Mike's voter guide

As a Contra Costa county/El Cerrito city resident, and a proud Californian, I'd like to offer my positions on the ballot initiatives and elected officials that I will be voting for this coming Tuesday.

President: BARACK OBAMA

Seeing as I just came back from working on the campaign in Lakewood, Colorado for two weeks for Barack, I don't see myself all of a sudden deciding that the Green party (which I'm a member of - though mostly vote Democrat) suddenly deserves my token vote. I dislike the two-party system. I dislike John McCain a lot more. Instead of me giving my reasons to vote for Barack, I'll direct any readers to The Economist's endorsement - which is far better than what I could do.

This is my first time voting for a Presidential candidate that has a chance of winning. Woohoo!

U.S. Representative (District 10): ELLEN TAUSCHER

I am new to this district, so I have not been following Member Tauscher for an extensive time period. When I lived in Berkeley I had a "Barbara Lee speaks for me" bumper sticker (until some idiot destroyed my car trying to steal it ), and absolutely loved Rep. Lee. The choice was easy.

Congresswoman Tauscher has missed few votes in her service to the house. She's the regional party whip and the chair of the New Democrats which makes me believe that the progressive caucus (which Representatives Lee and Kucinich, two of my favorite politicians are a part of) wasn't good enough for her.

This aside, I really could not find any particular voting record that struck me as a poor vote for her constituency. In fact, just the opposite, Member Tauscher:

- Voted no against renewing the harmful executive grab of our civil liberties enshrined in the Patriot Act

- Voted and has supported the Climate Stwardship Act

- Has pushed for the Equal Rights Amendment

- Supported the endangered species act

Not to mention, according to her Wikipedia biography (so unconfirmed), when she moved to California in the 1980s, she helped establish the first database for parents to identify and background check their child care professionals. While I am still found wanting of more information on Tauscher, it is clear that she has made sime very important and not easy to make votes for her district. Voting against the patriot act is tough business when she's got Travis Air force Base and a slim lead over Republicans in the area. Moreover, looking at her most serious opposition (Republican Nick Gerber), the choice becomes clearer. While I am not one to demand that being a house rep means you must have pages and pages of public service on your resume: Gerber has none. He looks like an extremeley smart entrepreneur: but he might want to start at a lower position on the totem poll before deciding that he runs for a house seat. At least Tauscher was an active campaigner for Democrats before she ran. Gerber does not seem to have any political track record whatsoever.

State Senator (region 7): Mark DeSaulnier

Voting by default as his opponent, Christian Amsberry, identifies how he plans to vote on the state propositions. We are at odds with a good number of them.

State Assembly (District 14): Nancy Skinner (by default)

COUNTY MEASURES

Measure D: West Contra Costa Unified School District "please save us from ourselves" parcel tax
Endorsement: Yes

Measure D would renew a 'standard exemptions' parcel tax for the West Contra Costa Unified School District.

The school district, which extends from El Cerrito to Hercules is in a bad shape. A year ago, the teachers unions helped defeat a raising of this same parcel tax due to disputes with the administration. This year, that same teachers union supports it: recognizing that things need to change before raising the burden on voters. However, the teacher's union makes a plea: that without this parcel tax, which does not increase its burden on voters, then the school district is in jeopardy of LOSING some of its more qualified teachers and services to students. Seeing as this teachers union went against its school board a year ago shows that it is not afraid to bare its fangs against bad policies. The parcel tax has strings attached: it is operational and not for administrative salaries. For theese reasons, it makes me much less skeptical of the parcel tax - and accept the plea from teachers that it is essential. I'll be voting YES.

Measure VV: Spike Lee says: you need money to GET ON THE BUS
Endorsement: Yes

This would double the current parcel tax being levied on propert owners and would go to the operational budget of AC Transit.

Let me start out by proposing a question. How do you save a man being hung in a tree from strangling to death?

Critics of measure VV (and there seem to be few) point out issues such as AC Transit's choice to purchase some new European rather than American buses; criticizes the focus on certain routs as well as fare structures, and contend that several of the AC transit buses are not as environmental as they should be. What the critics also completely disregard is an 18 million dollar cut from the state that will hit AC transit. This would not only make them less environmental and have to raise fares much higher, but it would threaten what is a very highly rated service. Coming from Sacramento where the public transit is ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC compared to Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit, while I can see several of the points critics of this measure bring up as being accurate: they belong directed at AC transit board meetings. Not at taking away a needed operating budget that gets some 200,000 people around the bay (including me) every day. The threat to AC transit is that they are being strangled. They need a platform to stand on to get the rope off their neck.

The opponents of Measure VV want to cut the rope of the strangled AC transit: letting the noose snap the neck and the fall break the legs in the process.

