Speak Out California Weblog

Simpson Social Security Comments Highlight Battle of Democracy vs. Plutocracy

2010-08-27T00:16:48Z

Former Wyoming Republican Senator Alan Simpson is co-chair of President Obama's Fiscal Commission. This is what he said the other day about the relationship between the American people and our government:

"We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow with 310 million tits!"

This country that was once run by We, the People with government "of the people, by the people and for the people" has become instead a country where the ruling elites can talk about the public as babies, the unemployed as parasites who are jobless because they are "lazy." The prevailing attitude about the public, from the new Versailles that has grown up around Washington, DC -- what bloggers call "the village" seems to be if you feed them they will breed.

Look at the weird situation we are in today. The wealthy are wealthier than ever. The gap between the rich and the rest of us is bigger than ever. Big corporate profits are soaring and the too-big-to-fail multinational corporations have more power than ever. At the same time wages that were stagnant for decades are now dropping, people with jobs are working longer and harder, more of our people are unemployed and unemployed for longer, more without health insurance, more are depending on food stamps for basic nutrition, more are losing their homes than ever with bankruptcies soaring, and small businesses are barely hanging on or are going under at an alarming rate.

But what are our political leaders up to? On the one hand, the deficit commission is focused on cutting Social Security (which does not contribute to the deficit or debt) at a time when more people need it and need it more than ever. On the other hand many in the Congress are looking for ways to extend the deficit-causing Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%.

And few are talking about our government hiring or helping the unemployed, stimulating the economy, or holding the bad actors who caused this mess accountable. In fact, far from talking about helping our fellow citizens, our ruling DC elites have a different view of things entirely. We, the People are just in the way. It is our own tit-sucking fault, they say, and we need to step up and sacrifice because we are not doing enough to help the people who really deserve it: the producers, the "job creators."

Did you catch the rhetorical trick I used above? I said "our" people, and "our" government. How quaint. You don't hear that kind of talk much anymore. Instead you hear about "personal responsibility," which makes everything that is done to someone by the wealthy and powerful their own fault.

This Is About Democracy vs. Corporatist Plutocracy

These battles over cutting Social Security and extending tax cuts for the wealthy expose the competing worldviews of We, the People democracy vs corporatist plutocracy. Is our country a community of the people, by the people and for the people? Or are we "the help," only here for the benefit of the wealthy few.

In the democracy worldview we are a community that takes care of and watches out for each other. We are each citizens with equal rights and equal value, to be respected equally. Our government and economy are supposed to be for us. In the democracy worldview we should be increasing Social Security's benefits because people really need it.

In the plutocratic worldview held by conservatives and corporatist moderates we are "the help," 310 million loafers ("parasites" is the Randian word) sucking their " unearned sustenance" (more Rand) from the tits of the milk cow when we all ought to be working harder because the portfolios of the "achievers" (and more) are down a bit. Your value to society is only what you "produce." Your role otherwise is to "consume." In that worldview the wealthy deserve tax cuts and the parasites shouldn't be getting Social Security checks at all.

So what is it going to be? Will we see and understand ourselves as citizens, who share this country on an equal basis with the rich and the poor, with rights and entitlements, deserving dignity, respect, protection and empowerment from a government that is of, be and for We, the People? Will we demand those things and fight for them? Or will we quietly yield those hard-won rights to our "betters" and allow ourselves to be told what to do, fleeced by giant corporations, hoping to get a flat-screen TV out of the deal if we behave?

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.

Arnold and the Tea-bagger Movement

2010-08-12T18:51:27Z

I always enjoy observing and participating in discussions with my friend and former colleague, the wonderful Sheila Kuehl. She is brilliant, observant, funny, wise and has outstanding politics. She has written an excellent piece that appeared in Monday's LA Times and points the finger of blame for the state's current mess directly and unequivocally at Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. While I don't disagree with her analysis that he has been a disaster for the state, the key factor that distinguishes the current situation from those of chief executives in the past, aside from Schwarzenegger's incompetence is the extreme partisanship and rancor that have taken hold in Sacramento and in Washington, D.C. We're seeing the right-wing extremists emerging into the debate at all levels with all their absurdities, dishonesty and plain ignorance, starting with Sarah Palin's entry into the national political arena with her inexplicable nomination as the Republican Party's Vice-Presidential nominee.

While Sheila's examples are accurate and legitimate, this is a starkly different Sacramento than that of the past. The level of acrimony, irrationality and intractability this bitter, fear-mongering anti-government movement has generated simply cannot be overstated. Sheila contends that other governors have been able to deal with the problems of governing in spite of the structural deficiencies in our system of governance--- like the minority rule provisions of budget and taxation which require a 2/3 super-majority; the creation of artificial and truncated legislative terms; the initiative process that allows anyone from anywhere to put a measure on the California ballot as long as they have the money; the infusion of enormous amount of corporate money---. the combination of all these factors has created the toxic stew that has slammed the doors on governing. But the spirit of compromise is now virtually non-existent.

Sheila is right-on that this Governor thought he could use his movie-star persona and public-relations ploys to "reform" the state. What he didn't understand, and still doesn't, is that politics is a unique process which requires respect, give-and-take and understanding of the goals and purposes for which it was created. While reform is a good thing when done right, "blowing up the boxes" when you have no idea which ones to blow up and how to replace them with something that functions in the best interests of the people is another thing.

That being said, the "tea-bagger" mentality has overtaken the Republican Party, and it started when Senator Kuehl and I served together in the Legislature. A seminal moment occurred in 2002 when then Senate Minority Leader Jim Brulte announced to the Republican Caucus that any member who voted for the budget would be challenged in his next primary and "taken out" in the next election. While this intimidated most of the Republican members, the fact is that the few, brave and reasonable legislators who understood the importance of passing the budget and acknowledged that many compromises had been made to their ideology were all defeated in their primaries or literally harassed not to run for re-election. In my opinion, this was the beginning of the end of constructive politics as we know it in California. The message to the Republicans was clear and simple: You compromise, you're out.

