The Freedom Minute

Recommendations for June 8th Ballot Measures

If you live in California, please remember to vote on Tuesday.

PROP 13 – Seismic Retrofitting – Vote Yes
Provides that construction to seismically retrofit existing buildings will not trigger reassessment of property tax value and an increase in taxes.

This will encourage property owners to retrofit their buildings to make them safer in the event of an earthquake. Vote Yes

PROP 14, Top Two Primaries Act – Vote No
Changes the primary election to allow voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Only the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary would then appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.

This is a bad idea that would virtually eliminate third party candidates from running in the general election and would likely create a situation where two candidates from the same party would face each other in the general election. We need more competition in elections, not less. Furthermore, this measure was put on the ballot as a political payoff to secure Abel Maldonado’s vote for last year’s state budget. Don’t reward the politicians who make back room deals at voters’ expense. Vote No.

PROP 15, CALIFORNIA FAIR ELECTIONS ACT – Vote No
Repeals the ban on public funding of political campaigns and creates a voluntary system for candidates for Secretary of State for the 2014 and 2018 elections to qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to limitations on spending and private contributions. Funded by an increase in lobbyist registration fee from $12.50 per year to $350.

The problem with this measure is that it allows candidates to continue to raise funds from special interests and then also provides them with public funds if they limit their spending to a specified amount. Therefore, it really doesn’t do anything to make elections “more fair”. Also, once the ban on public funding of political campaigns is repealed, the Sacramento politicians can extend the use of public funds to candidates for other types of offices as well. While there may be an argument to be made for public financing of campaigns, this is not the way to do it. Vote No.

PROP 16, REQUIREs TWO-THIRDS VOTER APPROVAL FOR LOCAL PUBLIC ELECTRICITY PROVIDERS – Vote No
Requires two-thirds voter approval before local governments can provide electricity service to new customers or establish a community choice electricity program using public funds or bonds.

This initiative was placed on the ballot by PG&E in an effort to reduce competition from local government energy providers. On principle, I vote against any measure put on the ballot to benefit one particular special interest. Vote No.

PROP 17, ALLOWS AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES TO BASE THEIR PRICES IN PART ON A DRIVER’S HISTORY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE – Vote No
Permits insurance companies to offer a discount to drivers who have continuously maintained their auto insurance coverage, even if they change their insurance company. Will also allow insurance companies to increase the cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage.

This initiative was placed on the ballot by Mercury Insurance primarily to allow them to raise the rates of drivers who have not continuously had insurance. This unfairly penalizes drivers who might have a lapse in coverage for valid reasons such as choosing not to own a car for a period of time or those in the military who might be on active duty and not need insurance while they are deployed away from home. It’s misleading because the “discount” is what is being advertised, but not the penalty to other drivers. Again, don’t reward special interests who place measures on the ballot for their own personal gain. Vote No.

MEASURE E, LAUSD PARCEL TAX – Vote No
Authorizes a $100 per year parcel tax, to be levied on every parcel of taxable real property in the Los Angeles Unified School District for a four-year period.

A parcel tax of this nature is unfair, as all property owners, those with modest homes and those with mansions would pay the same amount. And for renters, don’t think this won’t affect you. Landlords may pass this tax on in the form of higher rents. In addition, voters have been very generous to the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), approving 5 bond measures in the last 13 years, for a total of $20 billion dollars. Many homeowners are now paying hundreds upon hundreds of dollars in higher taxes to repay these bonds. For example, voters approved LAUSD Measure Q in 2008, a $7 billion construction bond, even though District enrollment has been declining. In these difficult economic times, the District should not ask property owners to pay even more taxes on top of those they are already paying as a result of the passage of Measure Q. The LAUSD should redirect funds from Measure Q rather than ask for even more tax dollars. Also, the measure does not ensure that the money will actually be used for the direct benefit of the students. Vote No.

