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 | one comment

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 | one comment

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 | one comment

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 | one comment

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 | one comment

Recommendations for Nov. 2nd Ballot Measures

PROP 19 – Legalizes Marijuana Under California Law – Vote Yes

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Allows local governments to regulate and tax the production, distribution, and sale of marijuana. Potential increased tax and fee revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potential correctional savings of several tens of millions of dollars annually.

While much has been reported about this initiative, there’s one very good reason to vote yes. The drug war has cost this country untold billions of dollars, ruined countless lives, enriched drug cartels, and eroded our civil liberties. And it has done nothing to reduce the use of drugs. While Prop 19 won’t fix all those problems, it is a step in the right direction. If nothing else, its passage will signal the willingness of our citizens to seriously consider ending the war on drugs, especially for drugs like marijuana which is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco and likely provides real medicinal benefits. Our elected official need political cover if they’re ever going to support meaningful drug law reforms. The passage of Prop 19 would give them that political cover.

PROP 20 - Redistricting Of Congressional Districts – Vote Yes

Transfers authority for establishing congressional districts to the recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and representatives of neither party. Takes redistricting out of the hands of politicians who have used that power to gerrymander the districts to ensure their own reelection.

Voters approved Proposition 11 in 2008 which provided for the same transfer of authority for establishing state election districts. This proposition extends that authority to the establishment of US congressional districts. When politicians have the power to draw the boundaries of their districts, they artificially adjust those boundaries to include or exclude certain groups of voters such as those of a particular political party or ethnic or social group. This results in the elected officials having an unfair advantage in future elections and virtually assures that they will have little or no real competition for their seat. Taking the power out of the hands of elected politicians is the only way to ensure that congressional district boundaries are drawn fairly and don’t give an advantage to any one political party. – Vote Yes

PROP 21 – Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks – Vote No

Adds $18 to the vehicle license fee each year. This $18 would be earmarked for State Park funding.

While this might seem like a good idea to offset some recent budget cutbacks, imposing this fee is a colossally bad idea. First, while it’s called a fee, it’s actually an additional tax on every vehicle registered in the state. All drivers would pay the same amount, whether they drive an old junker or a Lexus. This means the tax would fall hardest on the lowest income citizens. Furthermore, once this fee is imposed, there’s no guarantee it won’t increase every year. $18 might not be much now, but it could easily rise to $50 or $100 within the next few years. Don’t give the politicians the ability to impose this new tax on California drivers. – Vote No

PROP 22 – Prohibits the State From Borrowing Or Taking Funds Used For Transportation, Redevelopment, Or Local Government Projects And Services – Vote No

This measure reduces or eliminates the state’s authority to:
• Use state fuel tax revenues to pay debt service on state transportation bonds.
• Borrow or change the distribution of state fuel tax revenues.
• Redirect redevlopment agency property taxes to any other local government.
• Temporarily shift property taxes from cities, counties, and special districts to schools.
• Use vehicle license fee (VLF) revenues to reimburse local governments for state mandated costs.

This proposition is basically about a jurisdictional dispute between the State and local governments. Both sides make similar claims that passing the measure (or defeating it) will protect taxpayer funds from “the politicians”. Annual State and local funding is a complicated calculation and usually neither side is entirely happy with the outcome. I recommend that it’s best for voters to stay out of this issue and let our elected officials fight it out. Therefore I recommend a No vote to keep things the way they are now.

PROP 23 – Suspends Implementation of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, Until Unemployment Drops To 5.5% or Less for Full Year – Vote Yes

Contrary to the way opponents of this initiative would like to characterize it, AB32 does not reduce “pollution”, it reduces CO2 which is not an air pollutant per se. If AB32 is implemented, it would mean the loss of millions of jobs in California. Supporters of AB32 claim that some of those jobs would be replaced with “green jobs”, but there is no guarantee those jobs will ever materialize and even if they do, they would only be a tiny fraction of the number of jobs lost. Those that support AB32 (and oppose this initiative) are asking us to favor potential jobs over jobs that currently exist. Realize that each job lost really means that an actual person who currently has a job will become unemployed. Furthermore, even if AB32 is implemented and we are actually able to reduce CO2 emissions in California, there would be no net effect on global warming since the CO2 produced by California is only a minute fraction of the CO2 produced globally and much of the CO2 we now produce would stilled be produced, only in states other than California as companies relocate to other places (and take our jobs with them). California can’t afford the loss of millions of jobs. – Vote Yes

PROP 24 – Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses To Lower Their Tax Liability – Vote No

In 2008 and 2009, the state legislature adjusted the way some businesses were allowed to calculate their tax liability. This was done to make California more competitive with surrounding states and keep businesses from moving to places with a lower tax rate. California imposes one of the highest tax liabilities on businesses of any state. The previous changes were an attempt to make taxes a bit more fair. Now, however, the proponents of Prop 24 want to take away those adjustments and are mischaracterizing them as a “giveaway”. Businesses are not the enemy, they are the engine that drives our economy and provide jobs to our citizens. In order to keep businesses from fleeing the state, we have to stay competitive. – Vote No

PROP 25 – Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass Budget and Budget-Related Legislation from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority – Vote No

Critics of the Two-Thirds vote requirement to pass a budget have been claiming that this is the source of all the state’s budgetary problems. This is an absolute lie. The Two-Thirds vote requirement does make it harder to pass a budget because it makes it harder to raise taxes. This forces our legislators to look more deeply at what the state is spending and to make tough choices. That’s a good thing. Granted, the budget is often late, but that’s better than imposing crippling tax increases on out citizens. The Two-Thirds vote requirement is the only thing standing in the way of higher taxes and fees. – Vote No