As long as we require this ridiculous super-majority to pass a budget in the legislature, thus allowing the minority to overrule the majority will of the people, the tactics of the right-wing will prevail. For proof, just look at the havoc created in Washington by the Senate Republicans who are employing the 60- vote filibuster rules to destroy efforts made by the majority to implement change in our country that the overwhelming number of Americans supported in 2008.

Schwarzenegger has been a disaster, and a Governor Whitman will clearly be the same. She has got no experience with government, hasn't even bothered to vote for over twenty years and thinks the world will capitulate to her because of her money and her bullying tactics. She's wrong, but until we fix the mess in Sacramento, it won't really matter much.

Tax Cuts Are Theft

2010-08-09T17:13:00Z

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.

Conservatives like to say that taxes are theft. In fact it is tax cuts that are theft because they break a long-standing contract.

The American Social Contract: We, the People built our democracy and the empowerment and protections it bestows. We built the infrastructure, schools and all of the public structures, laws, courts, monetary system, etc. that enable enterprise to prosper. That prosperity is the bounty of our democracy and by contract it is supposed to be shared and reinvested. That is the contract. Our system enables some people to become wealthy but all of us are supposed to benefit from this system. Why else would We, the People have set up this system, if not for the benefit of We, the People?

The American Social Contract is supposed to work like this:

A beneficial cycle: We invest in infrastructure and public structures that create the conditions for enterprise to form and prosper. We prepare the ground for business to thrive. When enterprise prospers we share the bounty, with good wages and benefits for the people who work in the businesses and taxes that provide for the general welfare and for reinvestment in the infrastructure and public structures that keep the system going.

We fought hard to develop this system and it worked for us. We, the People fought and built our government to empower and protect us providing social services for the general welfare. We, through our government built up infrastructure and public structures like courts, laws, schools, roads, bridges. That investment creates the conditions that enable commerce to prosper - the bounty of democracy. In return we ask those who benefit most from the enterprise we enabled to share the return on our investment with all of us - through good wages, benefits and taxes.

But the "Reagan Revolution" broke the contract. Since Reagan the system is working like this:

Since the Reagan Revolution with its tax cuts for the rich, its anti-government policies, and its deregulation of the big corporations ourdemocracy is increasingly defunded (and that was the plan), infrastructure is crumbling, our schools are falling behind, factories and supply chains are being dismantled, those still at work are working longer hours for fewer benefits and falling wages, our pensions are gone, wealth and income are increasing concentrating at the very top, our country is declining.

This is the Reagan Revolution home to roost: the social contract is broken. Instead of providing good wages and benefits and paying taxes to provide for the general welfare and reinvestment in infrastructure and public structures, the bounty of our democracy is being diverted to a wealthy few.

We, the People built this country's prosperity and this built wealth. We reinvested that wealth, building the world's most competitive economy. Now a few people are gaming the system and breaking the formula, taking for themselves vast riches, leaving the rest of us to clean up the mess.

We must recognize and understand these tax cuts for what they are. They are a broken contract. These tax cuts for the wealthy are theft. And we must recognize the Reagan Revolution for what it has cost us. Our democracy has been corrupted and our political system has been captured. A wealthy few are taking all of the benefits of our efforts for themselves. The lack of investment in infrastructure, courts, schools and other public structures is making our country less competitive in the world. The Reagan Revolution is stealing our future.

Other posts in the Reagan Revolution Home To Roost series:

Reagan Revolution Home To Roost -- In Charts
Reagan Revolution Home To Roost: America Drowning In Debt
Reagan Revolution Home To Roost: America Is Crumbling
Finance, Mine, Oil & Debt Disasters: THIS Is Deregulation

Earth to California Voters: We have created a train wreck!

2010-07-19T23:14:13Z

The latest poll shows that Arnold Schwarzenegger now holds the embarassing distinction of having the same 22% favorability rate as Gray Davis had when Davis became the first Governor in modern-day California to be recalled by an angry electorate.

Of course the public is angry again and for good reason: we're at a 12.3% unemployment rate; we have one of the highest foreclosure rates in the country; the Republicans in the legislature continue to demand that we cut the taxes of fat-cat corporations and the well-heeled oil industry and yet demand more from hard-working Californians, while providing us with less.

We're looking at a billionaire who thinks she's Queen and thinks she's equipped to "govern" the state. This is the same person who failed to vote for two decades and has, during this campaign, done more flip-flops than Arnold can do push-ups.

We've got a $19.3 Billion deficit that can't be filled by getting rid of "fraud, waste and abuse" because there isn't enough "fraud waste and abuse" to fill a thimble of the state's deficit. E-Meg wants us to think that, because she presided over a very successful business we should elect her to run the state of California. But increasing profits isn't what a state government is supposed to do. The goal of business is profit. We all know that---and if not, just check out Goldman-Sachs which says by making all this money, it's doing "the lords work." The role of government is to provide for its people. If we can tighten our belts and give more services for the dollar, that's great, but the way to judge the success of government is by how well we educate our children, how well we protect our communities and how well we plan and build for the future.

There is no question that Queen Meg is not equipped or prepared to govern our state. That being said, the problem goes well beyond who we decide to have at the controls of the train. The problem is rather the train itself and the tracks upon which it rides

George Skelton observes in the L.A. Times that the problems we are facing don't totally fall at the feet of the governor---although there is plenty of blame to go around on that score. The problem is an obvious one: California's system of governance is a mess. It doesn't work because it is a hodgepodge of stops and starts that don't mesh, don't allow majority rule and don't really require that anyone take responsibility for what they're doing in Sacramento. Applying the train analogy, we've got old and different kinds of rails to ride upon that don't go in a straight line, aren't even the same and dead-end all along the route.

I'm no fan of Queen Meg, Meg Whitless, or whatever other cute and probably accurate nicknames are out there which describe her cluelessness and imperial notion of governance. She is clearly unqualified to try to govern the largest state in the nation. But even if she were qualified, had voted over the last 20plus years (which horrorfyingly she has not), the state is simply ungovernable in its present configuration. Period.

