Arnold G. York
The Malibu Times
election endorsements, Part II
U.S. Senate: Diane Feinstein, Democrat
Feinstein has emerged as a leader of the U.S. Senate, respected on both sides of the aisle, which in this day of highly partisan politics is no small feat. Feinstein is able and energetic, with an equally able and efficient staff and well deserves reelection.
Bonds and propositions
Trying to decide about the bonds and the propositions is an entirely different thing than choosing candidates. Bonds and propositions present both practical and philosophical problems.
Dealing with bonds first. We use bonds to pay for things, like capital improvements that have a long life and will serve several generations such as roads, bridges, schools and levees. It’s a little like when a person buys a home. If it had to be paid for in one year most people would be living in apartments. The purchase and any improvements of a home sometimes have to be financed over a long period of time. The major bonds on this ballot are for infrastructure improvements that include transportation, housing, school and college construction, and flood control. They all are, in my mind, long overdue. The last governor to push and pass any infrastructure building of significance was Gov. Brown, and that’s the papa Pat Brown.
Gov. Edmund Pat Brown left office in 1966 and we haven’t done much since then for basic infrastructure. That’s 40 years, almost a generation and a half, and I believe it’s time. Our population was significantly less 40 years ago and now we’re at 37 million Californians and going to 45 million by 2025 or so (primarily because we’re living longer).
The second question is if we pass all these bonds can we handle it. In other words, can we afford to pay the mortgage. The answer is yes, because even if we pass all the bonds our debt percentage will be less than it was in the early 1990s. But, in all fairness, we’re getting closer to the limits of what we can carry comfortably. Within the next election cycle or two we’re going to have to decide the fiscal equivalent of choosing between motherhood and apple pie, but for now we’re still OK.
Therefore, I would recommend a yes vote on the following proposed bond acts:
1B, Transportation act ($19.9 billion)
1C, Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act ($2.1 billion)
1D, Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act ($10.4 billion)
1E, Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act ($4.1 billion)
Here are my other recommendations for various other propositions:
Proposition 1A, Transportation Funding Protection, Recommend a No vote
Reason: This is an attempt to tie the Legislature’s hands so they can never move money away from transportation. We’re about to put $19.9 billion into transportation and that’s quite enough. Besides, the Legislature needs some flexibility because there are good economic years and bad economic years.
83, Punishment for sex crimes, Recommend a No Vote
Reason: There are enough laws already on the books to handle sex crimes. This is a strictly feel good “law and order” bill for politicians to run on and will only drive the problems underground where they are much tougher to monitor.
84, Bonds for water quality and natural resources ($5.4 billion), Recommend a No vote
Reason: In the last decade, we’ve voted for $11 billion in bonds for water and natural resources. Enough already. Take your hand out of our pockets.
85, Parental notification proposition, Recommend a No vote
Reason: Just a back door shot at repealing Roe versus Wade.
86, Cigarette tax (additional $2.60 per pack), Recommend a No vote
Reason: Cigarettes are now roughly $4 per pack. This feels like a sin tax and seems excessive. And it will hit the poor the hardest.
87, Oil Tax for clean energy, Recommend a Yes vote
Reason: I struggled with this one. It’ really a federal problem and would be best handled by the federal government. The problem is that the oil industry owns the federal government so the feds are never going to do anything. We need to subsidize nonfossil fuel sources of energy or we’re going to be in the grip of Middle Eastern oil forever, which is not just an economic problem but is also a significant national security problem. Make no mistake about it. The petrodollars help pay for the terrorism. This move to other sources of energy is going to have to be subsidized in the beginning. California is a big enough market that if we lead the way other states will follow, which will ultimately force the federal hand.
88, Property tax for education, Recommend a Yes vote
Reason: Information is our biggest industry and we need to keep it healthy with well-educated young people.
89, Public funding of political campaigns, Recommend a No vote
Reason: The idea of some public funding is actually a pretty good idea but this proposition is an administrative and legal nightmare and I’ve not heard a good word for it from either side of the aisle. It will produce years of litigation.
90, Property rights, Recommend a No vote
Reason: This is an overreaction to a somewhat limited U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Kelso case. The problem is that every time any government acts it impacts someone, and typically has some economic effects. This proposition would make it very expensive for government to change anything to do with land-use and would serve as a full employment act for lawyers for decades to come.
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board, Santa Monica College Board
I wish I could make recommendations but I don’t know the candidates well enough to feel comfortable doing that. I apologize but I simply ran out of time.
Superior Court Judgeships
Again, there was a time when I knew the judges and the judicial candidates but not any longer. What I do is follow the recommendations of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. They have a committee that evaluates candidates and anyone they recommend as “well qualified” is generally a good choice. Try www.lacba.org and hit the item in the center of the home page entitled, “Judicial Runoff Elections November 7, 2006.”