Find your polling place:

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

ORANGE COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

LIST OF ALL COUNTY ELECTION OFFICES

Toll-free Voter Hotline (800) 345-VOTE (8683)

Polls close at 8:00p.m.

June 5th, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election | no comments

Recommendations for May 19th Special Election

Local Races

City Attorney – Vote for Carmen Trutanich. His opponent, Jack Weiss, was our council member and was pretty much the worst representative you could imagine. He’s in bed with all the political elites in City Hall and has waged a deceptive smear campaign against Trutanich. Don’t reward him. Trutanich will be an independent prosecutor and work best for the people of Los Angeles.

Council District 5 – Vote for David Vahedi. Between Vahedi and his opponent Paul Koretz, there is no doubt that Vahedi is the better choice. Koretz is a career politician and would simply be a continuation of the status quo. He moved into the district just so he could run for the open council seat being vacated by Jack Weiss. I’ve listened to both men at various candidates forums and I’m convinced that Vahedi will be a much more independent voice and bring the possibility of real change. I also believe he will be more open to input for the constituents. He’s also a real grass-roots candidate having served on his local neighborhood council for many years.

Here’s what you need to know about the Propositions
Continue reading “Recommendations for May 19th Special Election”

May 18th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, Local Government, State Government | no comments

Why Can’t LA Times Columnists Get it Right?

In a recent column entitled, “California Budget Fixes On May 19 Ballot Are Mostly Shams and Frauds”, Michael Hiltzik of the LA Times rails against the six propositions, 1A through 1F, that will appear on the ballot for the May 19th special election. He’s right that the propositions are all fraudulent and misleading. They deserve to go down in defeat. But Hiltzik’s column is mostly wrong as to his analysis of our current budget crisis as well as what’s actually contained in the propositions themselves.

First, Hiltzik gets the facts wrong about Proposition 1A’s effect on the budget. He wrongly states that 1A “limits budget growth to a formula based on population growth and inflation”. If only this were true. Unfortunately it’s not. Prop 1A limits future spending to historic revenues and economic growth. This means that there really is no spending limit, because all the legislature need do to continue their runaway spending is continue to increase revenue, i.e. increase taxes. That’s a big difference from limiting spending to population growth and inflation. One would think that a columnist for a major newspaper would be able to get this simple fact right. Granted, the actual text of the proposition is so convoluted as to be almost incomprehensible, but all Hiltzik had to do was read the analysis written by the state’s independent legislative analyst which appears here, just like I did. But perhaps that was just too much trouble.

Or perhaps Hiltzik simply likes tax increases so much that he’s intentionally misleading his readers. What other explanation could there be when he calls the largest state tax increase in the history of the United States, “modest tax increases”. Or when he suggests that California’s budget woes come not from legislative over spending but rather from the 2/3 supermajority requirement for budget bills, which is pretty much the only thing standing in the way of even greater state fiscal irresponsibility. In fact, Hiltzik goes so far as to claim that eliminating this 2/3 supermajority requirement will somehow magically solve all our budget problems. Of course that’s only true if you believe we can simply tax our way out of this mess and “a tiny cadre of legislators”, as Hiltzik calls them, are standing in the way. But anyone with even a basic knowledge of economics knows this to be a fallacy. Ever increasing spending coupled with ever increasing taxes to pay for it, drives away the tax base, reduces revenue in the long run and eventually destroys an economy. Not to mention, it’s inherently unfair. But again, Hiltzik disagrees since he believes “there’s nothing inherently wrong with tobacco taxes or surcharges on the wealthy”. With an attitude such as this, it’s no wonder Hiltzik didn’t bother to do his homework.

But, Michael Hiltzik’s most egregious error is that he fails to mention anywhere in his analysis of the propositions that if 1A passes, the massive tax increase recently passed by the legislature will be extended an additional one to two years. That translates into an additional $16 billion in taxes levied on the people of California. But apparently, Michael Hiltzik didn’t think this fact important enough to make anything more than an obscure tangential reference buried deep in his text. Nor did he, in a column about the propositions being “shams and frauds”, mention that 1A’s official title and summary, written by our illustrious elected officials, as well as the TV and radio ads promoting its passage, also fail to mention this important fact. And that’s the biggest sham and fraud of all.

