Manda Recommends: California Election Guide 2008
(I'm not sure how many people on my Friends List are from CA, but I thought I would post this anyway. It may be relevant for those of you living in other states that have propositions on the balllot as well.)
A number of people (okay, like 2, but hey! That's a "number") have called or asked about how or whom they should vote for come November 4th. Now while, granted, the world would be a better place if people did what I told them to, voting is a very personal thing. It's a sacred right; a treasure.
So don't think that you have to follow this voting guide. Really, you can vote differently. We just may not be friends afterward, so I hope you're willing to live with that. J
And on that note…
Manda's Election Guide 2008!
A General Note:
I'm not going to advocate for any specific candidates other than to say vote a straight democratic ticket. Everything from President, Congressman, etc. etc. should be blue. Polling and voter registration show that Dems are making huge gains this year (yay!) thanks to Obama's popularity. Nevertheless, it's important to get out there and VOTE on Nov. 4th. And vote for EVERY race.
I can't tell you how much drop off there is the further down the ballot you go. A quick example of what I'm talking about:
Say 100 people show up to vote for Obama, they check the box and our done, but then they look at the next box for Senator. Maybe 90 of them want to vote for that too, but the other ten will just vote for Obama and leave. By the time those 100 voters make their way down the ballot (and in CA it's going to be especially long this year), maybe only 50 of the people who showed up are actually voting on the smaller races like state treasurer or assembly. City council and local offices are even worse.
So - if you're going to show up, and, like so many, haven't had the time to do candidate research, just vote Dem and vote all the way down the line. This is a problem though for local races as many are "non-partisan" i.e. they have no official party affiliation, although they may personally be a Dem or Rep. In that case, look at your sample guide and see who is supporting them (if it says). Teachers, unions, environmental groups - probably a Dem. Chamber of Commerce, farmers, police - probably a Rep. In a perfect world we'd do research on everyone, but hey, who has the time? (except for me)
Okay, so everyone vote for Dem candidates. Got that? Good. Moving on…
Propositions!
I can't tell you how much I loathe these things and many of you have already heard the rant, so I will let it go for now. A general observation though - if they have to do something through the initiative process it's because they couldn't get it through the legislature. And believe me, with the egos of legislators, if it were a good idea, they all would have jumped on the bandwagon and tried to claim it as their own long ago. So, be inherently suspicious of non-legislatively sponsored initiatives.
Prop 1A: High Speed Rail Bond
Manda Recommends: Vote YES
Pros: During the Depression the government invested billions in infrastructure and built things like the TVA and Hoover Dam, etc. Given the current economic crisis, it might not be a bad thing to try again. High speed rail promises hundreds of jobs (if not more, and that's just to build the damn thing), it will help the environment (no more driving six hours to Disneyland! Yay!), and it will connect communities in a way that, frankly, we should have tried to do years ago, ala France, Germany, and parts of the Eastern Seaboard.
Cons: It's a bond, which is a big chunk of debt we'll be paying off for a while. And like anything on credit, it's always more expensive than pay as you go. Also, people have bitched about the route (mostly because they all want it to come through their city), environmental impacts on open space (hey, my cows graze their!), etc.
Comments: I saw this bill make it's way through the Legislature, saw the hard work that was put into it, and believe me, they took ALL of this into account. And while, no, I don't like more debt for the state this thing has the potential to really move CA forward. So I side with the YES people on this.
Prop 2: Farm Animal Enclosures
Manda Recommends: Vote YES (Maybe)
Pros: Yes, it sucks that calves are kept in small cages, and chickens can't wander around the farm yard ala Little House on the Prairie. Yes, there are some horrendous abuses of animals. Yes, it may only raise the costs of eggs about 2 cents an egg. And yes, I've seen all the celebs out to protest. But…
Cons: It may be more expensive than that, especially if out-of-state producers start pushing more into the market. Just because we require the chickens to be freer doesn't mean we have to buy the eggs from those farms, so restaurants, etc may start buying more from out of state. That hurts out economy.
Comments: The economy vs. the animals. Business does tend to over react, and over-price how much they say costs will go up with new regulations, so I'm hoping the YES people are correct with the minimal 2 cent increase. But, the last thing we need is less tax revenue because people are buying out of state eggs. So, I think I'm siding with the animal people on this, but I may switch in the next few weeks if studies show it would hurt the economy more than expected. Chickens and cows are cute, but I like services for poor people more.
Prop 3: Children's Hospital Bond Act
Manda Recommends: Vote YES
Pros: Um, hello… Upgrades for places that take care of sick kids. Seems like a no brainer.
Cons: Yes, it's more debt, but this (and 1A and Prop 12) are actually good debt investments.
Comments: It's telling when the only people who oppose this are right-wing, anti-tax, starve-the-beast Republicans. This is another legislative initiative I watched along the process and it's a good one. Yes, some of these hospitals still have money in the pot from the last bond measure, but this is for different uses and upgrades, and again… sick kids. So, I'm with the YES people.
Prop 4: Parental Notification
Manda Recommends: Vote NO. As in HELL NO.
