What's Up With This Election?

[Roland Jacopetti]

Hi, General Community. Does anyone know of a list of recommendations for the May 19th election that's suitable for aging curmudgeonly progressive/radical types like moi? I can't make much sense of the voting guide. Thanks.

Roland Jacopetti

[lifequest]

The choices are difficult whether you vote yes or no. All of the initiatives were placed there by our less than competant legislators and governor who couldn't work out the last budget without these revenue diversions.

If they all pass we divert monies put aside for mental health resources (1E)and children's health services (1D) towards the budget deficit (these two were from previous initiatives - they're just convenient bank accounts for the state to loot for other purposes).

Then there's a gamble so to speak on modernizing the state lottery bringing in more money that the state can then borrow (1C).

1A provides for a larger rainy day fund for emergencies - it serves to limit future spending. The last one (1F) prohibits our legislators from getting raises when there's a budget deficit. Misleading since they aren't up for raises every year. They should receive no pay or per diem when budgets are late not this lame grandstand.

If the initiatives all fail we have a larger budget deficit and that means the legislators go back and cut more spending - maybe $5 to $8 billion (probably from education and health and welfare. The republicans won't allow any more tax increases).

So we flip a coin to either paper over the deficit with diversions and borrowing or get hit by even larger cuts. The last polls had all of them failing except the one to prohibit raises to the legislators.

Sorry to paint such a bleak picture.

[Braggi]

The choices are difficult whether you vote yes or no. All of the initiatives were placed there by our less than competant legislators and governor who couldn't work out the last budget without these revenue diversions. ...

The main argument to vote no is to remember these "initiatives" (bad wording) were the bribe the Dems gave to the Repubs to get the "budget" (another misnomer) passed.

The main argument to vote yes is that the Gann people are coming out against them. Their main deal is enriching the corporations at the expense of the common folk. Remember Prop 13?

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

They polls say they'll fail.

-Jeff

[Dynamique]

Here's the Courage Campaign's summary of recommendations from various progressive groups. The California Teacher's Association (CTA) recommendations appear to be self-serving and, IMO, should be ignored.
---------
The statewide special election is less than a month away -- on Tuesday, May 19. Are you ready to vote?

You may have already received a vote-by-mail ballot for the May 19 election, but perhaps you haven't made your choices yet. The six initiatives on the ballot are complicated. Progressives are divided on the issues. Therefore, we are giving you as much information as possible so that you can make an informed choice.

That's why the Courage Campaign is providing our May 19 Progressive Voter Guide for the special election ballot. You'll see not only the Courage Campaign's recommendations, but also those of other leading progressive organizations like the California Democratic Party, the California Nurses Association, the California Teachers Association and the League of Women Voters.

On Thursday, the Courage Campaign asked our members to vote on the following propositions and decide our final recommendations.

The final Courage Campaign endorsements on the ballot measures, as voted on by our members, are:

Proposition 1A -- Spending cap: NO
Proposition 1B -- School funding: NO
Proposition 1C -- Lottery borrowing: NO
Proposition 1D -- Divert First Five funds: NO
Proposition 1E -- Divert mental health funds: NO
Proposition 1F -- Legislators' salaries: NO

For explanations of our endorsements as well as the endorsements of eight other California progressive organizations, please click here to download our two-page Voter Guide from our web site:

Courage Campaign | Invite (https://www.couragecampaign.org/MayVoterGuide)

With many vote-by-mail ballots already in the hands of voters, please help us spread the word to as many progressives as possible in California. You can start today by forwarding this email and Voter Guide to your family and friends.

No matter what the voters decide on May 19, we must be prepared on May 20 to fight for fair and progressive solutions to our budget and economic crisis.We will be contacting you soon to let you know what you can do to fix California's broken government.

Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign
..............
The Courage Campaign Issues Committee is part of the Courage Campaign's online organizing network empowering more than 700,000 grassroots and netroots activists to push for progressive change in California.


Hi, General Community. Does anyone know of a list of recommendations for the May 19th election that's suitable for aging curmudgeonly progressive/radical types like moi? I can't make much sense of the voting guide. Thanks.

Roland Jacopetti

[tomcat]

Roland, I know we never thought we'd live long enough to describe ourselves as "curmudgeonly", but, well... here we are : )
As a rule (and I dislike rules too), I usually vote NO on things I don't understand.
This whole deal is a real screwjob by politicians who are mostly just trying to keep their asses in their seats and not do anything productive while looking busy so they have a better chance of getting elected next go-round (IMHO).

That said, I'm inclined to vote NO on all of them... except maybe the one about withholding their pay.

(When is the torch, axehandle and pitchfork parade?) : )

:2cents:

Tom


Hi, General Community. Does anyone know of a list of recommendations for the May 19th election that's suitable for aging curmudgeonly progressive/radical types like moi? I can't make much sense of the voting guide. Thanks.

Roland Jacopetti

[Cheingrand]

I just sent in my absentee ballot and voted 'No" on all but the last. This is not the way to balance a budget, especially taking away from correctly fashioned intitiatives (those that have a funding source) that were earlier passed to help students and mentally ill citizens of the state.

[Philip Tymon]

I agree with most of the comments made thus far. This seems to be a real hodge-podge mishmash-- the typical result of a decision made by a committee-- this time a committee being hobbled by Greedpublicans who hold them hostage.

However, my main concern is that Proposition 1A raises funds through a sales tax, which is a regressive tax, meaning it hits those least able to afford it the most. New York, I believe, recently addressed their budget crisis with an increase in taxes on the very wealthy. I suppose the Greedpublicans blocked any effort to do the same in California. But I just can't bring myself to vote for a tax that hurts the poor the most and leaves the wealthy relatively untouched.

