The Freedom Minute

Vote for Adrin Nazarian for California State Assembly District 46

I’m proudly endorsing Adrin Nazarian to represent us in the newly formed California State Assembly District 46 which encompasses a large part of the east San Fernando Valley including North Hills, Panorama City, Van Nuys, Sherman Oaks, Studio City, Toluca Lake and parts of the Hollywood Hills west of the 101.

I’ve know Adrin for a couple of years and worked with him in his capacity of Chief of Staff for LA Councilmember Paul Krekorian. I know Adrin to be an intelligent, thoughtful, honest and kindhearted person who will do his best to do the right thing for the people he represents. I have no doubt that Adrin will be the type of Assembly Member who will be open to input from his constituents and provide leadership on the issues that are important to the people of the San Fernando Valley.

I wholeheartedly endorse him and urge you to vote for him on Tuesday November 6th.

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

Recommendations for November 6th Los Angeles County and Local Ballot Measures

Quick Guide
Measure A – No
Measure B – No
Measure J – No
Measure HH – No
Measure MM – No

Detailed Discussion

Measure A – Advisory Vote to Make the County Assessor an Appointed Position – Vote No

It’s just an advisory vote so it doesn’t carry any real weight, but I see no reason to make the Assessor an appointee subject to political patronage rather than an elected position.

Measure B – Requires Condom Use on Porn Sets – Vote No

Requires that all adult performers use condoms.

Do we even have to discuss this ridiculousness? Now they want to impose the “condom police”. Can’t we let adults decide for themselves how to conduct themselves in this matter? If this measure passes, adult producers will simply go elsewhere and take thousands of jobs with them, including all the behind the scenes jobs such as gaffers, grips, production assistants, etc. not to mention all the ancillary jobs that rely on movie shoots such as catering, transportation, equipment rentals, etc. Many producers have already left the City of Los Angeles for Las Vegas after they imposed a similar measure in the city.

Measure J – Extends the Half Cent Sales Tax for an Additional 30 years – Vote No

In 2008, voters approved a “temporary” half cent sales tax increase to fund transportation projects that would expire in 2039. But as we know, “temporary” taxes really never expire. So now, only 4 years later, they’re asking voters to extend the tax for an additional 30 years to 2069 to “speed up” the transportation projects. If they needed the tax to extend to 2069, they should have asked for it on the original measure instead of doing it in steps so they can now claim it’s not a tax increase. On principle I’m voting No.

Measure HH – Imposes a $24 Per Year Parcel Tax on Properties in the Hillside Areas East of the 405 – Vote No

This measure will only appear on your ballot if you live in the hillside areas south of Ventura Blvd. east of the 405. It’s supposedly intended for “land conservation” but it doesn’t even raise enough money to by even one piece of property per year. Instead, the money goes to fund the MRCA which is the entity operating the abusive and illegal stop sign cameras in the parks they control. Don’t give the MRCA more money and more power. Definitely vote No on this one.
If you want to learn more about this measure, read this column by my good friend Doug McIntyre

Measure MM – Imposes a $19 Per Year Parcel Tax on Properties in the Hillside Areas West of the 405 – Vote No

Basically the same as HH only it applies to the hillside communities west of the 405 such as Encino, Tarzana, Woodland Hills and Calabasas. Again, definitely vote No on this measure if it appears on the ballot.
If you want to learn more about this measure, read this column by my good friend Doug McIntyre

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

Recommendations for November 6th Statewide Ballot Measures

Quick Guide
PROP 30 – No
PROP 31 – No
PROP 32 – Yes
PROP 33 – No
PROP 34 – Yes
PROP 35 – No
PROP 36 – Yes
PROP 37 – No
PROP 38 – No
PROP 39 – No
PROP 40 – No

Detailed Discussion

PROP 30 – Increases Sales and Income Taxes – Vote No

Increases taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years and sales taxes by ¼ cent for four years.

While the measure is touted as mechanism to fund schools and “public safety” it’s pretty much just a basic tax increase. I’m recommending a no vote for a few reasons.
1. If this measure passes, California will then have the highest sales tax and highest income tax rates in the nation. You want your state to be tops, but not in that measurement. It drives away business and that further erodes the tax base.

2. It’s always a bad idea to raise taxes if you can avoid them, but it’s especially bad to do it during a recession or even a mild recovery because it stunts economic growth. Now is not the time for any tax increase.

3. This year the legislature and the Governor pushed through funding for the “high speed” train from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Regardless of whether you think this is a good project or not (I and a lot of other people think it’s a spectacularly wasteful boondoggle that won’t even really be “high speed”), they could have foregone this project and the proposed tax increase would not have been necessary.