Those who have studied or have any experience with state government know that it has been immobilized by several initiatives. Each of them may have had, in their day, a well-intended purpose, but put together they create an alphabet soup of dysfunction. They bump into each other, force the train to stop and turn circles when the train should be moving forward.

What is interesting is that no one knows this better than Jerry Brown. Perhaps that is why he's speaking more in global concepts than popular but empty promises of cleaning up government or as our now very unpopular governor was accustomed to saying before he became such, "I'm going to blow up the boxes." Hmmmmm.

Let's be clear on what the problems are and not what the right-wing spin machines have so effectively, albeit dishonestly claimed to be the reasons for our state's deteriorating quality-of-life:

1- We have a revenue problem. It was created by so-called "free market" policies promoted by the Republicans and epitomized by the Bush Administration's deregulation of just about everything---from the banks and financial institutions (the Goldman-Sachs syndrome) to the de facto deregulation of the oil industry (thanks to MMS's cozy relationship with the oilies) to giving additional tax-breaks here in California to big monopolies that promised and delivered absolutely nothing in exchange. We have reduced taxes on the wealthiest among us and refused to create a more level-playing field for our young people who ask only the same opportunities that the prior generations had to work hard and live the California Dream.

2- We're both the most and least democratic state in the country. We require a 2/3 vote of the legislature to pass a budget and a 2/3 vote to increase taxes. No other state does this; no other state is chronically late in getting their fiscal house in order every year. At the same time, we have given the people greater access to direct democracy than most other states through the creation of the initiative and referendum process. (See number 4 below)

3- Term-limits means we expect the least-experienced people to run the most diverse and complex state in the country. We are running the 8th largest economy in the world with inexperienced, short-term leaders. Term limits has been a disaster for good government. Ask Dems and Reps alike (at least those Reps who care about government and making sure it works, whether they think it should come in Extra Large or Small). We foolishly think that we're punishing the politicians by limiting the length of time they can serve. In fact, what we're doing is short-changing ourselves.

4- Money, not the people, are controlling public policy. The unique system of direct democracy has given way to big businesses buying their way onto the ballot. Just ask why was there a constitutional amendment on the ballot which would have given PG&E greater monopolistic control than it already has in its service areas (which represent the majority of the state)?

Who are these people who are now challenging the bipartisan global warming measure that will open up California as the leader---in jobs and technology for creation of an alternative energy industry to lead the country and world away from dirty, dangerous fossil fuels? They are four major TEXAS-BASED OIL companies. It is clear that when Hiram Johnson proposed the initiative as a way to insure that the people would be able to trump the power of the railroads (that were controlling the legislature in the early 1900's), the last thing he dreamed would be that those same greed-driven, monopolistic entities would be taking control of the state yet again,buying their way onto the ballot and then spending millions to mislead the public as to their intentions.

Of course, adding to the corporate take-over of democracy, both in California and the nation is the outrageous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. In one fell swoop, this biased, "free-market" cabal has all but assured right-wing monopolies will control the future of elections and electoral politics for years to come.

All that being said, there is one thing that is clear: If we want to get California back on track, we certainly don't want the party of NO to be in charge. We've seen what they've done nationally---and what kind of pollution, dysfunction and economic destruction they bring when we give them the power to do so. Look no farther than the Gulf of Mexico and Wall Street for starters. The right-wing that has taken over a once moderate, but business-leaning party, hates government (unless they're running it) and doesn't care if they take the state or country down with them as long as they regain control. That's not democracy and that's not what we, the people, are entitled to receive.

We need to fix the system and thus the train tracks before we expect to turn this train around. Unless and until we do that, we're going to see our beloved California continue its journey into the abyss and wonder why it happened.

This crisis is well-beyond any individual candidate and any single election. We've got to wake up to the mess that has befallen the rules of government in California. We, the people, want and deserve good schools, good roads, clean air and water, safe streets and economic opportunity. Until we straighten out how we run this state, we're not going to get what we need for a brighter tomorrow. Time is running out.

No Rest for the Weary Electorate

2010-07-06T18:40:38Z

While California takes the summer off, the wealthy use their extraordinary wealth to undermine the state's future.

While grills all over California are still smoldering under the weight of July 4th hot dogs, burgers and maybe a veggie-burger or two, those with unlimited resources (and who most likely grilled steaks instead), continue their barrage on the senses of Golden State residents.

With all that money, there's no need to respect the notion that these are the "dog days" of summer, when those lucky enough to have jobs try to sneak in a restful vacation or two with their families and friends and those who are out-of-work try to find some, or if not at least find solace in the fact that summer tends to be slow in the work-place anyway. But for E-Meg and the big oil companies, this is no time to let the rest of us relax.

With four major Texas-based oil companies putting in the few millions necessary to qualify Prop. 23 on the ballot, we can expect a summer filled with more lies and misinformation about what AB 32, the law that will move us to develop an alternative energy economy, is going to do to the state. To the oilies, it represents a commitment to move from their dirty, fossil-based fuel driven economy to something more sustainable and protective of the environment (you can include the ocean in that, as we continue to watch in horror as the Gulf of Mexico absorbs millions of gallons of the dirty, toxic and deathly gunk every day).

Of course, what's not to like in that idea? Well, the claim (made without any justification or factual data to support it---but what else is new?) is that it will raise the price of oil and be a drag on our state's already suffering economy. You know, another "job-killer" bill.

For thinking people, this reasoning is pure nonsense. Fortunately, according to a new poll that came out today, most Californians reject this nonsense and realize forcing us to move to renewable energy resources could and would put California right in the middle of a changing, vibrant and profitable new energy economy. For more information on the report, check out Cal Buzz here.

And then there's E-Meg, the multi-billionaire who wants to buy the Governorship on her way to trying to buy the Presidency of the United States. Now, while I'm all for women aspiring and reaching the highest office in the land, (and I am, indeed), E-Meg has no experience and up until fairly recently no interest in government or its workings. But that's the least of it. For those of us who have been in both public service and private enterprise, there is one thing that is clear. One is analog and the other digital. You can't run business like and government and you can't run government like a business. Why? Because the purpose of business is profit. The purpose of government is to provide for the public good.