Somehow, someway we need to change the law in California so that it does not require such a large supermajority to pass a budget, which allows the Greedpublicans to always hold the process hostage.

[Braggi]

... - the typical result of a decision made by a committee-- this time a committee being hobbled by Greedpublicans who hold them hostage.

However, my main concern is that Proposition 1A raises funds through a sales tax, which is a regressive tax, meaning it hits those least able to afford it the most. ...

phltymon, for one thing I'd say calling your opponent names is unlikely to win them over to your way of thinking. You might want to change that tactic.

Another thing I suggest is thinking again about your attitude concerning the sales tax. A sales tax is a consumption tax. In California it doesn't apply to food, housing or services. The services part of that is now under debate, I realize, but the majority of "necessities" for the poor are exempt from the sales tax. "Charity" second hand stores such as Goodwill and Salvation Army are also exempt.

Rampant consumption, especially of non essential "toys" is a major cause of environmental degradation. A higher sales tax might serve to reduce some of that consumption. I don't have a problem with that. The fact is, we ask a lot of our governments and they have to fund the services they provide somehow. I think a sales tax is a fine and equitable way to do it. I'd like to see a big reduction in national income tax offset by implementation of a national sales tax. Those who consume the most would pay the most sales tax. I think that's a fine idea. Watch for it, because a lot of politicians are thinking the same way.

BTW, with a sales tax, there are few loopholes the wealthy could apply to get out of paying their fair share. Since the wealthy consume the most, they will also pay the most taxes. Makes sense to me.

-Jeff

[Valley Oak]

I have already voted absentee on the measures. I voted no on all of them.

This is the first time I have voted no on all of the issues presented to me on a ballot. Up until now, I have always found something to support with my vote. I am 48y/o and I have always participated in the electoral process, except when I sojourned in Europe for ten years. And even then I voted for Bill Clinton through the U.S. embassy.

Edward

[Dynamique]

You've got both the problem and the culprit correct -- and I don't have a problem with branding the culprit with a frame-changing name.

There are more focused ways to raise taxes than raising the sales tax, like the tax loophole on luxury yachts that the CA cons/repugnicans wanted to set up for their buddies. The sales tax takes a lot out of everyone's pockets over the course of the year. Combine that with county sales taxes and it takes a significant bite out of everyone's wallet.

I agree with you that sales tax is regressive, even with the food and service exclusions, because it increases the cost of doing business and it is passed on the consumer.


I agree with most of the comments made thus far. This seems to be a real hodge-podge mishmash-- the typical result of a decision made by a committee-- this time a committee being hobbled by Greedpublicans who hold them hostage. ...

[Valley Oak]

Agreed!

And we shouldn't have any majority requirement above 50% + 1 vote. In any case, 2/3 is dangerously high and we have already suffered the consequences every single year with deadlocks in the California legislature. If people honestly believe that there must be a strong majority in order to pass a state budget then that could be 60% or 55% but not 67%!

We should, however, require a supermajority for amending or revising the California State Constitution by popular vote. But in reality, modifying the highest law in the land (or the State of California) should not be so easily accessible to direct popular vote. Not because you can't trust people as much as you can't trust special interest groups, which were the ones who shoved Proposition 8 down everyone's throats. If you get enough money behind anything then you will be able to pass just about anything, making California's Constitution far too easy to amend or revise.

This needs to stop right away.

Edward


I agree with most of the comments made thus far. This seems to be a real hodge-podge mishmash-- the typical result of a decision made by a committee-- this time a committee being hobbled by Greedpublicans who hold them hostage.

However, my main concern is that Proposition 1A raises funds through a sales tax, which is a regressive tax, meaning it hits those least able to afford it the most. New York, I believe, recently addressed their budget crisis with an increase in taxes on the very wealthy. I suppose the Greedpublicans blocked any effort to do the same in California. But I just can't bring myself to vote for a tax that hurts the poor the most and leaves the wealthy relatively untouched.

Somehow, someway we need to change the law in California so that it does not require such a large supermajority to pass a budget, which allows the Greedpublicans to always hold the process hostage.

[jitterbug]

Here's an article in The Economist (https://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13649050) which addresses the issue.

[Magick]

Dear Community, Please read the following letter from the Press Democrat concerning Prop 1D:
No on 1D
EDITOR: Proposition 1D amends Proposition 10, the California Children and Families Act. Enacted in 1998. Proposition 10 imposed a tax on tobacco to increase funding for local programs for children aged 5 and younger. These programs improve outcomes for children by providing services for at-risk families, quality early care and education and health coverage for uninsured children.

<!--
AC =
--> <!-- GRAY BOX ARTICLE CONTENT-->


<!-- /GRAY BOX ARTICLE CONTENT--> Proposition 1D allows a significant portion of Proposition 10 funds to be transferred to the general fund to cover existing programs. Proposition 10 specifically stated that tobacco tax funds could not replace funding for existing programs. Proposition 1D also allows the funds to be appropriated by the legislature for at least the next five years.
The Sonoma County Child Care Planning Council joins organizations across the state in opposing Proposition 1D. The council is a diverse group of professionals who work and advocate for children. We know that our children need every one of the programs that are currently in place.
We encourage the governor and the Legislature to work together to find innovative solutions to address California's long-term fiscal crisis. However, we cannot balance the budget at the expense of our children.
MARIANNE SCHWARZ-KESLING
and KATIE SANCHEZ
Co-chairwomen, Sonoma County Child Care Planning Council



Here's an article in The Economist (https://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13649050) which addresses the issue.