margin of victory.

The measure was placed on the ballot by a group calling themselves “It’s Time for Term Limits.” The group is made up almost exclusively by members of Service Employees International Union (SEIU Local 221 -- the union that represents San Diego County employees). Their reasons for supporting term limits for the San Diego County Board of Supervisors are:

· The same politicians have run San Diego County for years, but have failed to address the most pressing issues facing our county.

· The current system makes it hard for qualified candidates to get elected because it is easier for incumbent Supervisors to get endorsements and to raise the funds necessary to get elected.

· Supervisors have the power to dole out millions in tax payer dollars for “pet projects” in their districts, which often go to supporters, who give them an unfair advantage at the polls.

· No incumbent Supervisor in San Diego County has lost a re-election bid in more than two decades.

· Term limits will end the reign of career politicians and promote the opportunity for new leaders, new ideas to serve the best interests of our community and not special interests.

HOWEVER … the term limit measure does not apply to current terms! That means Supervisors Horn and Roberts would have another eight years on the Board. Supervisors Jacob, Slater-Price and Cox would have ten years, because they each have two years remaining of their current term.

All of the current would be in their 70’s, and Supervisor Jacob in her 80’s, if term limits are imposed and they seek reelection for an additional two four-year terms.

The Vote

What’s the point? When a Democrat or moderate Republican finally wins a seat, that person’s gotta go at about the same time the folks who already have about 18-20 years are “termed out.”

I hate term limits. Politicians jumping from office to office and an institutional bureaucracy of staff members who end up setting the agenda.

Sorry, it just doesn’t make sense. I’m voting “no.”

CITY OF SAN DIEGO: PROPOSITION C, AMENDS CHARTER PROVISIONS RELATING TO CREDITS AND LIMITATIONS FOR VETERANS PREFERENCE POINTS

Read the title, then vote “yes.”

CITY OF SAN DIEGO: PROPOSITION D: CITY OF SAN DIEGO, STRONG MAYOR FORM OF GOVERNANCE

Shall the Charter be revised to make permanent the Strong Mayor form of governance; add a ninth Council seat; and, when the ninth seat is filled, increase the Council votes required to override a mayoral veto to a two-thirds vote?

Summary

Revises the Charter to repeal the sunset date of December 31, 2010 for, and make permanent, the Strong Mayor (Mayor-Council) form of government. Creates a ninth Council District in the redistricting process following the 2010 Census. Provides for election of the ninth Councilmember at the next regularly scheduled municipal primary and general elections following the redistricting process. Once the ninth Councilmember is seated, the number of Council votes needed to override a mayoral veto on any matter would increase from five to six (two-thirds of the nine-member Council).

Fiscal Impact

The fiscal impact analysis of this ballot measure includes the expenses required to make the Strong Mayor Form of Governance permanent, increases the number of Council districts to nine, and increases the number of City Council votes required to override a Mayoral veto. It is anticipated that there will be no additional costs as a result of making the Strong Mayor Form of Governance permanent because the expenses associated with this type of government are currently in effect and have been included in the current budget. It is also anticipated that the increase to the veto override vote will not have a fiscal impact.

However, it is anticipated that the additional Council District will have a fiscal impact to the City's General Fund.

Each of the following estimates is subject to the City's budget process and may be adjusted depending on whether future City budgets absorb any costs of the new Council District. It should be noted that annual and one-time expenses could be offset by reductions to other areas of the City's General Fund budget which could impact other services or programs.

The estimated costs of adding an additional Council District include annual expenses of $939,500 to $971,500 for staff salaries and supplies based on current City Council Office budgets. Additional one-time expenses of $80,000 to $100,000 are anticipated for equipment, furniture and facility improvements. These costs will not be incurred until the new Council seat is filled in 2012.

The cost of running an election for the new Council seat would be paid by the City every four years. The amount is set by the number of voters in the district and how many candidates run for the seat. For the current election, for example, the costs for the primary election in a given Council District are estimated to be between approximately $25,000 and $43,000. For a general election, with only two candidates in the race, the estimate is $14,000 to $29,000 per district.

Background

From 1931 to 2006, the City of San Diego was governed by an elected City Council and an appointed City Manager. Since 1965, the City Council, serving as the City's legislative body, has included eight Council members and the Mayor. The City Manager, serving as chief administrative officer, ran day-to-day affairs, supervised City departments and proposed the City budget for Council approval.

Strong Mayor Trial Period

On January 1, 2006, the City began a five-year, voter-approved experiment to evaluate a Strong Mayor (also known as Mayor-Council) form of government. This structure removes the Mayor from the Council. The Mayor becomes the Chief Executive Officer and assumes executive authority, power, and responsibilities previously held by the Manager.

The Mayor prepares the annual budget for the Council's consideration and adoption, subject to a Mayoral line-item veto process. The Council-appointed Independent Budget Analyst provides budget analysis for the Council. The Mayor appoints the City Manager, Police Chief, and Fire Chief, subject to Council confirmation. Charter amendments in 2008 empower the Mayor to appoint the City Auditor and Chief Financial Officer, with Council confirmation. The Mayor appoints the Treasurer and all other managerial department heads formerly under the Manager; these positions serve at the Mayor's pleasure.

The Council sets the City's legislative agenda, establishes its own rules, and elects a presiding officer (Council President). The Mayor, City Attorney, and Council President jointly set the agenda for closed session meetings; when present, the Mayor presides over closed session meetings. The Mayor may attend Council meetings, but may not vote, and must approve or veto most Council actions. The Council must reconsider vetoed items and may override vetoes, usually with a five vote majority.

Proposal

In 2008, voters required the Council to place this measure before voters. If the measure is approved, it will establish a Strong Mayor form of government for the City similar to that tested during the trial, with certain differences: The number of Council districts will increase from eight to nine.

The ninth district will be established by redistricting following the 2010 Census. Voters in the new 9th Council District will nominate and elect their Councilmember at the next regularly scheduled municipal primary and general elections following the redistricting process. The number of Council votes required to override a Mayoral veto on any matter will increase from five to six (two-thirds), effective when the ninth Councilmember is seated.

If the measure fails, the Strong Mayor form of government will expire December 31, 2010. City government will return to a Council-Manager form, similar to that existing before the trial period, except for the continued existence of City Offices approved by voters in 2008. The new Offices include the City Auditor, supervised by an Audit Committee; a Chief Financial Officer; and the Independent Budget Analyst.

Analysis

Are you better off today then you were five years ago?

I’m not talking about whether City services have improved, because they have not. I’m not talking about lower taxes, because they are higher. I’m not talking about the budget or the pension deficit, because things have gotten worse, not better, over the past five years.

You … your life … every day. Driving through crater-like potholes to work. Not being able to find a parking space and getting ticketed for a few hundred bucks for being a fraction of an inch too close to a red zone (and being told that it has nothing to do with City revenues). Has traffic decreased? Police, fire and paramedic response times have all increased. Balboa Park and other “city-maintained” buildings, parks, playgrounds, etc. are falling apart.

If you buy the argument that a City Manager sat downstairs from the Mayor and City Council who had hired him and had the authority to fire him – with or without cause – and said, “hey, I think I’ll underfund the pension so I can pay for …” go ahead and vote the way you choose because you are stupid.

If you aren’t stupid, think about it. Susan Golding was running for U.S. Senate (yes, I know, if you blinked, you missed it). She wanted the East Village cleaned up. She wanted to expand the football stadium so San Diego could host the Super Bowl, she wanted to expand the convention center …

Then, there was Dick Murphy, who spent most of his time with his head buried in the sand.

All Mayors want things. All Council members want things. They go to the City Manager and he tells them there is no money. They ask him to find some. Sometimes he does; most of the time, he doesn’t. Then, as four different City Managers have all told me, “if you have five votes on the City Council, I must say “yes.””

All of the City’s ills are not due to one person and/or the bureaucracy. They are due to a Mayor and a “go along to get along” group of eight City Council members … Well, actually, it was the four who joined the Mayor to provide the five votes necessary to tell the City Manager to do something he would not otherwise have done.

Now we want to put the keys to the city’s vault directly in to the hands of the Mayor?

Please, tell me how that helps?

Sometimes it’s difficult to be informed and live in San Diego. City voters are going to approve Prop D because they don’t know any better. And, we will all be stuck with the consequences. And there will be dire consequences, because the reason we are at this point is that elected officials going back to the early 1990s didn’t want to tell us the bad news.

The Vote

I’m voting no. Then, I’m leaving town for a while.

CITY OF CHULA VISTA: PROPOSITION G, KILLING JOBS

Shall the ordinance prohibiting the City from funding or entering into public works contracts that require agreements with labor organizations or payments on behalf of employees to labor organization benefit plans or other trust funds be adopted?

CITY ATTORNEY IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS

The Measure applies to City public works projects, which are defined as all construction projects paid for, in whole or in part, by City funds, including, but not limited to, "any building, road, street, park, playground, water system, irrigation system, sewer, storm water conveyance system, reclamation project, redevelopment project, or other public safety facility."

The Measure also prevents the City from signing any agreements directly with labor organizations for public works construction projects. The City is also prohibited from paying funds on behalf of construction workers to any union benefit plan or union trust fund. The Measure prohibits any City agreement that requires workers on a public works project be represented by a labor organization. The City must refrain from encouraging or discouraging workers on a public works project from being represented by a labor organization. While the Measure does not prevent private parties from entering into collective bargaining agreements with labor organizations, it does prohibit the City from imposing a collective bargaining agreement through the way it issues construction bids or signs contracts with public works construction contractors.

Current law allows the City Council to determine on a project-by-project basis whether to use Project Labor Agreements. Currently, there are no Project Labor Agreements in place that would fit under the criteria of this measure. Adoption of this measure would prohibit the City from entering into or approving Project Labor Agreements in the future.

What Proposition G actually does is cost local workers jobs and could prevent the economic benefit of long awaited projects like the Bayfront.

· State and federal project funding, passed through the Chula Vista City Treasury, will be lost if those projects include any labor agreement provisions. Proposition G will ban these projects in Chula Vista keeping union and non-union construction workers from going back to work.

· Use of money raised with voluntary self-assessments such as business improvement districts, community improvement districts or voluntary hotel assessments will not be allocated to Chula Vista projects if those projects include labor peace agreements. These restrictions will harm both union and non-union workers.

· Proposition G prohibits certain trust fund benefit payments on behalf of both union and non-union workers. This is bad for both union and non union workers.

· Proposition G costs are too high. Costs in project delays, costs in litigation, costs to both union and non-union construction contractors, and loss of local non-union and union jobs because of unintended consequences.

The Vote

There are plenty of arguments against PLA’s, but this measure uses the guise of prohibiting PLA’s to kick union workers out of just about any major development in Chula Vista.

Thanks again, Cheryl.