We saw that up close and personal with Ahnold. He came in as an "outsider" with a great story of financial success (even as a mediocre actor, but that's for another day). No one can argue that Meg has had enormous success as well (even though much of it is integrally linked to her relationship with Goldman Sachs). And no one can argue that she's put together an extraordinary political campaign machine--probably the best that $90 million (and counting every minute) can buy. She's got the sound-bites down, controls her press conferences with impressive precision and has well-choreographed ads up on all the right stations and programs, etc. She has attacked her opponent with great gusto and creativity----unfazed by the fact that most of her criticisms are totally distorted, if not downright lies. We know, however, that she will stop at nothing to make her case---just look at the way she ran to the far-right to beat Steve Poizner in the primary.

It will be interesting to see her race back to the "middle", which she is already trying to do with the Latino community. She's spent a small fortune so far buying time on Spanish-speaking media trying to convince this population that she's supportive, even though the hated former-governor Pete Wilson (Mr. Prop.118) was (and still is?) her campaign chairman.

Her politics aside, the problem is: With all her money and clever advertising and posturing, she doesn't have a clue how to GOVERN. We do know she knows how to bully---as illustrated by a small incident that only cost her a couple hundred-thousand dollars. Just chump change for her. Just wait til she's in Sacramento if she wins. What's she going to do--challenge the legislature to a shoving match? Challenge the cities and counties and public safety groups and public interest groups to a duel?

Governing calls for compromise, for respect for the other branches of government. It calls for thoughtful discussion. This is not a monarchy where the richest get to tell everyone else what to do-and how to think. No sound-bite in the world is going to suddenly move everything in your direction in a democracy. Willing it to be doesn't make it happen. Governing is an intricate, subtle, and wisdom driven calling. If you don't have the skills and experience, you're going to flop. And the last thing this state needs at this point is another inexperienced, arrogant, unprepared rich person who has no idea what they're doing. Just look at the present governor if you have any doubts.

November Ballot Initiatives Get Numbers

2010-06-29T01:57:15Z

Bebra Bowen, California Secretary of State, issued a press release today announcing the assigned numbers for the November 2010 ballot initiatives.

The initiatives are:

Proposition 18 Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010.

Proposition 19 Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to be Regulated and Taxed.

Proposition 20 Redistricting of Congressional Districts.

Proposition 21 Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs and Grants Free Admission to All State Parks to Surcharged Vehicles.

Proposition 22 Prohibits the State from Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services.

Proposition 24 Repeals Recent Legislation that Would Allow Businesses to Carry Back Losses, Share Tax Credits, and Use a Sales-Based Income Calculation to Lower Taxable Income.

Proposition 25 Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes.

Proposition 27 Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives.

Speak Out California will be analyzing these initiatives, tracing the funding of proponents and opponents, and reporting to you between now and November.

The entire press release in full is below the fold:

]]> Secretary of State Debra Bowen Assigns Numbers to Ballot Measures Certified for November 2 General Election, Invites Ballot Arguments

SACRAMENTO - Secretary of State Debra Bowen today announced the proposition numbers for the 10 measures set to appear on the November 2, 2010, Statewide General Election ballot and invited interested Californians to submit arguments to be included in the Secretary's Official Voter Information Guide. The guide, also known as the ballot pamphlet, is mailed to every voting household in California.

The 10 propositions on the November 2 ballot are listed below, along with the Legislative Counsel's digest or the Attorney General's title and summary.

Proposition 18 SBx7 2. Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010. (Chapter 3, 2009). (1) Under existing law, various measures have been approved by the voters to provide funds for water supply and protection facilities and programs. This bill would enact the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $11,140,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a safe drinking water and water supply reliability program. The bill would provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters at the November 2, 2010, statewide general election. (2) This bill would take effect only if SB 1 of the 2009-10 7th Extraordinary Session is enacted and becomes effective. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Proposition 19 Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute. Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products. (09-0024.)

Proposition 20 Redistricting of Congressional Districts. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Removes elected representatives from the process of establishing congressional districts and transfers that authority to the recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission. Redistricting commission is comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four voters registered with neither party. Requires that any newly-proposed district lines be approved by nine commissioners including three Democrats, three Republicans, and three from neither party. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably no significant change in state redistricting costs. (09-0027.)

Proposition 21 Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs and Grants Free Admission to All State Parks to Surcharged Vehicles. Initiative Statute. Establishes an $18 annual state vehicle license surcharge and grants free admission to all state parks to surcharged vehicles. Requires deposit of surcharge revenue in a new trust fund. Requires that trust funds be used solely to operate, maintain and repair the state park system, and to protect wildlife and natural resources. Exempts commercial vehicles, trailers and trailer coaches from the surcharge. Requires annual independent audit and review by citizen's oversight committee. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state revenues of about $500 million annually from the imposition of a surcharge on the VLF to be used mainly to fund state parks and wildlife conservation programs. Potential state savings of up to approximately $200 million annually to the extent that the VLF surcharge revenues were used to reduce support from the General Fund and other special funds for parks and wildlife conservation programs. Reduction of about $50 million annually in state and local revenues from state park day-use fees. These revenue losses could potentially be offset by increases in other types of state park user fees and revenues. (09-0072.)

Proposition 22 Prohibits the State from Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Prohibits the State from shifting, taking, borrowing, or restricting the use of tax revenues dedicated by law to fund local government services, community redevelopment projects, or transportation projects and services. Prohibits the State from delaying the distribution of tax revenues for these purposes even when the Governor deems it necessary due to a severe state fiscal hardship. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Significant constraints on state authority over city, county, special district, and redevelopment agency funds. As a result, higher and more stable local resources, potentially affecting billions of dollars in some years. Commensurate reductions in state resources, resulting in major decreases in state spending and/or increases in state revenues. (09-0063.)

