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 He supports legalization of cannabis and the right of defendants to use unpublished appellate decisions as a basis for defense.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Adeena Bleich (website) was clearly the youngest of the group running for City Council, but this fact alone isn’t the only reason I think she’d be the most likely to challenge the “old boys network” that has for too long entrenched itself in Los Angeles politics. Adeena was unafraid to voice her public opposition to Measure B (See Related Post). This stance is risky for anyone running for public office in Los Angeles as it directly opposes the powerful union that represents DWP workers as well as the majority of the current City Council. In fact, that union has vowed to “bury” any candidate that dares to oppose their self-serving grab for power. Perhaps that’s why virtually every other candidate said they opposed the “process” of how Measure B got on the ballot while supporting the ballot measure itself. Talk about having it both ways! Adeena was clear about her stance – she opposed the “process” and the measure, regardless of the political consequences. Also, Adeena supports a rollback of the recent exorbitant increase in parking fees (up to $4.00 an hour in some places) and service hours (including nights and Sundays) foisted upon the citizens of Los Angels by the current City Council. Adeena correctly understands that increasing parking fees in this manner will only drive customers away from our local businesses, further depressing an already faltering economy. (If you haven’t seen those parking fee increases yet, you will soon.)

In addition, I got a chance to speak with Adeena after the forum. She struck me as genuinely concerned for the people she sought to represent rather than someone who was out to build a political career. I believe she will be receptive her constituents concerns to a much greater extent than our current council representative and I believe she won’t “go along to get along” as is typical of City Council members in general. If she is elected, Adeena Bleich would likely bring a breath of fresh air to Los Angeles city politics, something which is desperately needed. I therefore urge you to vote for Adeena Bleich if you live in Council District 5 (See Map) and/or urge anyone who lives in our district to do so as well.

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.

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

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