April 28th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | one comment

Vote No on LA Measure B: Green Energy and Good Jobs for Los Angeles Program

This is another deceptively titled ballot measure designed to trick the voting public into voting for something they would never want if they knew the truth – a monopoly by a powerful union and guaranteed higher energy rates. So here’s the truth:

Measure B amends the Charter and Administrative Code to authorize creation of a DWP program to build 400 megawatts’ worth of solar photovoltaics on land and rooftops inside the city. But it also mandates that the “solar power installations shall be installed, owned, operated and maintained by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP)”. This gives the DWP a virtual monopoly on all solar power installations throughout the city and explains why the measure was created and pushed onto the ballot by the powerful union that represents DWP workers. They want to get through legislation what they can’t achieve in the open market – a monopoly. And we all know what happens when you have a monopoly – you block competition that could provide cheaper or better alternatives.

As explained on the VoteNoLA website, “Unlike giant power plants built to serve entire communities, solar power systems installed on rooftops lend themselves to private ownership and operation. Why not always get the best price for rate-payers by soliciting competitive bids? Wouldn’t that be better for rate-payers and the local economy? Of course it would. Competitive bidding and private ownership should be the rule, not the exception”. Private solar companies, with deep expertise honed in a competitive environment, could possibly provide the same solar service more cheaply than the DWP. But if Measure B passes, that won’t happen.

In addition, this measure isn’t even needed to achieve its purported goals. The LA Times stated in a recent editorial, “Los Angeles can do all of those things without Measure B. In fact, the DWP is already working on programs to generate about 900 megawatts of solar power, and it didn’t stop to ask voter permission. It should do the same with the 400 megawatts of in-basin rooftop energy”. Furthermore, the Times goes on to explain the political power grab that is also a part of this measure. “Something else is going on here. It’s a grab for power — the political kind, not the solar stuff — by the City Council and the union that represents DWP workers. Measure B, if passed, would transfer oversight of in-basin solar power from a five-member commission, with at least a modicum of political independence, to the City Council. But because the measure would allow the council to change or suspend everything that’s in it, the council’s new authority would not be accompanied by new accountability. On the contrary, this measure would give the council sweeping political cover.”

Measure B, is another disingenuous campaign put forth by the Mayor and City Council to hoodwink the public. Don’t fall for their deceptions again. Solar power is a good idea; Measure B is a step in the wrong direction.

Vote NO on Measure B.

Times Article
VoteNoLA
Vote NO on Measure B website

February 28th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, Local Government | no comments

Vote No on LA Measure E: Economic Incentives For Business Development

Amends the City Charter to state that the City may provide economic incentives to attract new businesses to the City or to keep current businesses in the City. Incentives must result in clearly identifiable public benefits, must follow applicable law, and must be approved by the Mayor and Council.

While this measure sounds good on the surface, it simply memorializes in the City Charter what the Mayor and City Council have already been doing, giving away millions of dollars each year of your hard earned tax dollars to rich, politically connected developers in the form of subsidies, tax breaks and other special treatment. These developers then turn around and support the campaigns of the politicians that transferred your money to them, assuring that these politicians will continue in office year after year where they can do more political favors for those that helped put them there. It’s an unholy alliance and this ballot measure makes it worse.

Economic studies show that “incentive” programs do not work: they do not create wealth; they just redistribute money from taxpayers to people with political connections. The best way to improve our business climate it to cut taxes and fees and reform the process that makes business owners and entrepreneurs wade through an unnecessary bureaucracy and mountains of paperwork in order to start and run their businesses.

There’s a lot of smart things we can do to improve business development in Los Angeles, but Measure E is not one of them.

Recommendation: Vote NO

February 28th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, Local Government | no comments

Vote No on LA Measure A: Fire Department Independent Assessor

Amends the City Charter to create the post of Fire Department Independent Assessor.