Pros: (trying to be fair) No one thinks for a minute a minor is mature enough to decide about aborting. If they were mature enough, they'd be adults and then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But…
Cons: Minors - by law - have a right to privacy, and part of that right includes the right to have access to abortion services without parental notification. Start curbing that right for minors, and we start curbing that right for everyone - which is exactly what these people want: to make abortion illegal for everyone. They are just taking it a little at a time, instead of trying to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Comments: there have been some pretty disgusting ads from the Yes on 4 People. They want you to think this is about protecting minor girls from sexual predators (with an ad showing a skeevy guy talking about knocking teen girls up then forcing them to have abortions), but it's not. It's about chipping away at rights a little at a time. We have to put the smack down on this hard. This is the third time they have tried this, and it's been defeated before, but polling shows it is up this time. Probably because of the scare tactic ads. Oh - and the "Sarah" they reference in the ballot arguments and the "evil" Planned Parenthood? Were in Texas. Fifteen years ago. And the teen girl was married to the man who forced her to have the abortion. This is how desperate these people are, they had to go back over a decade and to TEXAS to find a story terrible enough to scare people into voting yes on this thing. Don't. Protect a woman's right to choose. I say, vote no.
Prop 5: Non-Violent Drug Offenses
Manda Recommends: Vote No. (Sorry Jay and Silent Bob)
Pros: It increases access to drug treatment programs, it makes possession an infraction than a misdemeanor/felony. Basically, it treats drug crimes as a medical/addiction issue (which the AMA has classified it as) instead of as a public safety/crime issue.
Cons: It allocates $460 million from the general fund every year and screws with current corrections, rehabilitation, and parole standards, and it could exceed over $1 billion. It includes sales, and not just possession of drugs, which means dealers benefits, not just the addicts/users. It isn't limited to just low key drugs like pot, but crap like Meth.
Comments: While I don't buy the DA's and cops cries of this being a "Drug Dealer bill of Rights," there's enough that's wrong in this initiative that I'm voting no. Our budget is screwed as it is, we haven't even BEGUN to implement the AB 900 prison fixes we just passed last session, the medical treatment and dental treatment of prisoners is already under federal receivership, and this will just screw us up even more. So I say vote no - although it was a nice thought.
Prop 6: Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Law.
Manda Recommends: Vote NO. As in NO FUCKING WAY.
Pros: Keeps criminals locked up longer. (That's the best I can do, sorry)
Cons: Oh, where to start? Requires - AT A MINIMUM - $960 million dollars every year to fund sheriffs, DA's, cops, etc. Substantially increases penalties for gang related crimes, thereby keeping people in jail longer and exacerbating the prison over-crowding issue. Requires GPS monitoring for gang members and sex offenders.
Comments: Okay, do I like gang members and kid touchers? No. No one does. But this is not the way to go. This initiative is being pushed by two SoCal Reps (George and Sharon Runner) who tried putting this through as legislation (he's in the Senate, she's in the Assembly) and the bill never even got a hearing. People laughed, that's how ludicrous it is. As I said before - AB 900 prison fixes haven't even been implemented and the medical and dental programs are under federal receivership. California already has some of the toughest standards for gang crimes and sex offenses and despite the scare tactics, prisoners aren't being released early. If they were, we wouldn't have the overcrowding issue we have.
Basically this is the biggest boondoggle for CCPOA (Corrections officers) I've ever seen. The more we lock people up, the more prisons and prison guards we need, and the more powerful this lobby gets (as if they weren't powerful enough already). I know crime sucks and criminals should be punished, but this is not the way to go. I say, vote no!
Prop 7: Renewable Energy Generation:
Manda recommends: Vote No
Pros: Requires an increase by 2025 so that half of our power comes from solar, wind, renewable energy.
Cons: Making energy policy in the initiative process is sooooo not a good idea.
Comments: Yeah, I just generally hate making any kind of policy choice like this through the imitative. It's a great idea, but it's not well-written, it would be a pain to over turn or tweek as needed (and it's always needed, believe me). Plus, we haven't even implemented all of the AB 32 (global warming bill) requirements yet, so this is jumping the gun a bit. I say, vote no. We have better ways of making energy policy.
Prop 8: Eliminates the Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.
Manda Recommends: Vote NO. As in, May God Strike me Dead, NO! (Sorry Mom)
Pros: There are none. Sorry, can't be nice about this one. Not even gonna try.
Cons: It actually takes away rights. It creates discrimination. It puts it into the state constitution.
Comments: I could go on and on (and on) about marriage and religion and history. I could talk about the out right lies the ads in support make. I could mock (endlessly) the people who don't have a basic concept of how our judiciary works. But I won't.
What I will say is this: it's a basic issue of fairness. As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled over 50 years ago, separate is inherently unequal. It's not right to treat one group of people one way and another group differently. We all pay taxes and live in this state. We should all be able to access the same rights and benefits, regardless of who we love and want to marry. I could write a 50 page essay on why you should vote no, but I won't.