4. They pulled a typical political move to get voters to support this tax increase by threatening big cuts to schools and safety services. They didn’t have to make those cuts where they made them, they could have chosen other areas to cut. But they figured if they threatened cuts in these areas, voters would be more likely to support the taxes. I’m not going to reward them for their duplicity.

5. The state has a huge structural revenue problem and the only way the politicians in Sacramento will have the fortitude to fix these problems long term is if their backs are up against the wall. Giving them more money now just gives them a reprieve so they don’t have to make the politically difficult choices that are necessary.

PROP 31 – Makes a Host of Changes to the Budgeting Process – Vote No

This measure is extremely complicated and most voters will have no idea what their vote actually will do. That’s reason enough to vote no. If you’re not sure, vote to keep the status quo and let the legislative process make the necessary changes.

One other reason I’m recommending a no vote is the provision the prevents the legislature from reducing revenue of $25 million or more without identifying a corresponding revenue increase or spending cut elsewhere in the budget. This provision could make it virtually impossible to get any tax or fee relief bill through the legislature. That means for example that if we tried to get them to reduce the fine for rolling right turns and they estimate that the reduction in fine revenue would be more than $25 million, we couldn’t get it passed.

PROP 32 – Bans Use of Payroll Deductions to Finance Spending for Political Purposes – Vote Yes

This measure prohibits corporations, government contractors, and unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. It also prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees and prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees.

This measure helps take some of the money out of the political process and prevents some abuses. Special interests have spent millions of dollars to try to defeat this proposition. That’s reason enough for me to vote Yes.

PROP 33 – Allows Auto Insurance Company to Offer a “Continuous Coverage” Discount to New Customers – Vote No

It sounds good on the surface, but the flip side of this proposition is that those who don’t have “continuous coverage” will pay higher prices to make up the discount given to those who do have “continuous coverage”. This is what I call a “special interest” proposition because it was funded and put on the ballot by the owner of Mercury Insurance. The reason he wants this change is so that his insurance company (and others) can have a better shot at getting the customers of competing insurance companies who can currently give discounts to their own long term customers. It will help those who have had continuous coverage and hurt those who have chosen not to carry auto insurance for some period of time such as if they chose not to own a car, etc. I think this one is pretty much a wash, but I resist voting for propositions that primarily benefit one special interest. For that reason I’m recommending a no vote, but I’m not strongly persuaded on this one.

PROP 34 – Eliminates the Death Penalty in Favor of Life Without Parole – Vote Yes

Whether or not to have impose the death penalty generally has been a hot button issue and many people feel strongly on both sides of the issue. Here’s why I’m voting Yes to eliminate the death penalty.

1. It’s hugely expensive, more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life.
2. Because of the time involved with appeals and legal maneuvering, it’s rarely imposed and most criminals on death row die of old age.
3. Murderers on death row get a host of perks that prisoners in the general population don’t get such as private cells and taxpayer funded appeals.
4. A number of death row inmates have subsequently be proven to be innocent. It doesn’t happen often but it does happen. No matter how careful we are, there’s always a chance that an innocent person might be put to death. I’m just not comfortable with that possibility.
5. Imposing the death penalty might make us feel good because we’ve gotten retribution, and it’s reasonable to feel that some of the most heinous criminals deserve to die. But deciding on how society punishes people should be done logically, not emotionally.

PROP 35 – Increases Penalties for Crimes Considered Human Trafficking – Vote No

This is another confusing proposition that most voters won’t understand. I’m still confused by exactly what it will do and how it will affect people. These are the types of issues that should go through the full legislative process so they can be fully vetted, not left up to a ballot initiative. If this change in the law makes sense, then the proponents should be able to get it passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. For that reason and since I can’t pinpoint exactly what unintended consequences might arise from this measure, I’m voting No.

PROP 36 – Changes Three Strikes Law to Impose Life Sentence Only if Third Conviction is Serious or Violent – Vote Yes

Currently, many inmates are serving life sentences due to the Three Strikes Law even though their third felony was for a non-violent offense. Under this proposal, these non-violent third time offenders would have their sentences doubled, rather than receiving 25 years to life as is the current practice. This makes good sense and it take a balanced approach of imposing a harsher penalty for non-violent repeat offenders but not so harsh a penalty as if their third offence was a violent one.

The current application of the three strikes law is one of the main reasons our prisons are overflowing with non-violent offender. This proposition would bring a measure of balance back to the sentencing process and save hundreds of millions of dollars a year while at the same time freeing up prison space for more violent offenders. I’m recommending a Yes vote.