The Measure would:
(1) Establish the position of independent Assessor, exempt from Civil Service, who reports to the Fire Commission;
(2) Provide the Independent Assessor the responsibility for auditing, assessing and reviewing the activities of the Fire Department, including handling of complaints of misconduct against firefighters and civilian employees, under rules established by the Fire Commission; and
(3) Authorize the Fire Commission to appoint and remove the Independent Assessor.

Recommendation: Vote NO

Proponents of this measure claim that in order to protect firefighters from harassment at work while protecting taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits we need an Independent Assessor. But we are already footing a multi-million dollar annual bill for an army of deputy mayors, mayoral aides, attorneys, risk management teams, etc. whose job it is to prevent harassment and defend against frivolous lawsuits. We need better management at the top, not more layers of management below. The answer to any real or imagined problems within the fire department is to hold accountable those who are already charged with managing the department correctly.

The Mayor, Fire Chief and the Board of Fire Commissioners are responsible for conditions at the Fire Department. The Mayor has a staff of 93 people. The Fire Department has a Professional Standards Division to handle complaints. The City’s Personnel Department, moreover, has an Equal Employment Opportunity Section that “monitors compliance by City departments with City, State and Federal EEO laws and regulations.” The City Administrative Officer has a Risk Management Team. So does the City Attorney. As for lawsuits, the City Attorney has a budgeted staff of 791 people, including over 300 attorneys. City Hall, moreover, spent $28.9 million last year on outside counsel. Under the Charter, the Mayor and the City Council make “the client decisions in litigation,” including whether to take a case all the way to trial, or whether instead to settle and, if so, on what terms.

If all of those people cannot protect firefighters and taxpayers, what difference would an “Independent Assessor” make? None. We do not need to add yet another layer of bureaucracy. We just need better people running City Hall.

February 28th, 2009 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, Local Government | no comments

California State and Local Ballot Initiative Recommendations

This is a summary. Please see the full discussion of each measure elsewhere on this site.

To download a pdf of this post Right Click here and choose “Save Link As” or “Save Target As”

STATE BALLOT MEASURES

PROP 1A – Vote NO
It is irresponsible to incur additional debt at this time.

PROP 2 – Vote NO
It’s unclear that these animals are being mistreated. Could harm the economy and drive farmers out of business. Will raise food prices.

PROP 3 – Vote NO
It is irresponsible to incur additional debt at this time.

PROP 4 – Vote NO
The motives of the proponents of this proposition are suspect and if passed, Prop 4 could harm more girls than it helps. Furthermore, there is no indication that any of the problems this proposal is meant to address, actually exist.

PROP 5 – Vote YES
Saves billions of taxpayer dollars and frees up much needed prison space for real criminals. Provides treatment instead of incarceration.

PROP 6 – Vote NO
Simply mandating a 60% increase in funding to local law enforcement and then mandating an additional annual increase is not necessarily going to make anyone safer. Would raise taxes or require cuts for other items in the budget such as schools, healthcare, and other vital programs.

PROP 7 – Vote NO
Would raise utility rates. Unfairly sets arbitrary goals for the use of renewable energy and then prohibits smaller renewable energy providers from contributing towards that goal.

PROP 8 – Vote NO
Requires the state to treat one class of citizens differently than another class of citizens. Unfair and mean-spirited.

PROP 9 – Vote NO
Duplicates many laws currently on the books and is therefore unnecessary to a large degree. Contains a number of troubling provisions which are either unconstitutional or simply wrong-headed.

PROP 10 – Vote NO
Most of the funding goes to encourage a shift from oil based energy to natural gas not to renewable energy sources. Would likely raise the cost of energy while enriching Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens.

PROP 11 – Vote YES
Anything is better than the current system in which incumbent legislators create districts where they are virtually guaranteed reelection.

PROP 12 – Vote YES
Helps veterans to purchase a home. Program has been running since 1922 and has yet to incur a cost to taxpayers.

LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY MEASURES

Prop A – Vote NO
Unnecessary. Raises property taxes.

Prop B – Vote NO
Overturns previous ballot initiatives passed by voters in 1973, 1977 and 1980. Intentionally confusing and misleading.

Prop J – Vote NO
At this time of budget crisis, it is irresponsible to take on additional debt or raise taxes.

Prop R – Vote NO
Increases the sales tax. Would drive away consumers and businesses. Transportation priorities not well thought out.

Prop Q – Vote NO
It is irresponsible to take on additional debt or raise taxes.

Prop U – Vote NO
If the measure is defeated and you live in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles, you will no longer have to pay this 5% tax on your phone service.

October 29th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, Local Government, State Government | no comments

LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY MEASURES

Unlike the state ballot measures, I’m not going to take the time to explain every little nuance of each proposition. I’ll give a basic explanation and then my short recommendation

Prop A – Vote NO

CITY OF LOS ANGELES SPECIAL GANG AND YOUTH VIOLENCE PREVENTION, AFTER-SCHOOL AND JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS TAX.

Permits the City of Los Angeles to levy an annual $36 gang prevention tax on each real property parcel.

Vote NO. Another tax for “safety”. The city has already raised the garbage collection fee with the promise to hire more police officers, but then used those funds for administrative and equipment costs. Also, during the last election, the city ran a deceptive campaign to trick voters into approving Prop S which allowed the city to continue to collect the illegal city utility users tax. That campaign focused on “safety” as well. Where is all that money going? It’s time the city started using the funds it has more efficiently. And if you think this tax won’t affect you if you don’t own property, remember that landlords will just pass the tax along in the form of higher rents. Vote no.

Prop B – Vote NO

UPDATE OF LOW RENT HOUSING AUTHORIZATION.

This proposition repeals propositions approved by voters in 1973, 1977 and 1980 that placed limits on the density and height of low income housing units built in the City of Los Angeles. These restrictions also impede the City’s ability to get certain funding from the state.

A “Yes” vote allows the City to build low income housing in excess of the restrictions on density and height put in place in previous years.

A “No” vote maintains the status quo.

Vote NO. This ballot initiative overturns previous ballot initiatives passed by voters in 1973, 1977 and 1980. If it is necessary to update the provisions of those measures, the City should educate the voters with the facts and put forward a clear and concise initiative rather than create a ballot measure which is intentionally confusing and misleading. When in doubt, vote no.

Prop J – Vote NO

LOCAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE CLASSROOM REPAIR, PUBLIC SAFETY, NURSING AND JOB TRAINING MEASURE.

Permits Los Angeles Community College District to issue $3.5 billion in bonds which will need to be repaid with interest.

Vote NO. The bond would be repaid by an additional property tax levied on real property within the district. At this time of budget crisis, it is irresponsible to take on additional debt or raise taxes.

Prop R – Vote NO

TRAFFIC RELIEF. RAIL EXTENSIONS. REDUCE FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE.

Raises Los Angeles County’s sales tax one-half cent for 30 years. Most of the funds would go towards initial funding of the MTA’s “subway to the sea” project.

Vote NO. The last thing we need right now is an increase in taxes, especially an increase in the sales tax which hits the lowest income citizens the hardest. Also, raising the sales tax could decrease revenue overall as buyers look to alternative sources for goods and services outside the county or on the internet. This plan drives away consumers and businesses and would mean that Los Angeles County would have the highest sales tax rate in the State. Vote no.

Prop Q – Vote NO

SAFE, HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS MEASURE.

Permits the LAUSD to issue $7 billion in bonds which will need to be repaid with interest.

Vote NO. Four previous LAUSD bonds have been passed since 1997. These were mainly targeted to relieve overcrowding and the district now has enough money to do that by 2012. This new bond measure which is substantially larger than the others, would raise an additional $7 billion, much of it for vague and unspecified uses. The bond would be repaid by an additional property tax levied on real property within the district. As I’ve said previously, at this time of budget crisis, it is irresponsible to take on additional debt or raise taxes.