Vote yes on VV


Measure WW: Open spaces and more parks for East Bayers like me
Endorsement: Yes

This measure raises bonds for regional parks and open spaces. The opposition says this takes money away from 'local services' (law enforcement, fire, etc..) and that many of the regional parks managed by the East Bay are mismanaged, so 'why should we give them more money?' Good question. Perhaps part of the reason that parks are not as well kept as they should be is that they do not have enough money. The farm would also 'hurt ranchers' - which is political parlance for more ranchers wouldn't be able to expand their earth-maiming and water-draining industrial-livestock. We're not talking about small farmers here.

Basically I'm voting yes on it because the big ranchers and "anti-taxes for anything" crowd is voting no, and Barbara Lee and former Contra Costa Sheriff Richard Rainey are voting yes. This was good enough for me.

STATE PROPOSITIONS

I generally agree with "The League of Young Voters" (though not always, as I plan to elaborate in on my next post). Since I have no major qualm with any of their endorsements, I am copy and pasting their voter guide, which can also be found at the League's site.

Prop 1A: High-speed rail from SF to LA

Endorsed Vote: Yes

Imagine taking the train from San Francisco to L.A. in two hours and forty minutes. Imagine not having to deal with airport security for the trip. Imagine eliminating 12 billion tons of carbon a year from our air. All it's going to cost is this $10 billion bond to get things started. Ouch. We're not big fans of bonds, but massive public projects like this are what bonds should be used for. This train would transform California and help save the world.

Prop 2: Fair treatment of farm animals

Endorsed Vote: Yes

Should we allow farm animals to turn around, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs? Yes we should. If we have to pay a little more for our meat and poultry, so be it. The only opposition we heard from our members was that Prop 2 doesn't go far enough.

Prop 3: Fishy children's hospitals bond

Endorsed Vote: No

"How can you oppose children's hospitals," people keep asking us. Well, a bunch of hospitals paid to put Prop 3 on the ballot. The money would go to five University of California hospitals and eight private children's hospitals. We don't like that system of people paying to put a proposition on the ballot that benefits them. Why should they decide which hospitals get the money? We think the state legislature should decide that. The same people put Prop 61 on the ballot back in 2004, which is almost identical to Prop 3, and the hospitals have only spent about half of that money so far. Why do they need more already? Prop 3 is only money for construction, not for actual health care.

Also, we're suspicious of bonds. They're California’s credit cards. They seem like free money, but we have to pay interest on them. The interest comes straight out of California’s general fund. That means less money for everything else. Typically we end up paying as much in interest as we get from the bonds in the first place. So for us to like a bond, it better be a really cool bond like Prop 1A. Prop 3 doesn't make the cut.

Prop 4: Parental notification for abortion

Endorsed Vote: No

Haven't we decided this already??? Yes. Yes, we did. As Prop 73 in 2005 and Prop 85 in 2006. This thing is like Chucky: it keeps coming back. The same very wealthy Christian Fundamentalist men put it right back on the ballot again.

Forced parental notification for abortion = BAD. Prop 4 has dangerous long-term implications for all women’s right to choose. No law can force a family to communicate, and we believe that the government shouldn’t be in the business of forcing itself into sensitive family decisions. Youth and families need real solutions like honest sex ed, access to birth control, and, definitely, choice.

For the third time, HELL NO!

Prop 5: Rehab & treatment for nonviolent drug crimes

Endorsed Vote: Yes

Prop 5 reduces penalties for drug offenses and increases alternatives for drug treatment. If people go into drug treatment instead of prison, they're much less likely to become career criminals. That makes the world safer and means we don't have to build more prisons. Everybody wins. Martin Sheen says Prop 5 isn't tough enough on crime, but we think maybe he's got some Catholic guilt issues about reducing punishment. Our currently "tough on drugs" strategy is a miserable failure. California has a sky-high recidivism rate, and we're wasting billions on the prison industrial complex. It's time to try something different.

Prop 6: Fear-mongering $$$ grab for more prisons

Endorsed Vote: No

We've made voter guides for the last eight elections, and this is the first proposition where we felt "Hell No" wasn't strong enough. So we're saying a big "FUCK NO" to Proposition 6. This is a crass and vindictive attempt to demonize the poor, immigrants, and youth of color in order to pump more money into California's failed and bloated prison system. It would prosecute kids 14 and older convicted of 'gang-related' felonies as adults. It's well documented that when you put kids in adult prison you create more career re-offenders. Prop 6 would also deny "illegal" immigrants a right to bail, which means the state has to pay more to keep them locked up. If that's not enough, it would strip away housing assistance for entire families and households when someone doesn't pass a criminal background check. Guilt by association sucks*. Prop 6 does nothing to reduce crime, and it would cost hundreds of millions a year.

*According to our constitution, it should also be illegal.

Prop 7: Badly Written Clean Energy

Endorsed Vote: No

A melancholy "no" on this one. We love us some clean energy. But this prop is too poorly written for us to support.
The kickass good stuff:
It requires all utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations. Raises requirement for all utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. Imposes penalties for noncompliance. Fast-tracks approval for new renewable energy plants.