Oh, and just so people aren't confused - the question on the ballot is basically "should we eliminate the right of same sex couples to marry" - by voting YES, you WANT to take away gay marriage. Voting NO means you want gay marriage to stay. So you have to VOTE NO in order to save gay marriage. It's a little weird, but it works. Just remember "Stop the Hate - No on 8" (gotta love the gays and their tag lines! J)
Prop 9: Victim's Rights
Manda Recommends: Vote NO. As in I Love the Constitution you Idiots NO!
Pros: Keeps criminals locked up longer. (yeah, that's the best you are getting out of me)
Cons: Delays parole hearings, WITHOUT CAUSE, up to 20 years. Requires courts to consider the victim's family when setting bail amounts. Prohibits bail for illegal immigrants.
Comments: There are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to start, so I'll start at the beginning. Several years ago a college student broke up with her boyfriend. He called and said if she didn't come see him he was going to kill himself. She came, he killed her, he didn't kill himself. After being arrested and released on bail, the victim's mom saw the killer at the same grocery store and freaked out. Got all that? Good. Because it's the reason we have Prop 9 this year.
Bear in mind I'm fairly sure if it is approved it will get kicked on Constitutional grounds, but here's some things to keep in mind. This is about vengeance, not justice. There's a reason it is the state that prosecutes criminals and not the families of victims. Someone kills my daughter? If I'm allowed to pick the punishment don't you think I'd want it to be the most painful, inhuman, vicious punishment imaginable? You're damn right. Which is exactly why I don't get to pick the punishment, the state does. The state is fair and impartial (mostly). The state says "Hey, you're innocent until proven guilty!" The state says, "Hey, since we have SO MUCH ungodly power over your life right now, here's a few civil liberties protections to make sure we don't lock up (or execute) anyone we feel like."
This proposition? Tries to do away with all that. I know it sounds callous, but victim's families already have rights and they've worked out pretty well. They don't need more. They don't need to be the one deciding how fast a trial goes or influence bail decisions, because you can be damn sure they'll want it quick and they'll want the person locked up forever. Guilt is an afterthought. Not to mention, um, hello? Prison over-crowding crisis? Seriously, I could rant about this for days, but I won't. Vote No.
Prop 10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Manda Recommends: Vote NO
Pros: Increased use of natural gas and hybrid vehicles will decrease our dependence on foreign oil and bring has prices down.
Cons: T. Boone Pickens.
Comments: It would be nice to get a chunk of money back for buying a hybrid or natural gas auto, but setting energy policy through the initiative? No. Setting energy policy that will substantially line the pockets of people who are already billionaires? Double no. Lets put it this way - if a legislator introduced this as a bill they could go to jail because of the direct benefit to one company (which is prohibited by law ala the last time the FBI stormed the state capitol). I say, Vote No.
Prop 11: Redistricting.
Manda Recommends: Vote NO - As in, I like my job, please vote no!
Pros: Takes redistricting out of the hands of legislators (who are self interested) and puts it in the hands of a "fair" group of citizens.
Cons: This gives Republicans way more power proportionally than they deserve.
Comments: In 2000 the district lines were drawn so that Dems would hold 50 Assembly seats and the Reps 30. An odd thing happened though - Reps won 2 seats that should have gone to Dems, so right now it's a 48-32 split. So even though the lines were "rigged" for Dems to win, Reps still beat us. Why? Maybe it was better ideas, or better involvement in the community. Maybe the Dem candidates weren't very good. Who knows.
Fast-forward to 2008. Those two seats are now open (the Reps were termed out) but they are still going to be a huge fight for Dems to win. There's a seat in the 30th that's been Dem for 6 years, but the Rep is coming on strong and may very well win. In the 10th, 15th, and 37th traditionally held Rep seats have now swung to Dem-leaning because of shifts in population and attitudes about the parties.
All this is to say, no matter how good you draw the lines, things change. People move, new ideas form. What may have been a safe Rep seat four years ago is now in play for Dems because the economy is tanking, or because the Dems have a candidate who actually cares about the district instead of a Rep who only comes back to visit once a month (if that - I'm talking to you McClintock).
Legislators are always self-interested, and I'm sorry, but we line in a majority rules political system. We have the biggest turnout, we win elections, we get to call the shots. Don't think for a second that Reps wouldn't do the same. They are just sore they keep losing ground and are trying to figure out a way to get some of it back. Don't let them do it. And for some districts (like, oh, San Francisco, or Orange County) no matter HOW you draw those lines, they will never be competitive seats. That is how most of CA is - we live next to people who share our ideals and values. Our districts should reflect that. I say, vote no!
Prop 12: Veteran's Bond Act of 2008
Manda Recommends: Vote YES
Pros: Provides $900 million to veteran's programs to finance home loans and farm loans for qualifying veterans.
Cons: Debt. It's an obligation on the general fund, but it's good debt investment.
Comments: Whether you agree with the war or not (not) these men and women go out every day and do something that the rest of us don't want to. Maybe they're just supply clerks or medical techs, or maybe they're on the front lines. Either way, they served this country. The least we can do is help them get low-interest loans to buy homes or farms. I saw, vote yes!
Whew! And thus concludes Manda's Election Guide 2008.
Thanks for reading J and if you have any more specific questions, drop me a note. Can't guaranty how long it will take me to respond, but definitely before Nov. 4th!