Prop U – Vote NO

THE UNINCORPORATED LOS ANGELES COUNTY UTILITY USERS’ TAX CONTINUATION MEASURE.

Permits Los Angeles County to continue to levy the utility users’ tax on citizens living in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles but reduces that tax from 5 percent to 4.5 percent.

A “NO” vote means that the utility users’ tax on phone service will be discontinued in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles.

A “Yes” vote means that you wish to allow the County to continue to levy the tax and expand it to include a tax on other utility usage not now taxed such as certain internet services.

Vote NO. The deceptive campaign that tricked voters in the City of Los Angeles into approving Prop S during the last election worked so well that now the County is trying the same tactics. Don’t be fooled. If you vote no, you will no longer have to pay this 5% tax on your phone service. If you vote yes, the tax you now pay will be reduced to 4.5% but will likely expand to include a tax on utility services not now taxed. If you live in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles and this measure appears on your ballot, Vote No.

October 28th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, Local Government | no comments

PROP 12 – Vote YES

Proposition 12, the VETERANS’ BOND ACT OF 2008, provides for a bond issue of nine hundred million dollars ($900,000,000) to provide low interest loans to California veterans to purchase farms and homes. The measure was legislatively-referred to the ballot in Senate Bill 1572 which passed unanimously in both the in both the California state senate and assembly.

Background:

California began the veterans’ home loan programs in 1922. California voters have subsequently been asked 26 times to fund the program and have voted “yes” all 26 times, for a total of $8.4 billion in the past. The 2008 effort is the 27th time voters will have been asked to support the program. Prop. 12’s request for $900 million is the largest request for a Cal-Vet bond. Throughout its history, the Cal-Vet program has been totally supported by the participating veterans, at no direct cost to the taxpayer. However, because general obligation bonds are backed by the state, if at any time in the future the payments made by those veterans participating in the program do not fully cover the amount owed on the bonds, the state’s taxpayers would pay the difference.

Arguments:

Opponents argue that the government should not be in the business of providing loans, no matter how noble the cause or at the very least, the program should be limited to veterans who have served in a combat zone.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote YES. While I philosophically oppose the government getting involved in private lending, this program has been running since 1922 and has yet to incur a cost to taxpayers. Furthermore, helping veterans to purchase a home is probably the least objectionable use of the sale of government bonds that I can imagine and it’s the least we can do for those who have honorable served our country.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 12

October 28th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | no comments

PROP 11 – Vote YES

This Proposal:

Proposition 11, the REDISTRICTING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE would change the process that is undertaken once every ten years of setting (which sometimes means re-drawing) the geographic boundaries of the state’s 120 legislative districts and four Board of Equalization districts. At present, the task of setting these boundaries falls to the state legislature itself. If Proposition 11 passes, that task would instead be given to a new, 14-member commission.

Specifically:
• It would change the authority for establishing the district boundaries of the California State Assembly, California State Senate, and Board of Equalization from elected representatives to a 14-member commission.
• The commission must include five Democrats, five Republicans and four of neither party.
• Government auditors are to select 60 registered voters from an applicant pool. Legislative leaders (Republican and Democrat leaders in the state senate and state assembly) can reduce the pool; the auditors then pick eight commission members by lottery, and those commissioners pick six additional members for 14 total.
• For approval, district boundaries need votes from three Democratic commissioners, three Republican commissioners and three commissioners from neither party
• The measure forbids the commission from drawing districts for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against political incumbents, candidates, or parties.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote YES. While this doesn’t seem like the perfect redistricting plan, anything has to be better than the current system in which incumbent legislators divide up neighborhoods and communities to create districts where they are virtually guaranteed reelection. In addition, the fact that the vast majority of incumbent politicians are opposed to this plan tells me that voting yes is the right thing to do.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 11

October 28th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | no comments