Malibu Times November Ballot Endorsements
Overview
I’ve recently heard some of the political ads on television. My only suggestion is that you turn off the sound because most of the ads are so totally misleading as to be worthless. Since many of you will be voting absentee, I’ve done the analysis of the propositions earlier than usual. The titles on the propositions are mine and reflect my thinking and not the official ballot titles.
Proposition 19 (Legalizing Marijuana)
Recommend a Yes vote.
It’s time for a change. The legal prohibition on the use of marijuana is very similar to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. It simply doesn’t work; in fact, it doesn’t even come close to working. All the prohibition does is fuel some very large criminal enterprises, tends to keep the price of marijuana high, causes an enormous amount of public resources to be spent on enforcing the prohibition and fills our prisons at the cost of $50,000 per year for each prisoner. It makes no sense. The simpler solution is to legalize it, tax it, control the quality and get out of the business of trying to legislate morality. Marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol. Some will abuse it, most won’t. Just as some abuse alcohol and most people don’t. We should get out of the business of trying to protect people from themselves. It’s expensive and futile.
Proposition 20 (Redistricting of Congress)
Recommend a No vote.
This is essentially a partisan Republican attempt to cut down the number of Democratic congressman from California. Currently the district lines are drawn by the Democratically controlled Legislature, and the Republicans would like to take it out of their hands, figuring that they might do better with an independent commission. That argument has some validity; however, in the Republican states such as Texas, they gerrymandered the heck out of the district lines to maximize the number of Republican seats. I’d keep the rules the same for everyone, in every state, which is why I recommend a No vote, unless you happen to be a Republican in which case you probably want to vote Yes.
Proposition 21 (Vehicle License Fee for State Parks and Wildlife Programs)
Recommend a No vote.
This is a classic example of ballot box budgeting, where some group tries to tie up a piece of the state budget so that no one else can touch that money, except them. It’s one of the reasons that this state is in gridlock. If you’re upset with the dysfunction in Sacramento, understand that it’s partially your fault if you voted for certain funds for specific projects. Rest assured if this passes 10 other groups will be back next election to try and tie up state money and bypass the normal budget process.
Proposition 22 (State Government Prohibited from Taking Local Funds)
Recommend a No vote.
This is the same as Proposition 21 and ballot box budgeting at its worse except this time it’s the local government lobby and the transportation lobby trying to protect funds for themselves at the expense of everything else in the state budget, even in a situation where the governor determines that budget changes are necessary due to a severe state fiscal hardship. These choices, and often they are very difficult choices, should be left to the legislative budget committees and not lobbyists for special interests.
Proposition 23 (Suspends Clean Energy and Air Pollution Standards)
Recommend a No vote.
They’re trying to revoke the historic Fran Pavley bill that would set auto emission standards in California. It’s disguised as only a delay but it’s really a revocation, and it’s totally an oil industry funded attempt (primarily Valero Oil) to block new technology that might decrease our dependence on oil. It’s a complete cynical attempt by big oil dollars to turn back the clock. All this nonsense about losing jobs is just that-nonsense. It’s all political-advertising-agency-made-up facts, because their polling showed that people are worried about the loss of jobs, so this oil company proposition suddenly becomes a “save the jobs proposition,” which it certainly is not. This should be more properly entitled an act to “give the poor oil companies a bonus.”
Proposition 24 (Tax Fairness Act)
Undecided.
Would repeal $1.3 billion in corporate tax cuts enacted in 2008-2009. It’s questionable whether they ever produced additional jobs as promised, but how you feel about this proposition depends on your personal tax philosophy.
Proposition 25 (Simple Majority Vote for the Budget)
Strongly advocate a Yes vote.
If there is one thing that’s been a major factor in producing our dysfunctional Legislature it’s the requirement that the state budget be approved by a two-thirds vote. Requiring a two-thirds vote for approval is utter insanity because it delays the passage of the budget (for example, we still don’t have a state budget this year), and doesn’t work where you have a highly polarized Legislature as we currently have. You can’t reach two-thirds without compromise, and in the current political climate compromise is a dirty word. Approving this change to a simple majority is a first step in fixing a seriously broken Legislature.
Proposition 26 (Polluter Protection)
Strongly advocate a No vote.
This proposition would virtually give immunity to the polluters in this state and make it close to impossible to recover the costs for the damages they cause. The state Chamber of Commerce, which is the mouthpiece for several large and polluting industries, is the driving force and the dollars behind this proposition.
Proposition 27 (Eliminate State Commission on Redistricting)
Strongly advocate a No vote.
When the states politicians get together and agree that something is good, it’s almost a guarantee that it’s good for them and bad for the people of California. Having an independent commission draw the Senate and Assembly district lines is a good thing and is a major step in trying to fix our dysfunctional state government, which is why most career politicians want to eliminate the independent citizen commission. Vote NO and let the citizens draw the district lines and perhaps we’ll end up with more reasonable legislators.