PROP 37 – Genetically Engineered Food Labeling – Vote No

Another special interest proposition which is based on junk science and would primarily benefit certain special interests while creating more government bureaucracy, open the door to new frivolous lawsuits, and raise food costs for consumers. It contains a huge number of nonsensical exemptions for things like milk, cheese, meat, beer, wine, liquor, food sold at restaurants and other foods containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.

There’s no scientific reason to force these food labeling requirements onto manufacturers who will have to spend huge amounts of money on re-labeling their products and who will simply pass those costs to consumers.

PROP 38 – Increases Income Taxes – Vote No

This tax increase proposal is even worse than Prop 30 as it raises taxes on even the poor. All of my objections to Prop 30 apply here as well.

PROP 39 – Increases Taxes on Out of State Corporations – Vote No

My objections to tax increases explained under Prop 30 mostly apply here as well. In addition, this measure would earmark some of the tax revenue for “alternative energy projects”. This would primarily benefit certain special interests such as the billionaire hedge fund manager who is bankrolling the measure. If taxes are raised, the proceeds should go to the general fund to offset other cuts, not be earmarked for special projects with dubious benefits.

PROP 40 – Rejects New State Senate Districts Chosen by the Citizen’s Redistricting Commission – Vote No

The proponents of this initiative have withdrawn their support and are now advocating a No vote. So vote no and move along, nothing to see here.

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

How Some Plastic Bags End Up as Litter

You may have seen my recent article on Reason.com about the plastic bag ban being forced on the citizens of Los Angeles. There wasn’t room for everything I wanted to write so here’s another reason why the ban doesn’t make any sense:

Plastic grocery bags don’t usually make their way into the environment by shoppers being irresponsible with them after they get them home with their groceries. Most people reuse them and others recycle them or throw them in the trash. So how do some bags end up in storm drains or in trees or into the ocean? Well, one route is through overflowing or open topped public garbage cans. A few weeks ago my fiancé and I took a hike in a local park on a busy holiday weekend. We noticed quite a bit of litter, including some plastic bags. Then we walked through the picnic area and found that the trash cans were full and overflowing.

And we’ve seen this same situation at many of the local beaches, especially on busy weekends. Certainly the users of the parks and beaches bear some responsibility for not overstuffing the trash cans but the city also is at fault for not supplying enough trash cans and not emptying them often enough. So will the ban solve this problem? No. People will still have access to some plastic bags and they’ll use them to bring things to the parks and beaches. Some will be thrown away and then escape from the trash can.

The problem with trash escaping into the environment is solvable and it doesn’t involve banning a very useful and convenient product. One solution is to make sure that public trash receptacles are covered and emptied more often. But seeing how the Los Angeles City Council has acted on this and other issues, maybe they’ll just ban picnics.

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

MRCA Reinstalls Stop Sign Cameras in Marvin Braude Mulholland Gateway Park

Apparently the MRCA got tired of our criticism about the placement of the stop sign and camera at Marvin Braude Mulholland Gateway Park, so they first removed it and have now reinstalled it up the hill further into the parking area. It’s still pretty much in the middle of the road, not at any intersection. But in order to try to justify ticketing drivers $175 if they slowly roll past the sign, the MRCA painted a crosswalk there. Of course there’s no valid reason to have a crosswalk at that location, other than the MRCA needing an excuse to generate millions of dollars in revenue from unsuspecting park visitors. Read my full post with photos on my other website, Safer Steets L.A., devoted exclusively to these issues including ridding our society of red-light cameras.

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

CBS2 Reports on MRCA Stop Sign Camera Scam

David Goldstein of CBS2 in Los Angeles reports on the latest in the MRCA stop sign camera scam. Look for my comments about 3 minutes in.

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

Los Angeles Police Board Votes to End Red Light Camera Program

After a year of effort by us, on Tuesday June 7th, the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners voted unanimously 5-0 to end the city’s Photo Red-Light Program. This was a courageous vote by a board with diverse backgrounds, all dedicated and very competent people who spent a lot of time studying this issue. After carefully considering the issue for many months, the Board determined that the claims of improved safety at red-light camera intersections could not be proven to their satisfaction. Also of concern to the Commission members was the fact that two of the three potential vendors for a new contract are headquartered in Arizona. Last year, after Arizona passed SB1070 targeting illegal immigrants, the LA City Council voted to impose a boycott forbidding Los Angeles from entering into contracts with business headquartered in the state. Additionally, under the proposed contract, the City would have lost at least $1.5 million each year of the program.

