Tag Archives: Prop. 2

Prop Watch

Here’s the latest on the ballot propositions (Remember, you can find the Calitics endorsements here).  

• Prop. 1A & Prop. 3: The California Budget Project put together an analysis of these two bond measures (for some reason they left off Prop. 12).  It’s a decent enough overview, but of course the CBP is aggressively neutral, and the questions they raise have answers they refuse to list.  For example, they ask:

Will high-speed rail gain access to rail corridors used by commercial and commuter trains? High-speed  trains likely will require access to rail corridors – so-called right-of-way – currently used or owned by commercial or commuter train operators. The growth in freight transport at California’s ports and increased ridership on California’s commuter rail lines may mean that high-speed trains may have difficulty gaining required rights-of-way in certain highly trafficked corridors.

Or maybe not!  Let’s not bother to delve into this any further!  

That’s kind of the tone the whole paper takes.  These projects could be laudable!  Then again, they cost money!  Good luck, California!  One would think that some hard numbers about the role of public infrastructure investments during economic downturns or the need for job creation engines or how to reach emissions reductions targets without mass transit improvements could have entered the picture.

• Prop. 2: You know that an issue has gone mainstream when Oprah devotes an hour to it.  Prop. 2 will essentially get an hour-long infomercial on daytime talk today, and that’s as good as gold. Their ads, starkly displaying the effects of animal cruelty, are powerful and effective as well.  But in addition, I hope that Prop. 2 advocates make the argument about a comprehensive food policy that understands the externalities of eating meat ought to be built into the product itself:

It will be argued that moving animals off feedlots and back onto farms will raise the price of meat. It probably will – as it should. You will need to make the case that paying the real cost of meat, and therefore eating less of it, is a good thing for our health, for the environment, for our dwindling reserves of fresh water and for the welfare of the animals. Meat and milk production represent the food industry’s greatest burden on the environment; a recent U.N. study estimated that the world’s livestock alone account for 18 percent of all greenhouse gases, more than all forms of transportation combined. (According to one study, a pound of feedlot beef also takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce.) And while animals living on farms will still emit their share of greenhouse gases, grazing them on grass and returning their waste to the soil will substantially offset their carbon hoof prints, as will getting ruminant animals off grain. A bushel of grain takes approximately a half gallon of oil to produce; grass can be grown with little more than sunshine.

This is about stopping brutality, but also about intelligent food policy that would decrease risks and burdens on the environment and public health.

• Prop. 4: A very effective ad from the No on 4 team has returned to the airwaves:

Two years ago, opponents of a parental notification initiative on abortion put out a chilling ad. It depicted a soap bubble floating in the air in a seemingly tranquil setting of a residential backyard. The bubble drifted by windows of a house, where angry voices and rumbling noises suggested violence taking place inside.

Now the bubble commercial that opponents used to defeat Proposition 85 is back. This time, with identical treatment and text, it is being used in the campaign against another parental notification initiative, Proposition 4.

The commercial neglects to mention provisions in the initiative that allow a minor to petition a juvenile court judge to waive the parental notification requirement. It ends (with only the proposition number changed) by saying Prop 4 “would force girls to notify an abusive or violent parent that they are pregnant, and this puts them in real danger. Please think outside your bubble and vote no on Prop. 4.”

The ad is here.  The commercial neglects to mention that provision because it’s a crap provision – the minor has to accuse the parent of mistreatment and claim that she fears physical or emotional abuse, which is really a great position in which to put a minor.  And the idea of a 17 year-old going to a judge is just nonsensical.

• Prop. 5: Why look at this!  The US Sentencing Commission is considering alternatives to prison for nonviolent drug offenders.

The commission’s consideration of alternatives to incarceration reflects its determination to persuade Congress to ease federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws that contributed to explosive growth in the prison population. The laws were enacted in the mid-1980s, principally to address a crime epidemic related to crack cocaine. But in recent years, federal judges, public defenders and probation officials have argued that mandatory sentences imprison first-time offenders unnecessarily and disproportionately affect minorities.

Don’t these people know that sentencing commissions with expert experience in the issues shouldn’t be trusted to carry out guidelines and recommendations on sentencing?  This of course should only be left to politicians who worry about attack ads claiming that they’re soft on crime!  After all, look how well that’s worked in California: 1,000 straight laws over 30 years increasing sentences, overcrowded prisons, costs of incarceration outpacing education and billions of dollars needed to fix an unconstitutionally cruel prison healthcare system!  Clearly, the legislature has this covered, right?  So there’s no need to vote yes on Prop. 5, because that would be too “risky.”  What we have now is working so well.

• Prop. 8: This being the biggest and most expensive initiative on the ballot, there’s a lot of news here.  Fresno priest Father Geoffrey Farrow took a stand against Prop. 8 recently and it resulted in his firing.  His is a heroic story of someone coming forward at great personal cost to commit to equality and tolerance.  That is the meaning of courage.

Peter Schrag has an article out about the lies of Yes on 8.

The ad, on behalf of Proposition 8, features a law professor from Pepperdine University who cites a federal appellate court decision in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. The decision affirms a lower court ruling denying parents of a couple of young children the right to be notified when gay marriage is discussed in their classrooms.

“Think it can’t happen?” says the professor. “It’s already happened.”

But the insinuation about what might happen in California is wildly misleading. It relies on a set of leaps likely to land the leaper in a logical ditch. In the case of one of the kids, the court said, “(T)here is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that Joey was asked to affirm gay marriage.”

If you want to see bigger lies than that, check out this deeply insulting ad targeted to the Chinese community.

On the lighter side, here’s a slick amateur ad for No on 8 playing off the ubiquitous Mac/PC spots.

• Prop. 10: Speaking of lying in campaign ads, have you met T. Boone Pickens?

The ad capitalizes on popular sentiment for clean, efficient and secure energy – and no new taxes. What goes unadvertised might stir the public’s distaste for special interest-driven initiatives, particularly those that increase state debt.

Nearly all $13 million in campaign contributions so far has come from Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who stands to profit from its passage. Pickens is founder of Clean Energy Fuels Corp. of Seal Beach, the nation’s largest supplier of natural gas for fleets of vehicles, including Sacramento city and county garbage trucks.

More than half of the $5 billion would be spent on rebates to companies and consumers that buy environmentally friendlier vehicles. And most of that rebate money is dedicated to heavy-duty trucks and vans, the kind of fleet vehicles that Pickens’ company supplies.

Prop Watch

Welcome to a probably not-so-regular feature, offering the latest news on the ballot propositions.  The Calitics Editorial Board will be out with their endorsements on these initiatives sometime next week.

• Prop. 1A: A lot of good stuff on this race at Robert Cruickshank’s California High Speed Rail blog.  For instance, Arnold has come forward with his support:

There is far more economic opportunity in fighting global warming than economic risk….We shouldn’t let the budget crisis hold back good things for the future. 20 years from now you can’t look back and say “well they had a budget crisis so we didn’t do it.” Just because we had a problem with the budget does not mean that people should vote “no” on high speed rail. Our rail system in America is so old, we’re driving the same speed as 100 years ago, the same system as 100 years ago. We should modernize, we should do what other countries do…We should start in this state, we should show leadership.

Absolutely, especially when you consider that initiatives which reduce emissions routinely save money and improve quality of life.  A recent study showed that HSR would be a tremendous economic benefit to the Central Valley, with $3 billion in direct benefits and the creation of over 40,000 new construction jobs.  You can add that to the reduction of billions of pounds of CO2 annually, which would be significant in that region at a time where interest groups are successfully suing the city of Fresno for its failure to curb pollution and protect the environment.

In other news, The LA Times has come out in favor, and check out this neat little graphic anticipating the train route.

• Prop. 2: You can see it by clicking on the ad on the side, but, you know, Piggy Wonder deserves some main-page love.  Joe Trippi is apparently involved in the Prop. 2 campaign, which would help stop animal cruelty; I got an email from him promoting this video.

• Prop. 5: The LA Times has a series of profiles on all the propositions, and here’s their edition on Prop. 5, which would finally increase treatment for nonviolent offenders like drug users instead of warehousing them at our overstuffed prisons.  Opponents are smearing this by saying its true intent is to legalize drugs, but the failed Drug War is the great unmentionable sinkhole in state and national budgets, and a smart policy emphasizing rehabilitation is desperately needed, especially in California.  The No on 5 people must have better spinmeisters, however, as most of the newspapers in the state have come out against the measure.  Right, because the policymakers have done such a stellar job in sentencing law, we should just leave it to them.

• Prop. 8: An update on those million yard signs that were “in route” from China to the Yes on 8 campaign: they’re still not here.

It seems that the signs, some of them outsourced overseas, didn’t all arrive in time for the September event. And many still haven’t reached supporters of the measure that would amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriage.

“It takes longer to get a million than we thought,” said Sonja Eddings Brown, deputy communications director for the Protect Marriage coalition […]

Brown tried to spin the production glitch as a positive thing for the campaign — a sign, so to speak, of the overwhelming demand for lawn signs by voters who wanted to participate in “the most unprecedented and largest grass-roots effort ever attempted in California.”

Oh that’s just a FAIL.

Meanwhile, when the most reactionary editorial board in the state, the Orange County Register, comes out against your proposition, you know you’re having a tough time selling it.  As for the right-wing boycott of Google for opposing Prop. 8, the website orchestrating it advises its supporters to follow the fate of the proposition – on Google News.

I think I’m going to miss this initiative, it’s been hilarious so far.

Friday Linky Open Thread

I think these open threads are working out.  Hope you enjoy them.  Here are a few thoughts.

• This is a week old, but Nick Kristof’s column about Prop. 2 (the farm animal safety measure) is well worth your time.

• It’s still up in the air whether or not we’re going to have Alan Keyes on the California Presidential ballot in November.  There’s a lawsuit between two members of the American Independent Party over who should be their nominee.  It seems to me the very definition of “frivolous,” but as someone who deeply enjoys mocking Alan Keyes I have a dog in this fight, so do the right thing, Sacramento Superior Court!

• The Log Cabin Republicans, who I also like to call “gluttons for punishment,” rolled out their No on 8 campaign last week.  The website is Republicans Against 8.  It’s the libertarian thing to do to get government out of the bedroom, so hopefully they’ll sway some folks.

• This is absolutely revolting and someone needs to go to jail:

For hundreds of homeless people, posing as phony hospital patients provided them a clean bed and cash. For the hospitals that processed them, it meant a full patient-load and a paycheck from the government.

Now some of those allegedly involved in what authorities say was a massive scheme have been charged with billing government programs for millions of dollars in unnecessary health services.

A hospital CEO was arrested Wednesday after federal agents raided three medical centers. City attorney Rocky Delgadillo’s office has also sued the hospitals, saying they used homeless people as “human pawns.”

It’s kind of the flip side of homeless dumping, or who knows, it was run in concert.  Either way, sickening.

• Jerry Lewis is trying to get a bunch of lobbyists to fund his Congressional portrait.  The worst part about this deal is that Jerry Lewis will have a Congressional portrait hanging in our nation’s capital.

Add whatever you wish in the comments.