The Final Six Demands

Sorry to do this to you all as I know everyone is pretty damn tired of the election by now. I’m sure you feel overwhelmed with the bombardment of last minute advertising on all of the measures on the November ballot. Aren’t you glad we’re not in a swing state for president having to be hit every two minutes with an ad tearing down one or the other candidates? I’ll post my comments on the presidential election tomorrow or, if the mood doesn’t strike me, I could post on Tuesday or Wednesday as I am sure my position is well known by my readers and passersby.

But, as promised, what follows are my thoughts on the remaining six ballot measures and, if only I could vote, which way I would cast my ballot. Now, see that line in the photo, go get in it and do your duty.

Proposition 7: RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
This initiative is sponsored by Peter Sperling, the son of the founder of University of Phoenix and a more frequent gadfly in California politics. He has donated more than $7.5 million for the Yes side of this initiative while PG&E and Southern California Edison have spent more than $28 million to oppose. Sperling may have his heart in the right place, but the measure is flawed in a few areas. First, it requires more bond money; $5 billion ($10 billion more in debt obligation). With a state already reeling in bond debt, why add more? Second, it is far too aggressive in its requirements to have 50% of energy produced in the state to be renewable by 2025 (and 20 percent by 2010). Most energy observers believe this is impossible and the measure will impose stiff penalties (along with huge development costs) on the state’s utilities that will be passed on to consumers in the form of rate hikes. Third, it can only be changed if agreed by two-thirds of the Legislature, and with energy policy in constant flux these days, Californians and the Legislature need more flexibility to change what is likely a flawed law. Finally, it is supported by Tom Hayden and anything supported by him has a certain odor about it. Laz urges a No vote on Prop. 7.

Proposition 8: ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
I have a tough time getting too worked up about this entire issue because I just can’t seem to figure out why there is such a fuss with opponents of same sex marriage. It is almost too easy to use the line that gays and lesbians should be able to marry so they can be as miserable as the rest of us, but, really, how would people in committed and loving relationships getting married, regardless of their orientation, hurt the notion of “traditional” marriage? Opponents believe that marriages between same-sex couples would serve as a bad moral message. However, there are many straight couples who divorce regularly (a bad message), who cheat on their spouse regularly (a bad message), who live together while not married (I think a good message, but opponents wouldn’t think so), or people who continue to stay in loveless marriages (a terrible message). If gays and lesbians want to make the ultimate commitment and get married, more power to them. You’d think opponents would be happy that gays and lesbians would stop “living in sin.” I, along with divorce attorneys throughout the state looking to increase their business, urge a No vote on Prop. 8. However, I do have bone to pick with the gay and lesbian community (do I really have to include “transgender” to be cool?): Give us back the rainbow as your symbol. I can’t believe you stole refracted light from us.

Proposition 9: CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
I have a good friend who had the guts to stare down the murderer of her brother and give a powerful speech to deny him early parole. Everyone in the penal system told her she was wasting her time, but her impassioned plea to the parole board kept the killer locked up for at least another 10 years. She did this not only for her brother, but also because she knew this killer wasn’t the least bit reformed and would likely harm someone else. Prop. 9 gives empowerment to the family members of victims of violent crimes in California by letting them know when parole hearings are scheduled, when criminals will be released from prison and even giving family members needed protection if and when these violent animals are out of prison on bail. There are some holes in the California justice system that favor criminals over crime victims and this just levels the playing field. Laz demands a Yes vote on Prop. 9.

Proposition 10: ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY. BONDS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
I have difficulty with this measure. For one, is it another $5 billion in bond – or, remember, at least $10 billion in state obligations before it is paid back. The money is to go toward the production and use of alternative fuels and, ostensibly, have us less reliant on foreign oil. The initiative has been bought and paid for by T. Boone Pickens, a Texas oilman whose net worth is $2.7 billion – or at least it used to be. While by all appearances Pickens believes this is the best thing for future energy consumption, I am a bit uncomfortable supporting his idea when he is asking for the California taxpayers to entrust him with $10 billion on the hunch he’s right. Pickens is a smart man and he may have the right idea, I’d just rather see him put up his own money and fund alternative sources himself. If Californians flock to his ideas, he’ll be worth billions more. If the idea is good enough for the taxpayers, then certainly it is good enough for private investors. While it appears there are good intentions here, Laz urges a No vote on Prop. 10.

Proposition 11. REDISTRICTING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
I have worked on similar measures in California at least five times and all five failed because they never got bipartisan support. In the past, it had always been republicans trying to amend the way legislative districts get drawn up to keep the democrats from creating so many safe seats for their incumbents. This measure finally has bipartisan support and, while the change offered may change nothing at all, it deserves your vote. There has always been a wolf-guarding-the-henhouse problem with legislators drawing up their own districts. It has been too easy for the party in charge to draw district lines in such a way that it creates a permanent majority. With so many safe seats drawn up to protect incumbency, it has made elections a farce and requiring voters to only have the choice of candidates handpicked by the party’s hierarchy. Prop. 11 will create a 14-member commission to draw legislative district boundaries and let’s hope they can do a better job. Laz says Yes to 11.

Proposition 12. VETERANS’ BOND ACT OF 2008.
Like policemen and firemen, it’s difficult to say no to veterans, but I am saying No to this bond measure. The $900 million in bond money (so $1.8 billion) is to go to veterans so they can buy farms and homes. I respect veterans’ service to our country, but can’t see why we should single them out over others. There are many people who serve their country (police and fire workers included), so it strikes me as unfair that one group would get money from the taxpayers to buy what all the rest of us are struggling to keep, thanks in no small measure to the amount of taxes we pay. The government shouldn’t be segmenting the population and letting one group get something that no other group gets. I think that’s called state-sponsored bias. Laz is telling you to vote No on Prop. 12.
So that’s it for now folks. Go figure out where your polling place is, stand in line and vote and get your “I Voted” sticker. You’ll feel better and I will rest easy that you will be voting against me and saddling me with bad laws. Thanks a lot.