The [bad]stuff:
It allows too many loopholes for utilities to avoid meeting the renewable standards and paying penalties for noncompliance.
* It allows utilities to count signed contracts towards their renewable-energy goals, even before they bring the power online.
* It decreases environmental review of power plants.
* Opposed by a very wide coalition -- From Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, LCV, local Green parties, labor, to PG&E. While PG&E opposes this for all the wrong reasons, we shockingly find ourselves on the same side as them on this prop (but we still revile their opposition to SF clean energy Prop H). Prop 7 is basically funded by one rich guy.
* It is biased towards large-scale energy plants instead of distributed, rooftop solar The proponents of the initiative admit that they expect much of the new renewable generation will come from massive solar power plants in the desert. Gonzalez says concentrating solar power, also known as solar thermal, is the technology that’s simplest, most affordable and most ready to be deployed on a large scale.

Prop 8: Gay Marriage Ban

Endorsed Vote: No

The government should not be in the business of telling us who we can or can't marry. Period. Can we move on now, please?

Prop 9: More fear-mongering for more prisons

Endorsed Vote: No

This one leaves a bad taste in our mouth. It mandates strict limits on when convicts would be eligible for parole. The courts and parole boards already handle that job just fine. Prop 9 also allows unlimited numbers of victims, their families and their representatives to attend parole hearings. We have massive empathy for people hurt by a crime. But the justice system shouldn't be swayed by emotion. Prop 9 sounds too much like mob justice to us.

Prop 10: Silly rabbit, natural gas isn't a renewable fuel

Endorsed Vote: No

It is a bond measure to provide financial incentives for 'alternative vehicles', and 'alternative' energy including the questionable liquid natural gas and the clearly good renewable energy such as wind. It will cost the state $10 billion over 30 years. We like the part about investment in renewable energy, but we don't like the massive funding of natural gas cars and liquid natural gas terminals.
* Massively funding liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal and natural gas cars is a bad idea since it diverts attention and resources from far more environmentally-friendly options. Electric cars and plug in electric cars -- unlike natural gas cars -- already have the refueling infrastructure in place (i.e. the socket in your garage); emit far less carbon even when using a dirty electricity grid, and can emit even less once we change our grid to run on solar and wind. All these amazing benefits to electric cars, yet they still are not being adopted by our government -- which is constantly threatened by the car and oil industry... we don't want another roadblock to the desperately needed transition to electric cars. Of course, most of us Pissed Off Voters don't even own cars, and prefer to bike, BART or Zip car -- but we know that for the rest of the world, they need electric cars.
* Even if we replaced 100% of all vehicles with natural gas around the country - the U.S. emissions would still increase! Because GHG from transportation is rising at 23%, and natural gas is only slightly less carbon-intensive than coal.
* Some environmentalists support this prop since it will help transition large trucks to cleaner vehicles (about 20% lower emissions than gasoline) -- since electric large electric trucks are not yet ready and we need to move immediately to reduce carbon. However, most environmental groups are opposing this measure since it creates a roadblock for transitioning all cars to the far better option of electric cars, and it diverts funds from the far better option of building railroads.
* This is oil tycoon T.Bone Pickens's self serving agenda. He owns Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a natural gas fueling station company that is the primary funder of Prop 10.

Prop 11: Problematic Redistricting Complexity

Endorsed Vote: No

We could get into a long discussion about whether we need to change how our legislative districts are drawn. We tend to say yes. But Prop 11 isn't the answer. For one, it discriminates against youth. To serve on the commission that draws the boundaries, you have to be registered to vote for 5 years with the same party designation. So if you're under 23, you're not welcome. Prop 11 would also over-represent Republicans on the commission. Finally, there's a lot of randomness in how the commission is selected. Government auditors select 60 applicants. Legislative leaders then can veto 24 of them. Then 8 of the applicants are RANDOMLY SELECTED. Then they pick the remaining 6 commissioners. That seems a little weird. No one has ever tried a system like this before. We're not convinced it's the right way to go.

Prop 12: Housing bond for Iraq & Afghanistan veterans

Endorsed Vote: Yes

$900 million from CA State General Fund for bonds that will help finance homes and land for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The veterans will help pay back bonds. But if they can't pay, it will come from state tax payer money. This extends a program that's already offered to veterans of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. We were a little divided on this one.

Reasons against: This could provides incentives for people to join the military. And is this the highest priority need for our veterans, considering how many are unemployed and/or suffering from serious mental and physical injuries? Would it be better to spend this money on health care or jobs or rental assistance for veterans?

But a majority of us support Prop 12 because we owe it to the veterans. Since 9/11, the tiny fraction of military families in America have borne a huge burden from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while most of us are unaffected. We'll always be pissed off at Dubya for getting us into those horrible wars, but we don't blame the soldiers for that.