PROP 26 – Requires That Certain State And Local Fees Be Approved By Two-Thirds Vote – Vote Yes

In order to get around the two-thirds vote requirement to raise taxes, the politicians have begun to call those taxes “fees”. This initiative closes that loophole. – Vote Yes

PROP 27 – Eliminates State Commission On Redistricting – Vote No

This measure is basically the opposite of Prop 20. It puts redistricting back in the hands of politicians by reversing Prop 11 which voters approved in 2008. It’s a power grab by politicians who are afraid that they will lose reelection if they actually have to compete on a level playing field. For a more detailed discussion, see the explanation of Prop 20 above. – Vote No

Here’s my condensed summary:
PROP 19 – Legalizes Marijuana – YES
PROP 20 – Redistricting – YES
PROP 21 – $18 Car Tax – NO
PROP 22 – Prohibits Funds Transfers – NO
PROP 23 – Suspends Job Killing AB32 – YES
PROP 24 – Repeals Businesses Tax Adjustment – NO
PROP 25 – Eliminates Two-Thirds Requirement – NO
PROP 26 – Requires Two-Thirds Vote to Raise Fees – YES
PROP 27 – Eliminates State Redistricting Commission – NO

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | one comment

Recommendations for June 8th Election Candidates

Since this is a Primary, there are too many different candidates in too many different races to cover every choice, so I’m just going to hit on a couple of the major ones that I have specific opinions on.

Governor
Democrats – Vote for anyone but Jerry Brown.
Republicans – Meg Whitman is the most likely candidate that could beat Jerry Brown in the general election.

U.S. Senate
Democrats – As the incumbent, Barbara Boxer has no serious competition, so it really doesn’t matter who you vote for.
Republicans – My pick is Carly Fiorino. She’s a fiscal conservative and somewhat moderate on social issues. She’s also got a chance of beating Barbara Boxer in the general election. Chuck DeVore, while fiscally conservative, is too socially conservative for me.
Continue reading “Recommendations for June 8th Election Candidates”

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | one comment

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.
Continue reading “Recommendations for June 8th Ballot Measures”

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | one comment

Lessons from the Massachusetts Special Election

To a large extent, the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat was a referendum on the Democrats’ legislative ambitions in general and the current health care reform bill in particular. There are lessons to be learned from Scott Brown’s defeat of Martha Coakley to become the 41st Republican in the Senate, and one hopes the President and Congress are a quick study.

Contrary to what some liberals (oops, I mean “progressives”) like Michael Moore would wish to believe, the Democratic base did not desert those in power because they weren’t liberal enough. On the contrary, Brown won because independents and many moderate Democrats are unhappy with what appears to be this administration’s preference for big government solutions and the resulting increases in taxes and debt.

The health care bill is a good case in point. The President and the Democratically controlled Congress are attempting to foist upon the American people a trillion dollar health care plan, bought and paid for with backroom deals, and loaded with giveaways to the health care and health insurance industries. The President campaigned on “change”. But if this health care bill doesn’t prove that it’s still business as usual in Washington, nothing does.

So what should the President do? First, he should abandon the health care reform bill in its current form. Make no mistake, neither the House nor Senate bills address the real reasons for out of control heath care costs and would do little more than force everyone to purchase the health insurance industry’s flawed product; most likely at a higher cost. Pushing this catastrophically flawed bill through Congress, especially if the effort appears to involve any appearance of political gamesmanship, would be political suicide for the Democrats. Instead, the President and Congress should concentrate on only those reforms upon which most everyone can agree. It’s likely that with a scaled back, targeted approach to health care reform a few Republicans could be brought on board. (I’ll provide details in another post.) Not only would this be a huge win for the American people, but politically it would show that Obama is not only interested in bringing about change, he’s capable of change himself.

Second, the President should recognize that you can’t win elections without the backing of moderate and independent voters, and in Massachusetts they voted for a course correction. In his first year in office, Obama made the same mistake Bill Clinton made in 1992. Clinton beat Bush by appealing to independents and the so called “Reagan democrats”. But once in office, he pushed a classically liberal democratic agenda, the centerpiece of which was a big government health care reform bill. His approval ratings tanked and in the 1994 mid-term elections the Democrats lost control of both Houses of Congress. But Clinton learned his lesson, and for the rest of that term he chose to govern from the center, rather than the liberal left. He handily won re-election and by all accounts left office a popular and successful president. (Except, perhaps, for that impeachment thing.)

President Obama is actually lucky in that he’s had some early warning signs of the impending political disaster headed his way. If last November’s Republican gubernatorial wins in Virginia and New Jersey didn’t wake him up, certainly what happened in Massachusetts should do the trick. If he’s smart, he’ll make it clear that he’s heard the will of the people. He’ll become more fiscally conservative and dial back on his ambitious agenda. He’ll try to truly usher in an era of bipartisanship by repudiating ideas that would lead to bigger government intrusion in our lives and he’ll take a more market oriented approach to the reforms he wants to implement. He’ll steer clear of job killing legislation like Cap and Trade and he’ll consider options for reducing the deficit, not increasing it.

Hopefully, President Obama has gotten the message sent by the voters of Massachusetts. If not, in the 2010 midterm elections, it will be, as Yogi Berra used to say, deja vu all over again.

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | one comment

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”

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | one comment