Proposition 23 Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major Polluters to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions that Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year. Initiative Statute. Suspends State laws requiring reduced greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. Requires State to abandon implementation of comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, until suspension is lifted. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential positive, short-term impacts on state and local government revenues from the suspension of regulatory activity, with uncertain longer-run impacts. Potential foregone state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government, by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations. (09-0104.)

Proposition 24 Repeals Recent Legislation that Would Allow Businesses to Carry Back Losses, Share Tax Credits, and Use a Sales-Based Income Calculation to Lower Taxable Income. Initiative Statute. Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to shift operating losses to prior tax years and that would extend the period permitted to shift operating losses to future tax years. Repeals recent legislation that would allow corporations to share tax credits with affiliated corporations. Repeals recent legislation that would allow multistate businesses to use a sales-based income calculation, rather than a combination property-, payroll- and sales-based income calculation. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Annual state revenue increase from business taxes of about $1.7 billion when fully phased in, beginning in 2011-12. (09-0058.)

Proposition 25 Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Changes the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget from two-thirds to a simple majority. Provides that if the Legislature fails to pass a budget bill by June 15, all members of the Legislature will permanently forfeit any reimbursement for salary and expenses for every day until the day the Legislature passes a budget bill. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown changes in the content of the state budget from lowering the legislative vote requirement for passage. Fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future Legislatures. Minor reduction in state costs related to compensation of legislators in years when the budget bill is passed after June 15. (09-0057.)

Proposition 26 Increases Legislative Vote Requirement to Two-Thirds for State Levies and Charges. Imposes Additional Requirement for Voters to Approve Local Levies and Charges with Limited Exceptions. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Increases legislative vote requirement to two-thirds for state levies and charges, with limited exceptions, and for certain taxes currently subject to majority vote. Changes Constitution to require voters to approve, either by two-thirds or majority, local levies and charges with limited exceptions. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potentially major decrease in state and local revenues and spending, depending upon future actions of the Legislature, local governing bodies, and local voters. (09-0093.)

Proposition 27 Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Eliminates 14-member redistricting commission selected from applicant pool picked by government auditors. Consolidates authority for establishing state Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries with elected state representatives responsible

for drawing congressional districts. Reduces budget, and imposes limit on amount Legislature may spend, for redistricting. Provides that voters will have the authority to reject district boundary maps approved by the Legislature. Requires populations of all districts for the same office to be exactly the same. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Likely decrease in state redistricting costs totaling several million dollars every ten years. (09-0107.)

People may submit arguments for or against any measure. Arguments selected for the Official Voter Information Guide will be on public display between July 20 and August 9. If multiple arguments are submitted for one proposition, state law gives first priority to arguments written by legislators in the case of a legislative measure, and first priority to arguments written by the proponents of an initiative in the case of an initiative measure. Subsequent priority for all measures goes to bona fide citizen associations and then to individuals. No more than three signers are allowed to appear with an argument or rebuttal to an argument

Ballot arguments cannot exceed 500 words and rebuttals to ballot arguments cannot exceed 250 words. All submissions should be typed and double-spaced. They may be hand-delivered to the Secretary of State's Elections Division at 1500 11th Street, 5th Floor, Sacramento, California 95814 or faxed to (916) 653-3214. If faxed, the original copies must be received within 72 hours. The deadline to submit ballot arguments is July 6 by 5:00 p.m. and the deadline to submit rebuttals to the ballot arguments is July 15 by 5:00 p.m.

For more information on ballot measures and the November 2 election, go to www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2010-elections.

To view past state voter guides, go to www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/voter-information-guides.htm.

A Thought for Progressives

2010-06-13T17:32:32Z

Guest post by Edward Bear

When a former U.S. president said, "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem," he trampled on the idea that government had the ability and the duty to be a source of some very profound solutions as well. Child Labor Laws, Food and Drug Standards, and on and on.

With that statement, Reagan elevated division and selfishness to new heights and, perhaps unknowingly, declared war on what the essence of America is.

To begin with, government can be as sound and as solid as the Constitution it is built upon. Until the time of Reagan, the United States was a nation that kept improving itself, and the lives of its citizens, as it went along.

When Governor Reagan left the state of California behind to seek national office, he left one of the best public school systems in the world, from kindergarten through graduate schools, on a path of diminished support that lead to a deeply diminished and deteriorating system. It is now below the national average in per-pupil expenditure. The National Education Association ranks California 29th in the nation in support of its students, and some estimates tell us that it is even lower than that. (Some legacy!)

By starving and shrinking government, as Reagan supporters like to proselytize, we are starving ourselves and the health of our nation.

We need a new transformation, where free citizens determine the policies and future of the nation, not representatives within government who are bought and paid for by lobbyists to do the bidding of business. There are sometimes as many as six to eight lobbyists for every member of Congress.

Government should NOT be run like a business! Business should be run like a business. Business is only concerned with maximizing market share and profits.

Government should be run with the view that it is the servant of the people and there to do good. These days, that almost sounds quaint, doesn't it?

Government isn't innately flawed as Mr. Reagan liked to infer when he made fun of it. Government is as honest and as effective as the people who inhabit it.

For starters, LIARS should be banned from all government jobs, elected and otherwise. How many representatives and senators do you think that would still leave in office? 30%? 40%? 50%? When you give up on government, you give up on yourself! It's not a complicated equation: Government is as good as the people in it!! Since when has honesty been "optional" for government work?

Ask yourself: Do you believe that most people are dishonest and incompetent? What kind of 'view of existence' is that? Sad and cynical, I'd say. I believe that it's just a projection of the person saying it, and I sure don't want those people in government, much less running it at the top!

The United States was born as a place of Hope and Opportunity. It started out giving that hope and opportunity only to white males with European background. But it/we have kept amending ourselves and improving this nation in an ongoing quest to provide "Liberty and Justice for All." Those are the key concepts: Liberty and Justice for All.

If you agree with that notion, I recommend you transform yourself into a Proud Progressive and carry these thoughts proudly. Government isn't "a beast that should be starved!" It is Our Resource and the basis of our "Commons" and it should be nourished and guided into being an instrument for good and for justice.

You probably know that the current disparity between the richest and poorest Americans is greater now than it has ever been in our history. Some economic observers call what our financial system has become "Casino Capitalism." The results of the policies of the last 30 years is that the American Middle Class is being drained dry. That is counter to Hope and Opportunity, and directly undermines Liberty and Justice for All.

So be a Proud Progressive! Take Part. Speak Out. TRANSFORM OUR GOVERNMENT. Transform our Nation and our Future while we still can.

Edward Bear is a long-time progressive activist, radio personality and talk-show producer.
He currently produces the progressive radio show Hannah-Beth On-The-Air.

VOTE!

2010-06-08T15:07:03Z

Dear Friends;

As we come down to the wire on tomorrow's June 8, 2010 election, we've seen enormous amounts of money being spent on ballot measures that will have a significant impact on the future of our state.

With a wide-range of issues at stake-- from the conducting of elections to how we get our electricity, we want to make sure you have the real, unbought, objective analysis and suggestions of a progressive point-of-view on these issues.
_____________________________________________________

For those who live in Santa Barbara County, and in Carpinteria, specifically, this election will determine whether another oil company is going to be able to get around existing laws for its own financial benefit and at the expense of the quality of life and protection of our coast. Measure J is a bald-faced attempt by VENECO oil company to circumvent existing environmental and land-use laws to allow drilling for as long as the company wants and in any manner they want. Hard-to-believe, but true.

But they're not alone, there are two other initiatives that are also for the benefit of multi-million dollar corporations---again at the expense of you and me, the public. Prop. 16 (the PG&E monopoly and anti-green energy initiative) has been purchased by PG&E for over $40 Million. We must beat that back and tell PG&E that they can't subvert democracy, energy independence and consumer protections.

The same is true for Prop. 17--which Mercury Insurance has funded, almost as exclusively as PG&E has done with 16), in order for it to be able to make huge profits,.

The single element that is so interesting is that these measures claim to be exactly the opposite of what they are. WE NEED TO SAY NO TO 16 and 17.

Prop. 14, the "open primary" initiative forces candidates to raise huge amounts of cash to campaign to all of the voters in the state. This potentially seals the deal that campaigns require wealthy candidates or corporate sponsorship.

On the other hand, Prop. 15, "public financing," helps candidates from all walks of life run a campaign that can reach the public without depending on funding from wealthy or corporate interests.

So I want to make sure you're aware of this year's Speak Out California Voter Guide which covers the five statewide initiatives on the ballot.

In the guide please note the various recommendations from seven of the state's leading non-partisan and progressive groups, in addition to the recommendations of Speak Out California, which are:

Proposition 13, the Earthquake Retrofit Property Tax initiative: No position.

Proposition 14, the "Kill the Parties Initiative": NO

Proposition 15, the "End Corporate Financed Elections Initiative": YES

Proposition 16, the "PGE Initiative": NO

Proposition 17, the "Mercury Insurance Initiative": NO

Thank you ,

Hannah-Beth Jackson

"Government Doesn't Have The Resources To Stop It"

2010-05-28T15:11:45Z

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.

People want the President to exert leadership to turn things around.

The oil leak. Unemployment. Credit card scams. Foreclosures. Predatory corporations. Environmental destruction. Global warming. Roads and bridges crumbling. Incomes stagnant. Schools getting worse. Companies moving overseas. Problem after problem.

People want to know, "Why doesn't the government push BP aside and take over?" The answer is, "Government doesn't have the resources to stop it."

People want to know why the government can't do more to help unemployed people, help with health care, help provide good educations, help with college, maintain the infrastructure, and all the other things that government does.

The answer, these days, is always, "Government doesn't have the resources." And that, in a nutshell, was exactly the plan.

We, the People no longer have the resources to solve our problems. We now must depend on and defer to the corporations and the wealthy few to make the important decisions and get things done instead of being able to decide and do on our own.

This is the legacy of 30 years of conservatism. They called it "starving the beast." Reagan called it "cutting their allowance." President Bush, told that his policies had turned the country back to massive deficits, said this was, "Incredibly positive news'' because it will create "a fiscal straitjacket for Congress." He came into office with a $236 billion surplus. His last budget left us with a $1.4 trillion deficit. "Incredibly positive news."

They disemboweled the regulatory agencies. They "privatized" government functions and resources, letting a well-connected few profit at the expense of the rest of us.

The Reagan deficit plan was right there for everyone to see:

Step 1: Cut taxes to "cut the allowance" of government so that it can't function on the side of We, the People. Intentionally force the government into greater and greater debt.

Step 2: Use the debt as a reason to cut the things government does for We, the People. When the resulting deficits pile up scare people that the government is "going bankrupt" so they'll let you sell off the people's assets and "privatize" the functions of government. Of course, insist that putting taxes back where they were will "harm the economy."

Step 3: Blame liberals for the disastrous effects of spending cutbacks.

And here we are. Every time you hear someone say that we have to fight the deficit instead of getting things done that We, the People need done you are witnessing The Plan in action.

And now, government doesn't have the resources to stop it.

Deceptive Mailer: Vote For Greener California

2010-05-21T22:56:14Z

There is a mailer reaching California's voters titled Vote for a Greener California, with a label that says "Californians Vote Green."

This mailer is deceptive. It says to vote for Proposition 16, the "PGE Initiative." This is a paid endorsement, and is designed to trick people into thinking there is an environmental reason to vote for a proposition that actually keeps people from being able to buy green energy. The California Secretary of State's website shows that PGE paid $40,000 to be part of this mailer: (While you're there, look how much they paid for "Petition Circulating.")

03/11/2010 CALIFORNIANS VOTE GREEN SLATE MAILER PAYMENT $40,000.00

Please do not be fooled by this mailer. Speak Out California recommends voting no on Proposition 16. It is a proposition that enforces PG&E's monopoly if it passes.

Others have noticed this mailer. At Calitics see Warning: Fraudulent(?) Mailer, and Prop. 16, Slate Mailers, and Voting 'Green' at Infospigot.

Speak Out California June 2010 Endorsements And Voter Guide

2010-05-12T20:40:17Z

Speak Out California's positions on the ballot propositions for the June election are as follows:

Proposition 13, the Earthquake Retrofit Property Tax initiative: No position.

Proposition 14, the "Kill the Parties Initiative": NO

Proposition 15, the "End Corporate Financed Elections Initiative": YES

Proposition 16, the "PGE Initiative": NO

Proposition 17, the "Mercury Insurance Initiative": NO

Voter Guide:

In keeping with Speak Out California's long-standing tradition, we're again providing progressive voters with a one-stop guide to the upcoming election. We believe it is important to cut through all the hype and excessive corporate money being spent to mislead and thus persuade our voters on what each of these measures does or doesn't do.

Watch, in particular, for Props 16 and 17 -- they are each funded by billion-dollar corporations to pad their own pockets, to the detriment of the people. Prop 16 is solely financed by PG&E to keep competition, especially alternative energy companies, from challenging their monopoly of local energy service. They call it "the right to vote" but it's anything but.

Proposition 17 is a ploy by Mercury Insurance to be able to raise rates. They've single-handedly funded this measure -- from signature gathering to commercials claiming they're going to lower rates, when what they are really going to do is raise them on the least able to pay, such as people who miss a payment.

Feel free to share the information with your friends. OR better yet, please click here to join us and continue receiving progressive news and analysis from a reliable and independent source.

The Speak Out California June 2010 primary election printable voter guide can be downloaded by clicking this link.

Vote Progressive June 8!

(Note, click the name of each org at the top of the chart below to go to their endorsement page.)

California Needs Fairness Doctrine

2010-05-07T21:03:10Z

Roy Ulrich of the California Tax Reform Association and Richard Holober of the Consumer Federation of California have written an important op-ed on the need to restore the Fairness Doctrine. They argue that the unlimited funds that big corporations can throw at California's ballot initiatives -- props 16 (the "PGE Initiative") and 17 (the "Mercury Insurance Initiative") in particular -- are stifling the ability of opponents of these measures to be heard. From their op-ed,titled California Needs The FCC To Restore The Fairness Doctrine,

Neither was able to get the legislature to do their bidding, so they hired political consultants, paid millions of dollars to gather signatures, and proceeded to put these self-serving measures on the ballot. Now, they are flooding the airwaves with well-crafted bunk. ... a core principle of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech is the ventilation and airing of opposing points of view. There can be little doubt that the effect of broadcasters' refusal to provide under-funded campaigns free response time since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine for ballot measures in 1992 has been to increase the amount of one-sided information voters receive before entering the voting booth. This is hardly the kind of open and free debate the framers of our Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.

It is time to restore the Fairness Doctrine so the non-wealthy can reach the public too.

14 Ways A 90 Percent Top Tax Rate Fixes Our Economy And Our Country

2010-04-29T15:55:03Z

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.
A return to Eisenhower-era 90% top tax rates helps fix our economy in several ways:
1) It makes it take longer to end up with a fortune. In fact it makes peoplebuild and earn a fortune, instead of shooting for quick windfalls. This forces long-term thinking and planning instead of short-term scheming and scamming. If grabbing everything in sight and running doesn't pay off anymore, you have to change your strategy.
2) It gets rid of the quick-buck-scheme business model. Making people take a longer-term approach to building rather than grabbing a fortune will help reattach businesses to communities by reinforcing interdependence between businesses and their surrounding communities. When it takes owners and executives years to build up a fortune they need solid companies that are around for a long time. This requires the surrounding public infrastructure of roads, schools, police, fire, courts, etc., to be in good shape to provide long-term support for the enterprise. You also want your company to build a solid reputation for serving its customers rather than cheapening the product, pursuing quick-buck scams, cutting customer service, etc. The current Wall Street/private equity business model oflooting companies, leaving behind an empty shell, unemployed workers anda surrounding community in devastation will no longer be a viable business strategy.
]]>

3) It will lower the executive crime rate. Today it is possible to run scams that let you pocket huge sums in a single year, and leave behind the mess you make for others to fix. A high top tax rate removes the incentive to lie, cheat and steal to grab every buck you can as fast as you can. This reduces the temptation to be dishonest. If you aren't going to keep the whole dime, why risk doing the time? When excessive, massive paydays are possible, it opens the door to overwhelming greed and a resulting compromising of principles. Sort of the definition of the decades since Reagan, no?

4) Combined with badly-needed cuts in military spending - we spend more on military than all other countries on earth combined - taxing the wealthy ends budget deficits and starts paying off the massive Reagan/Bush debt. This reduces and ultimately eliminates the share of the budget that goes to pay interest. The United States now has to pay a huge share of its budget just to cover the interest on the borrowing that tax cuts made necessary. Paying off the debt would remove this huge drag on our economy. (Never mind that Alan Greenspan famously called for Bush's tax cuts by saying it was dangerous to pay off our debt - now that same Alan Greenspan says we need to cut benefits to retired people because our debt is so high.)

5) It will bring in revenue to pay for improvements in infrastructure that then cause the economy to explode for the better. Investing in modern transit systems, smart grid, energy efficiency, fast internet and other improvements leads to a huge payoff of increased prosperity for all of us - especially for those at the top income levels. Infrastructure improvement and maintenance is the "seed corn" of economic growth. We have been eating that seed corn since Reagan's tax cuts.

6) (related) It will bring in revenue for improving our schools, colleges and universities. Not only will this help our competitiveness, but it will improve each of our lives and level of happiness.

7) It will boost economic growth and rebuild a strong middle class. A consumption-based economy does better when consumers have more to spend. Perhaps not cause-and-effect, though I suspect so, but after FDR raised top tax rates the economy grew dramatically. The 90% top rate years under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and the beginning of the Kennedy years were the years when we built the middle class. And remember, after Clinton raised top tax rates only modestly the economy grew. How's it been doing since Bush's tax cuts for the rich?

A look at economic growth rate charts shows a steady decline in the decades since top tax rates began to fall. Is it just a coincidence that the economy booms after tax increases that provide revenue to invest in new "seed corn," and that the economy declines as we reduce taxes?

8) It is good for business because increased revenue will enable increasing government spending for the benefit of regular people. This recirculates money into the economy more productively than the current system of putting huge fortunes into a few hands and hoping for a resulting consumption of high-end goods. The wealthy can only spend so muc h so more disposable income in the hands of regular people is good for business. Any business owner will tell you they want customers more than they want tax cuts. (Let's wait until the top one percent no longer owns most of everything before we talk about whether there is an effect on investment.)

9) It protects working people. Exploiting workers with long hours, low pay or lack of pay increases, lack of worker protections, firing union organizers and schemes that call employees "contractors" will no longer pay off as it does today. The era of extreme union-busting came in at the same time as the tax cuts.

Krugman:

The chart shows the share of the richest 10 percent of the American population in total income - an indicator that closely tracks many other measures of economic inequality - over the past 90 years, as estimated by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.

10) It redistributes income and wealth in ways that help all of us. Currently a few people receive most of the income and own most of everything. A very high top tax rate reduces this concentration of wealth.

11) It fights the political instability that results from concentration of wealth. Great inequality in a society and the resulting loss of opportunity results in political instability that can lead to extreme ideologies, rebellion, etc. We are seeing all the signs of a resurgence of these problems today.

12) It will help rebuild our sense of democracy and belief in equality. As we have seen and are seeing, when too much is in the hands of too few, they have too much power and influence and use it to get even more.

13) It will strengthen the government that We, the People have worked hard to build, and strengthen its ability to enforce the laws and regulations that protect all of us and the resources we hold in common. It will increase its ability to provide all of us equally with the benefits of our joint efforts and our economy.

14) Finally, for good measure, increasing top tax rates will cause those affected to work harder to make up the difference. The Ayn Randians claim the very rich are the "producers" and all the rest of us are just parasites and slackers who feed off their "work." So it will be very good for our economy to get them working harder by taxing them at 90%! You may have heard about those 25 hedge fund managers who brought in an average of $1 billion each last year - an amount that would have paid for 658,000 teachers -- while the rest of the country suffered through a terrible economy. If we had a top tax rate of 90% they would "only" take home $100 million or so each - in a single year. And we could have 658,000 more teachers. So it's a win-win.

Taxes are how we all pitch in to enjoy the benefits and protections of modern society. Those benefits and protections are what enable people to become wealthy, and we ask that they give some back so others can prosper as well.

Tranquillon Ridge and Logic

2010-04-27T17:49:45Z

I'm reading Robert Cruickshank's post at Calitics, titled, What the Louisiana Oil Spill Tells Us About Tranquillon Ridge. Summarizing, another oil-spill tragedy is unfolding in the Gulf because of offshore drilling and "offshore oil drilling presents an inherent and ongoing risk to the environment and the economy." He concludes,

Approving the Tranquillon Ridge project means we are again running a significant risk of a major and devastating oil spill striking what is one of the most unspoiled parts of the California coastline (the remote west-facing beaches of Santa Barbara County).
If a paragon of new offshore drilling technology can fail this catastrophically, it should cause Californians to seriously reconsider whether allowing new drilling off our coast is worth the considerable risk. As our oceans are already facing the stress of pollution, overfishing, and global warming, offshore drilling seems like the last thing we would want to do to our oceans, our beaches, our wildlife, and our economy.

I think this is an emotional reaction, not a logical reaction. My understanding is that the Tranquillon Ridge deal is not "allowing drilling off our coast." Drilling is already occurring off the coast, and we all hate it.

But this deal does not set up any new platforms, drilling rigs, etc. It allows PXP to drill at an angle from existing platforms, but in exchange it sets up a date when they stop drilling, dismantle the platforms, and go away.

Without the deal they can stay.

There is a concern that they won't honor the deal. Fair enough. So let's say that, seeing as how they are in the oil business, there is perhaps a 99% chance that they will try to wiggle out of the deal. That still leaves a 1% chance that they will honor the deal, stop drilling, dismantle the platforms, and go away.

Even a 1% chance that they will honor the deal leaves us all better off than we are today. Take the deal.

Disclaimer - Hannah-Beth Jackson, who founded Speak Out California, is working with EDC on the Tranquillon Ridge project. I am currently a volunteer with Speak Out California and the associated Institute for the Renewal of the California Dream. While I'm not paid my association with HBJ might influence my views.

Prop 16 - A Monopoly Wants To Stay That Way

2010-04-20T18:15:00Z

Proposition 16 is being sold -- and sold, and sold, and sold -- as a "right to vote." The Prop 16 website makes it sound so reasonable,

"It requires voter approval before local governments can spend public money or incur public debt to get into the electricity business."

So reasonable! But that isn't really what Prop 16 does. Proposition 16 is entirely financed with million of dollars from one company - PG&E - and it is intended to perpetuate their monopoly.

Here is the background: Currently municipalities can choose to form Community Choice Aggregation Projects that let communities buy power for their citizens, instead of using PGE as an intermediary. The result is that people can buy power at a lower cost, and can choose to buy a mix with more renewable energy. PGE, of course, doesn't like that.

Prop 16 takes away a community's right to choose to buy their own power and imposes a 2/3 vote requirement. A community can usually gather a majority to make such decisions but a 2/3 requirement means that PG&E can swoop in and spend some money to get a minority to oppose such a decision, and kill it.

California already has a 2/3 requirement to pass a budget, and we know how that is working. Democracy is suppressed and budgets can't pass.

We know monopolies don't work in our society. While we're trying to create competition to encourage the development of clean, renewable energy sources, PG&E is taking your rate-payer dollars to try to squelch that effort. PG&E wants to stay a monopoly, continue to use dirty fuels which cause climate change and keep the competition out. That's not very democratic now, is it?

We need to say no to big corporations that use their money (rate/taxpayer in this case, actually) to bully us with phony claims that really serve to perpetuate fat payouts to executives while undermining consumer choice.

Let's not be deceived. Spread the word that Prop 16 is about protecting corporate fat-cats, not you and me, not democracy, not fair competition.