OTBT
Patron Meritorious
Lucy Cole's latest "How Thou Shouldst Vote" to California scilons.
From: Lucy Cole [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 12:54 AM
To: Cole Lucy B.
Subject: California Primary Election - June 8th
Dear Friends,
California’s Primary Election is next Tuesday, June 8th. Many of you have asked me for my opinions, so I am sending out information to my election list on how I plan to vote. (If you wish to be deleted from this list, please let me know.) As I am registered as Decline to State (i.e., independent or no party), I can request a Republican or Democratic ballot, according to current state law and the policies of those two parties. The Democratic ballot has many incumbents on it, so the more competitive races are in the Republican Primary this year. Consequently, I plan to ask for a Republican ballot. I am not super-excited about any of the candidates, though several of them have the possibility of being good office-holders.
Governor: Meg Whitman – In the midst of all the negative mail I received from her campaign, there was one informative, positive pamphlet on her policy agenda. You can read it on-line at megwhitman.com. A few of the points that interested me: require an economic cost-benefit analysis of new regulations; propose a strict spending limit based on the state’s Gross Domestic Product, which would mean that state spending would not increase unless the state’s economy is growing with it; support a constitutional amendment that would turn California’s full-time legislature into a part-time legislature (as Texas has); establish a Sunset Commission to review the relevancy of existing regulations, laws, departments and agencies, to expedite the streamlining of government and improve the state’s business climate; and work with the Sunset Commission to restructure and reduce the number of agencies, commissions and boards that California currently supports. As someone who has successfully run a large business (E-Bay), I think (hope!) she may have the organizational skill and ability to get California back on its feet.
Lieutenant Governor: Abel Maldonado – He has been a farmer, businessman and legislator. He became well-known last year when he provided a Republican vote for a budget that included a tax increase. In exchange for his vote, he required three things: the legislature put a measure on this month’s ballot that would give Californians more choice in the Primary Election (Proposition 14 - see proposition section below); abandon a proposed 12-cent gas tax increase; and authorize a ballot measure that bans legislative pay raises when the state is operating at a loss, which subsequently passed. I think that his is a voice of sanity in our dysfunctional state government.
Secretary of State: Damon Dunn – As Secretary of State, he would work to change California laws that are causing businesses – and jobs – to leave the state. He would also work to pass a reform requiring voter identification. The only data I could find about his Republican opponent Orly Taitz is that she’s part of the “birther” movement claiming that Obama was not born in this country, and she has been personally involved in 22 lawsuits in Orange County. (Wikipedia)
Controller: David Evans – He is a CPA who has over 25 years experience in accounting and auditing that includes auditing governmental agencies. He currently serves as chief financial officer for several automotive groups as well as principal of his own accounting firm. He believes the State Controller is elected by the people to be their financial advocate as it relates to state government, and that the Controller should use his office to rigorously pursue governmental abuse and waste of taxpayer dollars. He believes in balanced budgets and incurring debt only for long-term physical infrastructure. He believes that the Controller should be qualified to be the Controller; i.e., just as the Attorney General must be an attorney, the Controller should be a Certified Public Accountant, not a career politician looking for a stepping stone to higher office.
Attorney General: Steve Cooley – As Los Angeles County District Attorney, he rarely seeks a third strike when the offense being prosecuted is not a violent crime; he does not eliminate such prosecutions, but he requires prosecutors who want to bring a third strike in a nonviolent case to convince a supervisor that it is justified. This is a more rational approach than trying to lock up non-violent offenders for life, which has been one of the causes of our expensive, exploding prison system. The Sacramento Bee said, “Cooley has made a subspecialty of public corruption prosecutions, helping to rid entire cities of racketeers who masqueraded as public servants.” He plans to focus on public corruption, if elected.
Insurance Commissioner: Mike Villines – As a State Assemblyman, he authored and fought for legislation that creates a budget spending cap and rainy day fund to force State Government to live within its means. He fought to create a two year budget process to stop year after year budget stalemates and allow for a more thoughtful approach to how California spends its limited resources. Also, he has been a tireless advocate for reforming the political process through a redistricting approach where political lines are drawn by citizens and NOT politicians. As Insurance Commissioner, he would allow individuals to choose their own health insurance benefits. Thus, costs could be reduced by giving individuals and businesses the flexibility to decide what benefits are included in their health plans.
United States Senator: Tom Campbell – Tom Campbell has a 20 year track record of promoting individual liberty and less government. Starting in 1988, he was elected five times to the U.S. Congress, representing districts in the Silicon Valley. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation named Tom the most frugal member of the 102nd Congress. He was also elected a California State Senator. The California Journal named Tom the Most Ethical State Senator, State Senate’s Best Problem-Solver, and Overall Best California State Senator. He served as Director of Finance for the State of California in 2004-2005, which was the last year when the state spent no more than it received in revenue – when the state balanced the budget without additional borrowing, taxes, or dipping into reserves. Tom also served on the faculty of Stanford Law School for nineteen years, and as Dean of Berkeley’s Haas School of Business for five years. One key note for those who would like to see Democratic Senator incumbent Barbara Boxer defeated: polls show Boxer beating Carly Fiorina (Campbell’s Republican opponent in the primary election), but show Campbell defeating Boxer in the November general election with 45% of the vote to Boxer’s 38%.
The following offices are non-partisan, and will appear on all ballots.
Judges – I do not have sufficient information to make recommendations on any of the Superior Court Judges except for Office No. 117: Alan Schneider. He is a Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney, and his sense of fairness and integrity have inspired endorsements, not only from more than 200 fellow prosecutors, but also from at least two dozen defense attorneys who have appeared opposite him, as well as from Michael Judge, the county’s Public Defender. He has also been endorsed by seventy-nine sitting Los Angeles Superior Court judges.
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Gloria Romero – The San Francisco Chronicle says: “Romero stands out in this field [of candidates] for her determination to push the education establishment outside of its comfort zone. She has been the most forceful advocate for lifting seniority as the sole factor in teacher layoffs, expanding charter schools, including student achievement in teacher evaluations and allowing parents to transfer their students from low-performing schools.”
County Assessor: John Noguez – He has 25 years experience in the Assessor’s Office. Rick Auerbach, the recently-retired Los Angeles County Assessor, has endorsed Noguez. He says, “John Noguez has the rare combination of training, experience, knowledge and temperament needed to efficiently manage...the largest assessment office in the country.”
Proposition 13 – Yes. The original Prop. 13 in 1978 ensured that the assessed value of a property would not change unless the property was sold or there was significant new construction. Subsequently the legislature realized that the provision governing new construction might discourage owners from doing necessary earthquake retrofitting of un-reinforced masonry buildings for fear of triggering a reassessment, so in 1984, they sent voters a proposition that would exempt some retrofitting from reassessment for 15 years. In 1990, the legislature submitted another proposition which gave themselves the power to exempt seismic retrofitting of other structures, without the 15-year limit. Voters passed both of these propositions. But now some structures are subject to the time limit and some aren’t. This year’s Prop 13 eliminates the disparity between the different kinds of buildings and deletes the time limit, so that earthquake safety improvements will result in higher property taxes only after a building is sold.
Proposition 14 – Yes. This proposition provides for a primary election in which all voters will receive the same ballot, with all candidates listed on it. The candidates can indicate their party registration, but don’t have to. (The exception is Presidential primaries, where only voters registered to a particular party will be able to vote for a Presidential nominee for their party.) Currently our voting districts are so gerrymandered that the winner of a Democratic primary is guaranteed to be the winner of the general election in many districts, and the winner of a Republican primary is sure to win the general election in other districts. Consequently, in order to win, the candidates in both parties tend to take positions that resonate with the most extreme voters of their parties, and the independent voter ends up having very little choice of good candidates. Prop. 14 states that the top two vote-getters for each office, regardless of party affiliation, will go on the ballot for the general election in November. I strongly support this proposition, as I think that it is one step toward returning to more rational government in Sacramento.
Proposition 15 – No. This is a baby step toward public financing of political campaigns, which always benefits candidates from major parties, and unfairly sets the bar much higher for candidates from minor parties. The trouble with all campaign finance rules is that they benefit the incumbent - who gets money, free mailers paid for by the taxpayer, and free press just for being the incumbent - while his opponent is restricted in the amount of money he can spend. (Note: The only campaign finance rule that gives a level playing field to all candidates is full disclosure: if you know what individuals or groups are funding a candidate, you have a better idea of whether or not you will agree with his positions on the issues.)
Proposition 16 – No. A column in the Los Angeles Times put it succinctly: “The most important thing to know about Proposition 16 is that it was written and bankrolled by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for the benefit of PG&E.” The company is trying to create a monopoly for itself by making it almost impossible for new companies to compete with it. There is no benefit in it for the consumer.
Proposition 17 – No. Again, follow the money. This initiative was bankrolled by the Mercury Insurance Co. to undermine Prop. 103, the proposition passed in 1988 that requires rating factors to be directly related to risk. Mercury was caught “charging discriminatory rates to motorists who were not at fault in accidents, were members of the armed forces or worked in certain professions.” (L.A. Times, 2/15/10) Currently many insurance companies offer loyalty discounts to drivers who stay with them for a period of time. This rating factor is based on actuarial studies that show a correlation between loyalty and safe driving – people who stay with the same policy for years have better safety records as a group, in part because insurers encourage risky drivers to take their business elsewhere by raising their rates after they’ve had a costly accident or accumulated multiple traffic tickets. Those are the drivers that are most likely to jump from company to company, making them ineligible for a loyalty discount. Prop. 17 wants to allow discounts for anyone who stays continuously insured, which is not the same thing as a loyalty discount, and does not reveal anything about their driving records. It would allow insurance companies to charge higher rates for anyone who let their insurance lapse; e.g., if they were away at college or serving in Iraq.
Los Angeles Unified School District Ballot Measure E - No. This measure would charge a $100 property tax on each property to offset school budget cuts. None of the money would go to charter schools. Homeowners are already paying off five local school-repair and construction bonds passed since 1997, for which the bill this year is $151.80 per $100,000 of assessed property value.
Whether or not you agree with my positions, don’t forget to vote next Tuesday, June 8th!
Regards, Lucy Cole
Last edited:
