The good people over at Yes on 82 have launched a new ad campaign.  As of yet, I have not been able to figure out how much they are going to spend in this campaign.  The [commercials are quite good ] and feature Mayor Villaragosa, a teacher of the year as well as another teacher.  It’s great timing too, as the Contra Costa County Times and the OC Register. 

The OC Register article starts and ends with attacking Rob Reiner.  I find this a pointless exercise; it is totally irrevelant for purposes of whether or not 82 is a good idea.  I think any argument which has to rely on personal conflict has limited value.  But the heart of the article centers on taxes.  The people at the Register feel that taxes in California are such a burden on the people of Orange County that 82 “should be sent to the corner with a dunce cap.” 

However, taxes on the top 1% of the state are the lowest (by overall percentage of income) of any income group!  The California Budget Project (PDF) reports that those making over $567,000 pay 7.2% compared to a whopping 11.3% for those earning less than $18,000.  Of course, this mostly due to the effects of the sales tax, but why is it that as a state we should require our poorest citizens to pay the HIGHEST percentage in taxes.

And as I responded to Joel Fox yesterday, all children deserve the right to receive the HIGHEST quality education.  We all benefit from quality education, we should all pay for it.  And for a good review of Prop 82’s effects, check out the CBP report (PDF).  Prop. 82 has a great deal of support from politicians, such as Richard & Nancy Riordan, Gavin Newsom, and Antonio Villaraigosa and business orgs such as the LA and SF Chambers of Commerce.  Quality preschool can be California’s next step in leading the nation.  If Oklahoma can do it, so can we.

As for Prop 81, it’s a bond measure for libraries.  Like 82, 81 helps the education of the state.  Libraries work each and every day to combat illiteracy.  Yet, we continue to let our libraries degrade.  81 reverses this.  The $600 million bond package (I know, tiny compared to the November bonds) will be used to rebuild library infrastructure and collections.  It has been universally acclaimed and endorsed by the LA Times  and the San Diego U-T.  The LA Times says that:

Opponents, mainly anti-tax groups, concede that the libraries need the money but say it should come out of existing state coffers. Certainly, the state should carve out a bigger budget for libraries from the general fund, but urgent capital improvements can be more expensive than an annual budget can cover. The library proposals are written, the projects are ready to go into construction and the state’s recent track record on library bond money has been good. Californians should approve Proposition 81. (LA Times 5/15/06)

Bonds for libraries are a good idea and should be passed.  As of right now, it looks like 81 has a great shot of giving our libraries better resources.

The Sacramento Bee has an article outlining the arguments surrounding Prop 82:

Proposition 82 seeks to turn the current hodgepodge of preschools and day-care centers into a high-quality early childhood education system exceeding what’s offered in most public schools.

The measure on the June 6 ballot would provide a voluntary free half-day of preschool to all of California’s 4-year-olds by 2010.
***
“This initiative is a historic opportunity to invest in strengthening our schools because a quality preschool education puts all kids on the right track in school and can increase their chances of learning to read in the elementary years,” said Nathan James, “Yes on 82” campaign spokesman.

Opponents call it an expensive subsidy to middle-and upper-income families already paying for preschool and say the state can’t afford a new program and bureaucracy.  “This is ballot-box budgeting at its worst,” said Bill Hauck, a “No on 82” board member. “It doesn’t take into account any of the state’s other needs.”
***
“When you see a really high-quality program, there is really a difference,” said Karen Hill-Scott, a child development consultant who helped write Proposition 82.

Joel Fox, “No on 82” campaign co-chairman, said the initiative would create a “one-size-fits-all” standard for high-quality preschools that doesn’t match the marketplace.

I hope that the “No on 82” folks have a better argument than “Some people want lesser quality preschool.”  That is essentially what that last statement means.  So, Mr. Fox, who deserves that lesser quality preschool?  Do you plan on enrolling your kids at those low-quality preschools that the market demands. 

The market demands low-quality preschools because people can’t afford high quality preschools.  Should we allow the market to control education.  Perhaps we should give our K-12 schools over to the market too.  And who gets those lesser quality schools.  Don’t all children deserve the same high levels of educational resources? 

Phil Angelides released a new ad yesterday.  It’s really funny ad attacking the Governator’s cutting of funding to education and cutting nursing staffing levels. (Hat tip to Julia at ABC.)

Here’s the link to the ad.

Oh, and Westly added $5million of his own money to his campaign coffers, Julia’s got it covered.

[Originally Posted at NorCal Politics, November 9, 2005]

Well, that’s a victory for California:  we nixed the first six.  And the last two, which is only moderately unfortunate.  I’d like to think we did our small part here at NorCal Politics.  The returns are below the fold.  Governor Schwarzenegger’s power grab got a serious smackdown.  In fact, of his Propositions, the Proposition that lost by the largest margin (Prop 76) is the Proposition that was most closely tied to his office.  I don’t think that’s a coincidence

Now that this election is over, NorCal Politics will be doing some administrative work for a couple weeks, but there should also be ongoing posting on various topics of interest, including the iniatives that are underway for the 2006 ballot, various primary races, and whatever else comes up.

Continue reading [From NCP] Victory →

Jerry Lewis, (R-CA-41), is now being caught up in the Duke Cunningham.  The San Diego Union Tribune, which  moved up several notches in my mind with the Duke Cunningham reporting that it did, is now reporting on Jerry Lewis’ involvement with the scandal:

Rep. Jerry Lewis, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, angrily denied yesterday that he or his staff had engaged in any misconduct in dealing with lobbyists or in “earmarking” federal money.

But a federal government source told The San Diego Union-Tribune that investigators were probing Lewis’ dealings with lobbyist and former Republican Rep. Bill Lowery of San Diego. The source said the investigation was a spin-off from the corruption probe of now-imprisoned former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham. (San Diego U-T 5/12/06)

And just who does Mr. Lowery represent?  Brent Wilkes, a man you have read much about here.

According to government and defense industry sources, Lewis and Cunningham worked together to help Poway military contractor Brent Wilkes as he pursued contracts on Capitol Hill. Cunningham admitted taking bribes from Wilkes, who has been identified as co-conspirator No. 1 in Cunningham’s plea agreement.

On April 15, 1999, three months after Lewis was named chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, he received $17,000 in campaign contributions from Wilkes and his associates. At the time, Wilkes was vying for a project to digitize military documents in the Panama Canal Zone, which the United States was about to return to Panama.

“If you can’t go to people on Capitol Hill, it’s very difficult to remain viable as a government contractor,” said one of Wilkes’ associates who contributed money to Lewis at the time. “You have to talk to people. And to talk to people, you have to give money.”

So, the press has got you dead to rights…what do you do Mr. Lewis?  Well, he goes after the Duke-stir.

In the Union-Tribune articles, Lewis denied any wrongdoing. But his denial yesterday was more forceful, with most of his fury directed at Cunningham, who admitted to taking more than $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for federal contracts.

“Mr. Cunningham . . . betrayed his oath of office, his constituents, and his fellow members of Congress,” Lewis said in his statement. “I have never been as angry toward anyone in my entire career.”

This case, along with the Cunningham case, if they really can be separated, are far more serious than anything Abramoff did in my mind.  Abramoff ran some games to steal money for himself.  Ok, he got Bob Ney to stick stuff in the Congressional Record that helped him shake down the Native American “monkeys” for a few extra bucks.  But the Cunningham/Lewis scandal is much more pernicious.  Lewis, as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, used his authority to insert earmarks for projects that would go to Wilkes.

In other words, he used federal government contracts to repay Wilkes et al.  Federal Dollars…Taxpayer Dollars.  This one could be big.  John Boenher even called the allegations worrisome (I can’t find the quote, but I saw it on Countdown).  Is this finally the straw that breaks the camel’s back on GOP corruption?  Not likely, but perhaps the voters are getting sick of it.

Howie Klein at DWT also does quite a number on Lewis.