Unless the City Council votes to assert its jurisdiction over the issue by June 17th, the Board’s decision will become final. The Council would need 10 of 15 members to support the rarely invoked procedural rule. Doing so would put the Council in the unenviable position of overriding a unanimous vote of the civilian Commission, backtracking on their support of their own Arizona Boycott, and potentially obligating the city to a contract costing millions of dollars during a time of severe budget cuts, and further outraging a public already feeling abused by the excesses of government. Furthermore, even if the Council were to take back the issue, they cannot completely overrule the Board, but simply send the matter to the Police Board for reconsideration. Considering the comments made by Board members during their debate and their unanimous vote, it is highly unlikely they would decide the matter differently on reconsideration.

Unfortunately, the camera company that would have gotten the $15 million payout of taxpayer dollars, American Traffic Solutions (ATS), has been hard at work through their lobbyists trying to get the Council to do their corporate bidding. If they are successful, it would only prove that the cynicism the public has of government is justified.

For more information, visit the website of our grassroots organization dedicated to this issue: Safer Streets L.A.

Watch my interview on NBC4 LA

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

Anaheim Votes to Ban Red Light Cameras

In a continuation of the national trend against the use of photo enforcement to pick the pockets of the nation’s motorists, voters in the city of Anaheim voted overwhelmingly today in favor of Proposition K which amends the city charter to ban the use of red light cameras within the city’s limits.  As has occurred each and every time the question of photo enforcement has been put before the voters, citizens solidly rejected the use of this insidious traffic enforcement scheme which wastes billions of dollars without improving public safety.  At the time of this posting, the measure to ban the cameras was being approved by 73% of voters.

In other red-light camera news, voters in Houston and Baytown, TX opted to end those cities’ red light camera programs as well.  The results of today’s elections should finally put the lie to the camera industry’s phony pronouncements that the public supports the use of red light cameras.  If this is support, I’d hate to see what opposition looks like.

For those of you who are interested, here’s the text of the Anaheim ballot measure:

Measure K: That new Section 1213 be, and the same is hereby, added to the Charter of the City of Anaheim to read as follows:

Section 1213. PROHIBITION OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS (RED LIGHT CAMERAS).

No ordinance shall be adopted by the City Council which would permit or authorize any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in the City of Anaheim. Any ordinance adopted by the City Council in violation of this section shall be null and void.

Neither the City Council, nor any officer or employee of the City when acting in his or her official capacity, shall (i) take any action which would directly or indirectly result in the authorization, approval or installation of any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in the City of Anaheim; or (ii) acquiesce or concur in any action or decision of any other governmental agency or governmental official having jurisdiction concerning such red light cameras where a protest or objection procedure is available to the City and where failure to so protest or object could result in the authorization, approval, or installation of any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in the City of Anaheim; or (iii) approve, authorize, execute or enter into any agreement or understanding, or take any other action of any nature whatsoever, which would authorize, approve, or in any way facilitate or result in the installation of any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in the City of Anaheim, including, but not limited to, any agreement or understanding relating to the installation of any red light camera or automated traffic enforcement system which would result in the receipt by the City of any revenue of any kind from such cameras or automated system.

The term “red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system” as used in this section shall mean and include any automated traffic enforcement system, as that term is used in California Vehicle Code Section 21455.5, or any successor legislation thereto, which is used to enforce any provision of the California Vehicle Code.

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

Voting Yes on Prop 23 Won’t Harm the Environment

If you had a friend that was about to commit suicide or maybe just inflict serious harm upon himself, you’d probably try to stop him. Well Californians are about to do just that. The implementation of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, will inflict serious harm on California and the people who live here. Voting Yes on Prop 23 is the intervention that California needs to save itself from certain injury.

First, let’s talk about AB32 and what it won’t do. AB32 won’t reduce “air pollution” as that term is generally understood. It does nothing to limit real air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, or toxic soot. These emissions that contribute to smog and other conditions related to public health are regulated under numerous separate laws, which are the strictest in the country. The only substance AB32 seeks to limit is CO2. So basically, this is a law that attempts to reduce global warming. The debate as to whether CO2 is a significant source of climate change isn’t going to be solved here, but it’s important for voters to realize that AB32 is only about global warming, not air pollution. Furthermore, even if AB32 is fully implemented, it will have no effect on worldwide global warming. AB32 seeks to reduce California’s CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. But that’s just a small fraction of California’s CO2 output. And, when compared to the worldwide output of CO2, the amount California emits is just a small fraction of 1%. On top of that, businesses that currently emit CO2 here in California may relocate to other states and continue to output the same amount of CO2, resulting in no net reduction overall. So, AB32 will have no effect on global warming and the air won’t be any cleaner.

