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.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

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.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

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

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

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.

Lieutenant Governor
Very insignificant position here in California, so who you vote for for this position really doesn’t matter all that much.
Democrats – Most likely, Gavin Newsome will be the Democratic nominee, but I personally wouldn’t vote for him. I also wouldn’t vote for Janice Hahn who’s been a terrible L.A. City Council member. That leaves Eric Korevaar, who I know nothing about.
Republicans – Vote for anyone but Abel Maldonado. This weasel made a pledge not to vote for any new taxes and then promptly broke that pledge in return for being named Lieutenant Governor temporarily till the new term begins. He also got his ballot measure, Prop 14 added to the ballot as part of this backroom deal which included voting for a budget which contained nearly $19 billion in tax increases. Don’t vote for him or Prop 14.

Attorney General
This is actually a fairly important position as the Attorney General determines the State’s legal position on numerous matters and decides what legal resources will be used to advance those positions.
Democrats – My pick is Mike Schmier. He supports legalization of cannabis and the right of defendants to use unpublished appellate decisions as a basis for defense.
Republicans – Steve Cooley is the least objectionable choice although I don’t like his drug warrior stance on cannabis. The other two candidates, John Eastman and Tom Harman are conservative ideologues who support Prop 8.

Insurance Commissioner
Democrats – No choice
Republicans – Vote for Brian Fitzgerald, not Mike Villines. Villines, like Abel Maldonado, broke his no tax pledge after publicly declaring numerous times that he would not do so.

Don’t forget to read my recommendations for the ballot measures.

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.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

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.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

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.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

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

Vote NO on all

Prop 1A – This purports to impose a spending limit on the budget process. However, unlike a “real” spending limit, Prop 1A ties spending to prior revenue. That means that as long as the legislature raises taxes, they can keep adding to the budget. That’s no limit at all. California needs a spending limit imposed on the budget, but this is not it This prop would also extend the taxes already imposed during the last budget crisis. Taxes in California are already the highest in the nation by far. We don’t need higher taxes, we need to cut the budget and impose some spending restraints.

Prop 1B – This prop only takes effect if 1A also passes. It would funnel revenue back into school funding, but at an increase to the current levels. Much of the problem from school funding in California is a result of the outlandish benefits we are obligated to pay to retired teachers and other support personnel. These benefits are way above the benefits received by workers in the private sector. The reason our schools are starved for funds, is not because we don’t spend enough on education, it’s because of all the other obligations that siphon off money that would otherwise go to the classrooms.

Prop 1C – Allows the legislature to borrow against future lottery earnings. This is another smoke and mirrors move to cover up our huge deficit. The money will eventually have to be paid back with interest. We don’t need more debt.

Prop 1D – Siphons money from a dedicated account into the general fund. Another smoke and mirrors move to cover up our huge deficit. It’s just more creative bookkeeping so our politicians don’t have to make the hard choices and they can punt the problem into the future.

Prop 1E – Pretty much the same as Prop 1D but with a different dedicated account.

Prop 1F – This is a cynical attempt by one politician, Abel Maldonado, to make it appear as though he’s doing something to help the budget crisis, but it’s a sham. Abel Maldonado was the final republican vote to raise taxes during the recent budget crisis. He previously made a pledge when he was running for office that he would not vote to raise taxes. In some back-door wheeling and dealing, Maldonado switched his vote for personal gain. One of the things that he got was this proposition put on the ballot so he could have some political cover. The proposition would never actually do anything and is simply one of those “let’s pretend we’re on the side of the people” deceptions. Don’t fall for it.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

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.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

Here’s some additional recommendations for Tuesday’s election.

Controller – Kathleen “Suzy” Evans
www.evansforcontroller.com
Suzy isn’t a career politician like the other two candidates and is likely to be independent from the political dealings of city hall. Wendy Greuel is the most well know of the candidates, currently serving on the City Council. Wendy has been all over the airwaves recently claiming how she’d fight waste and collect unpaid taxes. But what has she been doing all these years while on the council? Nothing. In fact, she’s been responsible for much of the waste and inefficiency of city hall. Plus, she and the mayor are so politically enmeshed, it’s highly unlikely she’d do any real fiscal cleaning up.

City Attorney – Carmen Trutanich
David Berger is also a good choice. Again, the most widely know candidate is political insider Jack Weiss. He has been a terrible council member for our district and is so politically cozy with the current mayor that he’d never be able to take an independent stance on anything. We don’t need another politician, we need someone who will make the people of LA his first priority. Vote for anyone other than Jack Weiss.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO

To say that anyone would be a better mayor than Antonio Villaragosa, would be the understatement of the year. Our current mayor is the typical career politician who caters almost exclusively to special interest groups and the politically connected. Under his watch, the City of Los Angeles has declined while taxes and fees have skyrocketed. Furthermore, Villaragosa has shown himself to be unconcerned with basic honesty. Remember Villaragosa’s misleading and deceptive Prop S which tricked LA voters into approving a tax which would otherwise have expired by calling it a tax reduction? Well we now have Measure B, another deceptively titled ballot measure (Solar Energy and Job Creation Program), which would stifle solar power innovation and give a monopoly to a powerful union. (See Related Post) Guess who championed this new boondoggle – right Mayor Villaragosa. The reasons to vote Villaragosa out of office are too numerous to list; his mismanagement of taxpayer dollars, disregard for the middle class taxpayer, and backdoor dealings should be enough to convince you. In addition, Villaragosa is likely to run for governor in 2010. The L.A. Weekly recently estimated that he currently spends only 11% of his time on his mayoral duties. How much time do you think he’ll spend on city business while he’s off campaigning?

This is why I am endorsing Walter Moore for Mayor. Walter has been an outspoken opponent of City Hall for a long time. He first came to my attention during the grassroots attempt to defeat Prop S and since then has been on the right side of almost every issue the middle class Angelino should care about. Here’s a link to his website. Walter can do a much better job speaking for himself than I could hope to do in this short blog post. I urge you to visit Walter’s website and vote for him this Tuesday. We can’t afford another four years of Antonio Villaragosa.

Related posts:

1. PROP 5 – Vote YES
2. PROP 6 – Vote NO
3. PROP 7 – Vote NO