Cross-posted on the California Majority Report.

Yesterday, the California Assembly and Senate held a rare joint legislative session to hear from California’s economic experts on the state of California’s economy. Treasurer Bill Lockyer, Controller John Chiang, Department of Finance Director Mike Genest, and Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor gave a remarkably uniform presentation that urged immediate action and politically tough compromise.

“If you act now, the cash situation is manageable, unless it gets worse, and I’ve already said it will,” Genest explained with a slight slip of the tongue that was perhaps even more accurate than intended.

“The faster you act the easier it will be for you to fix your problem,” Taylor added.

Over the next two years, current estimates project that California faces a $28 billion budget hole, and all sides are willing to acknowledge that’s likely an underestimate. Moreover, the Legislative Analyst’s Office anticipates huge operating deficits above $20 billion per year through 2014. Lobbying in Washington, D.C. will hopefully reduce our federal tax dollar imbalance, but the complete solution requires bold action in Sacramento as well.

There’s more over the flip…

Failure to act soon, Treasurer Lockyer warned, would force the state to stop construction on a number of infrastructure projects, to the tune of $660 million per month. The harm to the private businesses and employees expecting highway projects would clearly create a domino effect disruptive to the state’s economy. Projects at risk cross Republican and Democratic districts, including a $239 million bridge replacement on Interstate 5 in Shasta County, a $345 million tunnel project on Highway 24 in Alameda County, a $218 million HOV lane on I-5 in LA County, and a $65 million eastbound lane project on Highway 91 in Orange County.

The loss of jobs and tax revenues that would result would be accompanied by an increased reliance on social services, and this is obviously a problem far beyond highway budgeting.

Without a real budget, the LAO thinks it will be impossible to convince lenders to provide the state with stimulus and infrastructure bonds, which remain one of the more attractive options left to the legislature.

And Genest gave another reason to act fast. As time wears on, the options available to the state diminish with one glaring exception: Proposition 98 education funding. The legislature has the authority to cut off Prop 98 guarantees at any time, whereas most cuts and revenue solutions rely on early action to reap substantive reward this year.

“Delayed action points the gun very directly at schools,” Genest emphasized.

Controller Chiang echoed Genest’s concerns. While strong opinions exist on both sides of the aisle on cuts and tax increases, to do nothing is worse than making hard sacrifices.

But the bluntest presentation came from Treasurer Bill Lockyer, who minced metaphors but not words. Calling the budget that cleared the legislature in September a “zombie budget … but no sleeping beauty,” Lockyer urged the legislators present to transcend the interests they represent and the ideologies they espouse. “Robotic advocacy misses the unique role of legislators,” he told them. “Stop relying on the tooth fairy and other fantasies.”

What’s needed in Sacramento more than a tooth fairy is a two-thirds fairy. To raise taxes, close tax loopholes, and pass budgets requires two-thirds approval, in essence giving Republicans in both legislative houses veto power over most solutions provided they remain unified. Legislative Democrats have acknowledged that additional cuts will be required, though legislative leadership is understandably getting push back from some of the legislature’s more progressive members. Nevertheless, Democrats have shown in the past that they can largely fall in line with leaderships’ recommendations on budgetary matters. The elephant in the room, as has been the case for a number of years, is whether enough Republicans will agree to revenue solutions that they know will be opposed by conservative activists.

At least publicly, legislative Republicans have yet to back away from their no tax pledge, and if they didn’t get the message after this presentation, then we are in for a world of hurt.  

“The good news is, on the Assembly side, we only need three votes,” said Speaker Bass at a press conference preceding the session. And indeed, there may be cracks in the Republican armor.

While Senate Minority Leader Dave Cogdill other Republicans bloviated forever with rhetorical questions and right wing red meat designed for the cameras, at least two Republicans seemed genuinely open to learning from the exercise. Assemblymember Danny Gilmore, who represents the only district in the state where a Republican picked up a Democratic seat, noted his district’s high levels of unemployment and asked the presenters how important job creation was to solving California’s economic crisis. Assemblymember Kevin Jeffries asked the experts which tax increases will harm California’s economy and which will help, suggesting he at least recognizes that some taxes might be helpful.

Perhaps I’m reading the tea leaves too much here, but until proven otherwise, I will hold out hope that Gilmore and Jeffries are willing to take a more pragmatic approach to solving our economic crisis than most of their colleagues. As the state’s economic experts explained, to rely solely on cuts or solely on tax increases would increase unemployment in the state, whereas infrastructure bonds and stimulus offer opportunities to create jobs.

And as if on cue, the Commission for Economic Development, chaired by Lt. Governor John Garamendi, held their quarterly meeting at the Capitol this morning focused on the needs of California’s aerospace, agriculture, biotechnology, goods movement, and tourism and entertainment sectors. Not surprisingly, education, career training, and increased collaboration between businesses and schools were among the top priorities for all involved. As the California Taxpayers Association understood when they endorsed a modest sales tax increase a few months back, California needs an educated workforce to remain competitive in our cash cow high-tech, entertainment, and finance industries.

“The California Commission for Economic Development is intensely concerned about the California economy and understands that the ultimate solution to the budget crisis depends on a very healthy and growing economy,” Lt. Governor Garamendi explained. “To accomplish that, today we heard recommendations from six different industries on how they can advance the interests of their industry. The Commission will transmit all of those recommendations to the legislature and the Governor for immediate consideration.”

Added Democratic Assemblymember Lori Saldana, who sits on the Commission: “Here we have reports on the needs of a skilled workforce, and yet where are we talking about cutting? Education and infrastructure. We clearly need the people who were in this room to communicate more forcefully in this discussion.”

The partisan budget games, played primarily by legislative Republicans, need to stop. Legislative Democrats are willing to swallow politically risky cuts harming key constituencies to see our financial footing strengthened. Democrats will receive severe flack for their efforts, on this blog and elsewhere, as the weeks and months progress. To borrow Treasurer Lockyer’s terminology, at least one party in Sacramento is willing to transcend “robotic advocacy.”

Meanwhile, a Republican legislator at the hearing spoke fondly of a Toyota plant recently built in Mississippi to argue that California’s tax climate is unfriendly to businesses. We can quibble with specific tax rates or specific tax incentives, but one thing we should all agree on is this: California is not Mississippi, and we don’t want it to be. To allow a budget that relies excessively on cuts to our education and social services infrastructure would fundamentally alter the character of California and destroy the institutions that have made California a hub for high-end jobs over the years.  

The ball is now in the legislative Republicans’ court. They can do their part to sink our economy, or they can stand up to the Grover Norquists of the world and agree to a compromise. Democrats are willing to buck pressure from the key interest groups that form the Democratic donor base. Can Republicans say the same?  

Shane Goldmacher of the SacBee got a sniff of a letter between Assemblyman, Senator, Attorney General Treasurer Bill  Lockyer and Governor Schwarzenegger. Apparently Lockyer is really steamed over Arnold’s veto of SB 1293 and SB 1221. While 1221 did have some Republican opposition, not a single Legislator opposed SB 1293, and there was no major organization opposed. SB 1221 dealt with financing for health facilities, and SB 1293 dealt with the Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985. Thrilling to be sure, but both were reasonable measures that should have been signed.

So why the veto?  Lockyer apparently thinks Arnold didn’t actually look at the bill because of the self-imposed time crunch. You know, the time crunch that Arnold manufactured to get a budget, only to back down b/c he wanted a revised HSR prop.

But guess what? I looked this up, and apparently the Legislature can override a veto from the governor. Dave pointed this out a few days ago, but I’ve now confirmed it.  It’s true, it even says so on the Legislature’s website.  It takes a 2/3 vote. Since SB 1293 had unanimous support, let’s get in there and do it.  

And while we’re paying a few extra bucks for per diems and the like, how about we override a few more head-scratchers from the Governor.  The list is abundant.  If you have one, post it in the comments.

This is the idea that Sen. Dean Florez included in a letter sent to Treasurer Bill Lockyer.  The two now plan on bringing the idea to the two largest pension funds in the country: CalPERS and CalSTRS. From the Bee:

Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, has proposed that the California Public Employees’ Retirement System purchase the state’s looming debt. The money would keep California operating – including paying state employee payroll and funding schools – into next year.

Florez outlined the plan in a letter to state Treasurer Bill Lockyer on Friday. Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar on Monday said his boss will also float the idea to the California State Teachers’ Retirement System. Lockyer sits on the boards of both funds.(SacBee 10/7/08)

With the market still in the tank and below 10,000, and the credit markets still extremely tight, our long budget feud didn’t make things easy. We need to sell these revenue anticipation notes (RANs) or we won’t be able to pay our bills. It is that simple.  Having CalPERS and CalSTRS do that seems a reasonable idea, save one minor catch.

Both pension plans have a fiduciary duty first to their clients, that is those whose money they hold.  Both have lost substantial sums of money over the last 3-4 months, and so both are probably very nervous about their investments.  Now, the legislature and governor could get some legislation requiring the purchase of the RANs, but barring that, CalPERS must do what is in the best interest of their shareholders. Or, as the Bee gets an investment guy to tell them:

It’s possible that the funds will take a pass, said Keith Brainard, research director for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators.

“If the state can’t borrow money from the credit markets, why would CalPERS be interested?” Brainard said.

Yup, that’s where it is folks. Welcome to the Aftereffects of the Bush Legacy, where even California pensions don’t want our debt. You’ll be seeing these effects for a while.  If this ploy doesn’t work, it looks like Schwarzenegger will have to go to DC, hat in hand, for $7 Billion. Oh, and the Feds are going to get back to us any day on that. Just keep holding your breath, Governor.

I’ve been attending the convention (my first state convention, actually), and the one thing that really struck me is how much more excitement is being paid to the Carole Migden-Mark Leno race than to the presidential election, likely a reflection of the audience.  The convention naturally attracts activists, who know about the intricacies of that senate race and Migden’s $9 million fine, especially because the convention is in San Jose, very close to Senate District 3.  Others have focused on the dynamics of the race and the hijacks at the convention, but the sheer resources that are being expended at the convention, both by Migden and Leno, and by other potential candidates for office, and I have to wonder–why bother?

As much as we may joke that politicians’ votes are for sale, does it really make sense for politicians and interests to spend thousands of dollars on “hospitality suites” as the parties are called?  I certainly enjoy the nightlife, but do they really do anything?  While it may make sense for some to host parties in order to get attention (who would know who Tom Torlakson is if he didn’t have an ice cream and apple pie social with live music?), for the higher-profile causes and politicians, especially those with Gubernatorial aspirations, does it really make sense to spend all the money on visibility and chum?  How many people are really going to be persuaded to support Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi for Governor because they got a Garamendi sign, button, poppy seeds (for planting), and an invitation to his barbeque?  Activists here know who John Garamendi is, and are (hopefully) not going to be persuaded by a picture and a Basque Barbeque.

Instead, it might make much more sense for Garamendi, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Superintendent Jack O’Connell, Leno, and Migden to spend their campaign money on building a grassroots field organization.  Indeed, that would likely help their campaigns more by creating a grassroots base and a field organization that could mobilize to deliver a primary victory, not to mention helping elect even more Democrats.  I don’t mean to revert to a trite complaint that better campaigners defeat the people who really deserve to win–an election determines who “deserves” to be elected.  But instead of wasting their money, it might be smarter for candidates for office to spend their money more efficiently, which would help the Democratic Party in general.  It would end up benefiting them, too.

(brilliant ideas – promoted by Robert in Monterey)

In a recent report in the Bee, CA State Treasurer Bill Lockyer brainstorms ways to balance the state budget, including a suggestion that that we consider cutting the UC system off of all public funds, and having “public” universities raise their own funds by – you guessed it – raising student fees. As if the state hasn’t already kicked students in the gut repeatedly by jacking up tuition and fees, turning our public universities into de facto private institutions.

This from the same “Democrat” who proudly said he voted for Schwarzeneggar for the recall in 2003. And a graduate of UC Berkeley in 1965, back when tuition was so low as to be nearly free. But I guess those were different times, eh Bill?

But in a sense, Lockyer is right despite himself. The state infrastructure is woefully underfunded and underbuilt, given our growing population. We’ve got a 25 million person infrastructure in a 37 million person state, and we’re headed towards 50 million in the decades to come. Yet his proposals largely suck. So what else could we do, since we’re in modest proposal mode?

Lest I be accused of mere churlish sniping from the sidelines, I’ll bite:

1. Legalize pot and decriminalize all other drugs, with an amnesty for every inmate locked up in CA jails for the victimless crime of nonviolent possession of drugs. Tax the pot, and use the savings from the criminal justice system + new tax revenue to a) fully fund local addiction treatment clinics and clean needle exchanges, and b) pay down the deficit. Most of the social costs of drug use stem from their criminalization, not the chemicals themselves. Far better to deal with the actual addiction through medical treatment, leave people who can handle it alone, and tell the prison industry and the prison guards’ unions to find another cash cow to exploit.

2. While we’re at it, repeal the 3 strikes law that has clogged our prisons with nonviolent offenders. A new prison costs the same as a new college, and housing an inmate in an overcrowded cell block is around the same cost as educating a student. Instead of slashing public eductaion, why not reduce the % of the California population we’re warehousing?

3. Repeal Prop. 13. If that’s too scary for timid defenders of the status quo, afraid of what Howard Jarvis’s winged monkeys might say in attack ads, why not take a baby step and repeal it just for commercial property? Corporations never die, so why should they pay 1978 tax rates for eternity?

4. Pass SB 840, Sheila Kuhl’s Universal Health Insurance Act, which will remove a huge source of our growing state deficit, namely rising insurance costs for state employees, which effectively funnels budget funds directly into health insurance corporations’ profit margins, at a rate far exceeding inflation. Private health insurance is a huge part of the problem, and removing profit from the equation would help the budget planning process out tremendously.

5. Raise taxes, both income and (if you’re courageous enough) wealth taxes. There’s a ton of big money sitting around in this state, and for all the whinging about excessive taxes, our rates are fairly low compared to most other large urbanized states.

6. Stop borrowing money to pay for programs that could be funded outright; pay as you go with taxes. The “no tax” approach to the state costs us a huge amount more in the long run just on interest payments alone. Some things (infrastructure projects, for example) make sense with bonds and debt financing, but most of the initiative bond measure stuff should just be part of the regular budget. Which brings us to…

7. Change the 2/3 raising tax and budget supermajority requirements to simple majorities. Asking a virulently antigovernment, antitax, anti-public good Republican party rump have veto power on the state of California’s future is just absurd. If they want to dictate terms, then perhaps they should win a majority first.

Will Democrats follow any of these ideas? Probably not, but they’re all better than junking the state public higher eductaion system just to balance the books in the short term.

originally at surf putah

Of the things you fight, you’d assume that money for children in foster care would be pretty low on your battle list.  But, the Assembly Senate Republicans fight to make sure not one more dime goes to those damn kids. I mean, they’ve got enough already, those dern foster care rich kids

Their uneasy coexistence with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger now at the lowest point in his tenure, Republican state lawmakers are rebelling in increasingly public ways over administration efforts both big and small.

GOP state senators refused Thursday to sign off on the administration’s request to pay for cost overruns in the state’s foster care system. Republican objections to Schwarzenegger’s proposed budget for the coming fiscal year all but guarantee that the state will miss its Saturday deadline for putting a new spending plan in place.[(LA Times 6/29/07) ]

Oh, you mean foster kids aren’t rich? Oh…right.  So, the GOP finally realizes that  Arnold has sold them out, or well, at least he wasn’t who they expected him to be.  Welcome to the club Mr. Villines Ackerman, I think Bill Lockyer is waiting for you at Table 2.

So, let me start this out with a caveat, I’ve been, well, less than a Bill Lockyer fan after he said he voted for Arnold in the recall. Either he believed the hype, disliked Bustamante (well, he’s not alone there), or a combination of both. And what’s with announcing that you voted for a Republican?

That being said, BuyCaliforniaBonds.com is a genuinely cool idea.  It’s scheduled for wider release when bonds go up for sale in about a week, but here’s what they have up there now:

California voters have approved more than $60 billion of bonds to construct schools, roads, housing, parks, flood protection and other crucial infrastructure projects.  Over the next few years, the state will be selling these voter-authorized bonds to investors to raise the money to build these projects.  The state pays the principal and interest on the bonds, known as general obligation (GO) bonds, from the state’s general fund.

State GO bonds historically have been purchased by both individual investors and sophisticated “institutional investors” such as insurance companies and mutual funds.  Individual investors, however, often have found it difficult to buy the bonds and to purchase them on the same terms as large institutional investors.  State Treasurer Bill Lockyer wants to make it easier for individual Californians to invest in their own future by buying the state’s bonds.  Buy California Bonds will be the site to visit to learn about California bonds and how to acquire them.  Our next general obligation bond sale is scheduled for late June.  Come back to this site on June 11 to learn more.

Hey, that’s today, so we might learn more soon, but as I understand it, this site is just an advertising component and they won’t be actually selling the bonds there.  But, I think that they  will  be making the bonds available to individuals before institutional investors, which is pretty much the exact opposite of the traditional arrangement.  Now, these bonds aren’t exactly an IPO and won’t make anybody rich, but this is a cool move by Senator, Atty General Treasurer Bill Lockyer.

You see, this is one thing that governments back in the day knew. If you are going to float debt, better to a) float it at home and b) get the citizens involved in their government.  So, like say the old Liberty Bonds in the WWII days. They got people to understand the shared sense of sacrifice. This is a good idea to be brought back, so that people understand the issues of debt financing. It’s clear that Californians aren’t really comfortable with the workings of the government, so why not reach out in tangible ways, like this bond issue, to help reconnect government to its citizens. Good work, Treasurer Lockyer.

I figured this might be a nice thing to share, since a lot of people don’t know some of the downticket races and props so much… again these are my views, and not that of Calitics.

Hi everybody, so I filled out my absentee ballot and already sent it in, it’s the only way to fly in Oakland since our know nothing Elections Supervisor bought a bunch of Sequoia systems fraud machines despite popular outcry… anyway here’s how I voted:

Partisan Offices – statewide
—-
Governor – Phil Angelides
Lt. Governor – John Garamendi
Secretary of State – Debra Bowen
State Controller – John Chiang
State Treasurer – Bill Lockyer
Attorney General – Jerry Brown
Insurance Commisioner – Cruz Bustamente (with waffling)
United States Senate – (blank) or Diane Feinstein (see below)
United States Representative – Barbara Lee
State Assembley – Sandre Swanson
Judges – re-elect
Statewide propositions.
Proposition 1A-NO!
Propositions 1B-1E Yes.
Proposition 83 – NO!!
Proposition 84 – Yes
Proposition 85 – FUCK NO!!!
Proposition 86 – Yes
Proposition 87 – HELL YES!
Proposition 88 – No
Proposition 89 – YES YES YES! HELL YES!!
Proposition 90 – NO!
—
City of Oakland
—
Measure M – yes
Measure N – YES!
Measure O – YES YES YES!

The “why’s” are below the cut.

Partisan Offices – statewide
Governor –
Phil Angelides

It’s an easy decision really, Arnold has been playing the part of a moderate ever since he got his ass handed to him in the last “special election”. Phil Angelides, has the brains, the know how, and the plan to lead this great state, and it’s the rare case where the establishment backed candidate is actually the best one of the bunch. It breaks my heart that his idiot campaign manager is such a fool and might blow it.

Let’s be clear, no Democrat or Independent should vote for Arnold… Period.

oh and Pete Camejo used to be cool, but is kind of a dick now.
I voted for him over Gray Davis, and would gladly do so again, but the Democratic Nominee is a Pragmatic progressive, what the hell is Pete doing in this race anyway?

I really hope Phil can pull it off, but rather then just hope, i’m going to canvass and call for him this weekend.

Lt. Governor –
John Garamendi
Tom McClintock is an asshole. One of the biggest assholes in CA.
Garadmendi is kind of “eh.” but has his moments. I’m not his biggest supporter like some folks, but he’s good… I like Phil a hell of a lot better personally. He’s big on stem cell research… so am I, ’nuff said.

Secretary of State –
Debra Bowen
uh… Verified Voting activist/superstar vs. Arnold’s Diebold loving appointee?
no fracking contest. I am totally all about Debra Bowen, and you should be too.

State Controller –
John Chiang
He’s a good dude.

State Treasurer –
Bill Lockyer
I could make a statement about the statewide office “revolving door”, but i’ll save that for my buddy Cruz.
Lockyer has done a decent enough job as AG, why not let him handle the money?
Sure.

Attorney General –
Jerry Brown
I had my issues with him as mayor of my city, and it bugs me that he’s so adamant on the very Draconian Death Penalty, but Poochigian is far worse and has way more of a douchebaggy name. ha ha! I guess Jerry’s plan is to hold every office in the state before he dies…

Insurance Commisioner –
Cruz Bustamente
I literally felt dirty in the recall after I voted “NO” (esp. since Gray Davis was an ass and I wanted him gone, just not that way), and then voted for Bustamente, even though I really wanted to vote for Arianna. I have rarely felt “dirty” after voting except for when I voted for that useless waste of flesh. The ONLY thing I can think of that he did that I liked was the lawsuit against Enron after the rolling blackmail… which was admittedly heroic and kind of awesome. Otherwise… he’s a jackass! And… it seems like you see the same 6 or 7 names every cycle as they all play this game of musical chairs changing positions. Totally lame. Ugh, a tactical vote at best… but at least i get to vote FOR Phil and Debra this cycle.

United States Senate –
Oh DiFi! DiFi, DiFi, DiFi… you bum me out, i’m glad this will be your last Senate term, as you are a constant source of elitism and frustration. I hate that you are so beholden to big business, you’re most “reliable” when it comes time for the one liberal boilerplate issue I am most mushy on… gun control. I hate that you embolden torturers, and need to have crushing amounts of public outrage before opposing real a-holes like John Roberts confirmation. There are a few things you are ok on, but overall, the only reason to vote for you is because Democrats need to take control of the Senate to keep checks and balances and such around. I may vote for you, I may not… I wrote myself in for the primary, because quite frankly, I could do a hell of a lot better job. If I do vote for you, it’s because Dick Mountjoy, while a wonderful pr0nstar name would be a absolutely horrid Senator, not because you are worth a damn at all.

United States Representative-
Barbara Lee
One of my top 10 politicians ever, and my representative, if half of the congresspeople out there had even a quarter of her integrity and guts we’d be a lot better off.

State Assembley-
Sandre Swanson
Seems like a good dude, smart progressive type, and Babs likes him. Besides what am I going to do, vote “Peace and Freedom”? It’s Oakland baby!

Judges
re-elect all… got caught with my pants down on this one, but since I don’t have any beefs rightn ow, i’ll just be ready next time.

Statewide propositions.
Proposition 1A
NO!
I already have to do the legislatures job a couple times a year because so many props like this have the budget locked down.
fuggit. Transportation funding is vital, but mandatory amounts are dumb, and i’m sick of it, and having to research these stupid things.

NO!

Propositions 1B-1E
Yes.
I’m still pissed that this somehow has turned into “Arnold’s issue” when he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it just in time for election season. But whaever… infrastructure is important.

Now again, don’t we elect a fracking legislature for this crapola???
STOP BOTHERING ME!!!

Proposition 83
NO!!
A Blatant sop to get out the religious types that are always concerned about “focusing on the family” as well as authoritarian a-holes. Look, I think sex offenders are horrible too, but this is Draconian! GPS monitoring for life?
That’s a slippery damn slope. All of the empty posturing that goes over sex offenders sickens me almost as much as the offending itself. Ok, not really… but still… come now. The standards are fine now.

Proposition 84
Yes
Bond measure make me curl up my lip like Billy Idol, because the mantra seems to be “borrow, borrow, borrow”, but this is about water safety and flood control. Every week in rainy times when I drive to Roseville and I see the Delta swelling, I get images of the levees and New Orleans.

no thanks.
It’s a begrudging yes, but a yes, nonetheless.

Proposition 85
FUCK NO!!!
Yet again another winger “base turner outter”, a “waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor’s pregnancy”. Right, because it’s far too easy to have this horrible operation performed now right? I am for personal freedom, and that includes a woman’s right to have dominion of her own body, including minors.
I cannot emphasize FUCK NO, enough.

Proposition 86
Yes (with some waffling)
Sorry smokers! Try to see beyond the pocketbook on this one.
I’m all for everybodies personal freedom to fuck up their lungs and give themselves cancer, but we still don’t have real education about the drug that is tobacco and we need that.

a few concerns have been raised by some friends of mine on this… mainly that it goes to private hospitals and adds stuff into the constitution, which bums me out… but still, i’m a soft yes.

Proposition 87
HELL YES!
Reduce dependence on foreign oil? Reduce air pollution?
Wait, why would anybody be against this again?
Oh yeah… the oil companies.
Screw them!

Proposition 88
No
It sounds good on first read, property tax to pay for more funding for schools right?
It creates a bad amount of bureaucracy, and who decides what are “academically successful” schools anyway?
lame!
no.

Proposition 89
YES YES YES! HELL YES!!
This is the public financing of elections, if you are going to vote for only two things this year… well… then you are being silly, but the key is to vote for Phil Angelides and this. Because god damn… I mean GOD DAMN… this will fix soooo many of our problems. Not the least of which is that you need to be an eccentric billionaire to win a statewide race in this damn Nationstate of ours called CA.

Proposition 90
NO!
Uh… dude? Why are NY Libertiarians writing propositions for California?
Eminant domain is BS, but so is this:
From speakout:

This measure has so much to dislike that it brings together in opposition one of the most unusual alliances imaginable. Joining virtually every environmental group in the state in opposition are taxpayers rights groups, the California Chamber of Commerce, consumer groups, scientists and public health agencies and even the California Farm Bureau.

That a-hole Tom McClintock likes it too, so that should be reason enough to vote no. A good rule of thumb is if the left and right both agree on something, there’s probably something significant happening.

Pretty much everybody agrees this one is BS.
NO!

—

City of Oakland

Measure M
yes
Whatever. Some BS about the polce and fire retirement board… just reading about it made my attention wander, there’s no argument against, no penalty. If it wasn’t about peoples retirement I wouldn’t have voted either way at all.

Measure N
YES!
Kick ass new library at Henry J. Kaiser center?!
HELL YEAH!

edit: and also more funding for critical library infrastructure and other things my librarian friends can tell you more about.

Measure O
YES YES YES!
If you are against this Measure you are truly against Democracy… come on… ranked choice voting! Who loses? We’d be looking at city council member Aimee Allison if this already went through!
besides less elections = better in my book.