But let’s see what AB32 would do. According to a report authored by Sanjay B. Varshney, Ph.D., dean of the College of Business Administration at California State University, Sacramento, AB32 will cost California small businesses a net loss of “more than $182.6 billion in gross state output, the equivalent of more than 1.1 million jobs, nearly $76.8 billion in labor income, and nearly $5.8 billion in indirect business taxes”. In addition, consumers would likely see a 60% increase in electricity rates and a 57% hike in natural gas rates as well as a new $500 million per year water tax. Gasoline and diesel prices will likely increase by $3.7 billion a year as well.

Prop 23 seeks to limit the damage that will be done to our economy by delaying the implementation of AB32 until California’s unemployment rate returns to 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. It does not repeal AB32, nor does it have any effect on any other environmental laws in California. California is in deep financial trouble and our economy can’t afford the additional costs that will be imposed by AB32 at this time. I urge you to vote Yes on Prop 23. But if you’re still inclined to vote no, at least now you know what your vote will mean – the loss of millions of jobs and higher energy costs with no improvement in air quality.

By the way, there’s an excellent reason that some oil companies are backing Prop 23 and it’s not because they “want to keep polluting”. As I’ve said, Prop 23 does not lessen any of California’s stringent environmental laws. Oil companies support Prop 23 because their industry, the industry that fuels virtually our entire economy, will be severely penalized under AB32 and will be forced to expend millions of dollars in unnecessary costs that will most likely be passed onto the consumer. That’s you and me, in case you hadn’t realized just who is going to pay for all this. But it’s not just oil companies that are backing Prop 23. A whole host of groups support voting yes, including such disparate entities as the Los Angeles Homeless Restoration Advisory Coalition and the Los Angeles Police Protective League. Here’s an entire list of supporters .

Finally, a word about moving to a “green economy”. While that might be a desirable goal, AB32 is not the way to get there. Making one type of energy more expensive so that less efficient forms of energy can compete is the wrong method of boosting alternative energy. If we are really serious about making renewable energy a viable alternative to fossil fuels, then we need to fund research that will make these types of energy more efficient and competitive in their own right. It’s entirely doable, especially if we don’t waste millions of dollars on an ill advised scheme to punish the use of fossil fuels.

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

One Good Reason to Vote Yes on Prop 19

Almost everyone agrees that our drug laws don’t work, create more problems than they solve and make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.  Most people also recognize that marijuana prohibition makes as little sense as alcohol prohibition did.  They understand that marijuana is nowhere near as harmful as tobacco or alcohol and attempts to prohibit its use have only led to associated street violence and a huge windfall for drug cartels.  But Prop 19, the initiative that would legalize marijuana and allow local governments to tax and regulate its use, has come under attack from a variety of critics.  Most criticisms are clearly just the same old scare tactics and misinformation put forth by anti-drug zealots or those who stand to profit from marijuana’s continued prohibition (I’m talking about you, Alcohol Lobby and Prison Industrial Complex).  These attacks include the usual nonsense about marijuana being addictive or a gateway drug or that legalization “sends the wrong message” to kids.

The truth, of course, is that marijuana has never been shown to be addictive (any more so than chocolate), has never been shown to be a gateway drug, and its legalization in other countries, like Portugal, has led to a reduction in use by teenagers.  Furthermore, removing criminal penalties for the use and possession of small amounts of marijuana frees up law enforcement (and the courts) to concentrate on real crimes and real criminals.  And the ability to tax the state’s most lucrative crop would put a serious dent in our budget deficit.

So there are lots of reasons to vote Yes on 19.  But here’s the most important: If Prop 19 fails, politicians may get the mistaken belief that the majority of the public wants marijuana prohibition and our other onerous drug laws to continue unchanged.  They’ll believe that there just isn’t the popular support for reforming our broken drug policies in favor of a more sensible public health approach.  If we’re worried about sending the wrong message, this is the message we should be worried about sending.  Politicians live and die by popular opinion.  And supporting drug law reform can get you labeled as “soft on crime”, something no politician wants, unless it’s his opponent carrying the label.  But if Prop 19 passes, even if the Feds block its implementation, politicians might realize that there is popular support for doing away with drug prohibition, especially in the case of marijuana, and moving our country away from the failed drug policies we have been pursuing for decades.  That’s the message I want our elected officials to get, and it’s the main reason I’m voting Yes on Prop 19.  It’s why you should vote yes, too.

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments