Coming back from vacation is always tough, because you get that last minute feeling that maybe you’d rather not work anymore.
The prospect of sitting around a caf for the rest of your life, sipping a glass of wine, and dealing with your major concern of the day — where to go for lunch — just seems much more pleasant than returning to the rat race.
But alas, everything must come to an end, so here I am back in the saddle looking at the November ballot, trying to make heads or tails of a bunch of ballot propositions that do their best to disguise what they’re really all about and who’s behind them. Welcome home to reality.
Proposition 39 (Local school bonds)
This is the proposition that seeks to reduce the percentage needed to pass local school bonds. Currently, passage requires a 2/3 (66.67 percent) ‘Yes’ vote. The proposition seeks to change that to 55 percent. About one half of school bond issues, typically, are passed today, but the fear, and it’s probably a reasonable one, is that that number will start dropping because the population is aging. Usually, the strongest supporters for school bonds are people with school age children. As that group gets smaller, relatively speaking, it’s harder to pass the bonds. We also have an enormous shortage of classrooms and facilities and without bonds there is no way to fix the situation. There is also a racial overtone. Educators are fearful that, as we become a majority minority state, Anglo voters are going to be less inclined to vote for bond issues that profit minorities the most, and bond issues will run into problems. The way I see it, the choice is between schools or jails, and schools are a heck of a lot better investment. If you need a more self-serving reason, ask any Realtor if they think the local schools are a significant factor in the value of your real estate. Recommend a strong “Yes” for Proposition 39.
Proposition 38 (School vouchers)
I find that this one is a toughie. I’ve been back and forth in my own mind about whether or not this is a very good idea, a very bad idea, or something in between. The proposition would allow the state to make payments of $4,000 per year or more per student in kindergarten through 12th grade, to use as tuition in private or religious schools. It really is a question about how you feel about public education and the danger in draining dollars, and perhaps some of the better students, from the public system, and into private or religious school systems. Clearly, the proposition would allow schools to discriminate based on sex (e.g., boys only), religion (e.g., Orthodox Jews only), ability (e.g., over a certain I.Q.) and disability (e.g.t. exclude the learning disabled). The government is restricted in what they can require the private/religious schools to do. However, no matter what is promised, this probably opens the doors to some degree of government oversight of private/religious schools, since public monies are being used and there are bound to be some horror stories arising. Not surprisingly, many minority parents, who see their children stuck in dead-end schools, are in favor of Prop. 38. The argument goes that public education is a monopoly and a little competition certainly wouldn’t hurt, probably helping in the end. On balance, I’m probably against it because it could cause all sorts of problems. I’d like to know more about it before starting something that’s relatively easy to get into and could be a living hell to get out of, if it turns out to be a disaster. Recommend a moderate “No” on Proposition 38.
Proposition 36 (Drugs, probation and treatment program)
Our war on drugs is a total, unmitigated and very, very expensive failure. We, as a nation and a state, have committed vast resources to defeat drugs, and yet its presence today in our society is greater than it was 30 years ago. The anti-drug industry still says, “Just give us another $10, 30, or 50 billion and we can beat this thing.”
I’m a pragmatist. I believe if something’s not working, change it. Currently, California incarcerates a higher percentage of its citizens for drug offenses than any other state. The reason we’ve not considered alternatives is that we have a gigantic anti-drug lobby made up of police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, parole officers, prison builders, prison correctional officers unions, private prison operators, and who knows who else, that has a vested interest in the current system and actively works to keep this illegal.
I certainly don’t have the answer, but when something is definitely broken, you start to consider alternatives to fix it. This proposition may not be the perfect alternative. But, whatever Martin Sheen might believe about tough love, if Charlie Sheen had been a ghetto kid without the money to buy his drugs, he’d be in the joint right now doing 25 to life and, frankly, you don’t get much tough love up there. I think it’s time to take some chances and try something different. Referring nonviolent drug offenders into treatment programs makes sense to me. An added bonus is it would save a lot of money, which would be much better spent on new schools and not new prisons. Strongly recommend a “Yes” vote on Proposition 36.
Proposition 37 (Fees, voter requirements)
I’ve read this one several times and I still can’t figure out what it does and why. That usually means that someone is definitely hiding the ball. When I’m this uncertain, I just play it safe and vote no.
Recommend a NO vote on Proposition 37.
Congress: Recommend Brad Sherman, who has turned out to be a first-rate congressman, running against practically unknown opposition.
State Senate: Recommend Sheila Kuehl who clearly is the class act of the race. She is probably one of the brightest and most competent people in the Assembly, and will make a great senator and be a gigantic improvement over Tom Hayden.
State Assembly: Recommend Fran Pavley, a teacher and former mayor/councilperson from Agoura Hills, a longtime environmentalist and a very hardworking public servant. Republican Jane Murphy Shapiro also is a quality nominee, but doesn’t have the depth of experience that Pavley has.
Next week, the local stuff.