Barbara Boxers Recommendations on the California Propositions

[IChing]

Dear (iching), from my e-mail

Next Tuesday, Californians will head to the polls to vote in a special election organized by Governor Schwarzenegger and his right-wing allies. It's critical that we stand up and be counted on these important issues.

So I wanted to take just a moment to write to you since many of you have asked me how I plan to vote.

Please join me in voting NO on 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, and 78, and YES on 79.

Here's why:

VOTE NO on Proposition 73

Proposition 73 is just the latest attempt by right-wing conservatives to take away a woman's right to choose. This dangerous measure would jeopardize the health of our teenagers, when we should instead be focusing our efforts on preventing teen pregnancy. Prop. 73 unwisely tries to legislate family communication and unrealistically expects teenagers to navigate through a cumbersome and confusing judicial process.

As the San Francisco Chronicle said in their editorial opposing Prop. 73, "The way to reduce abortion is not a law that requires frightened young women to either face a judge or the wrath of their parents. It's about increasing communication -- about sex, about choices, about consequences -- that prevents an accidental pregnancy in the first place." Vote NO on 73.

VOTE NO on Proposition 74

Proposition 74 is an effort to divert attention from the real problems facing California's public schools by turning teachers into scapegoats. The initiative does nothing to improve California's public schools -- and could actually harm them by making it harder to recruit good teachers.

Schools in California can already dismiss teachers found to be deficient during their first two years of service without a hearing. In fact, every local school has a system in place to deal with struggling teachers. At a time when we should be encouraging people to choose a career in teaching, Prop. 74 will hurt those recruitment efforts by not affording due process to those in the teaching profession who do so much for California's children. Vote NO on 74.

VOTE NO on Proposition 75

Prop. 75 targets teachers, nurses, firefighters and police officers with new political restrictions designed to weaken their ability to advocate for better schools, patient care, and public safety. That's why campaign watchdogs like the League of Women Voters of California oppose Prop. 75. Corporations already outspend unions on politics 24-1, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Yet the governor's corporate campaign contributors put Prop. 75 on the ballot to increase their grip on our government, and make it easier for the governor to pass his harmful agenda. Vote NO on 75.

VOTE NO on Proposition 76

Proposition 76 is an attempted power grab by Governor Schwarzenegger that gives him the power to bypass the legislature and make cuts to the budget without any oversight or public approval. Prop. 76 does not protect education funding -- and it would in fact reduce the long-term Prop. 98 school spending guarantee by $4 billion per year. Under Prop. 76, local governments could also lose hundreds of millions of dollars for police, firefighters, health care and social service programs. Vote NO on 76.

VOTE NO on Proposition 77

Proposition 77 is a flawed redistricting initiative that cuts out the public, has no accountability provision, and is unfair to those most underrepresented.

This is another clear power grab by the Governor and his allies who reach all the way to the most conservative Republicans in Washington, DC. Vote NO on 77.

VOTE NO on Proposition 78 and VOTE YES on Proposition 79

Everybody knows we need to do more to make prescription drugs more affordable. So let's do it right.

Proposition 79 will provide real prescription drug discounts to seniors and lower income Californians who need them the most. Prop. 79 will also establish a pharmacy assistance program to help businesses, small employer purchasing pools, and labor organization health and welfare funds -- among others -- receive the same pharmacy discounts and rebates from drug makers. Finally, drug companies would be held accountable by a state advisory board that would review the pricing and access of prescription drugs under the program.

Prop. 79 will make a difference. Proposition 78, on the other hand, calls for a voluntary system and at the end of the day will mean little or nothing for the people of California. So vote NO on 78 and YES on 79.

I urge you to join me in voting NO on 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, and 78 -- and YES on 79. Most important, please remember to vote in this important Special Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8th!

In Friendship,

Barbara Boxer

pac for barbaraboxer.com/

[David__77]

1. No recommendation on 80?

I say vote YES on 80. Re-regulation is a small step in the right direction.

[IChing]

3. here are some good links for you to look at;

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/10/14/EDGFKF7R471.DTL

PROP. 80: California’s energy future
Restoring our electricity markets
Let's not undo the progress we've made

Les Nelson is the executive director of the California Solar Energy Industries Association, a nonprofit solar industry trade association committed to the advocacy of solar energy.

Proposition 80
Subjects electric service providers, as defined, to control and regulation by California Public Utilities Commission. Imposes restrictions on electricity customers’ ability to switch from private utilities to other electric providers. Provides that registration by electric service providers with Commission constitutes providers’ consent to regulation. Requires all retail electric sellers, instead of just private utilities, to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010, instead of current requirement of 2017. Imposes duties on Commission, Legislature and electrical providers. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Annual state costs of up to $4 million for regulatory activities of the California Public Utilities Commission. These costs would be fully offset by fee revenues. Unknown impact on state and local costs and revenues, as the measure’s impact on retail electricity rates is uncertain.

Who Signed the Ballot Arguments

Yes on Proposition 80:

Robert Finkelstein, Executive Director, The Utility Reform Network (TURN)

Richard Holober, Executive Director, Consumer Federation of California

Nan Brasmer, President, California Alliance of Retired Americans



No on Proposition 80:

Les Nelson, President, California Solar Energy Industries Association

Karl Gawell, Executive Director, Geothermal Energy Association

James Sweeney, Co-Director of the Energy, Natural Resources and the Environment Program at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research

Follow the Money

Detailed information about all contributors for and against Prop. 80 is available through Cal-Access, the Secretary of State's campaign finance website. For the most recent contributions, select a committee and click "Late and $5000+ Contributions Received".

Major contributors supporting Prop. 80 as of October 22 include the Alliance for a Better California of Sacramento, California State Employees Association Issues PAC of Sacramento, California Teachers Association/Issues PAC of Burlingame, and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association Independent Expenditure Committee of Sacramento.

Major contributors opposing Prop. 80 as of October 22 include the Constellation Energy Group, Inc. of Baltimore, MD, APS Energy Services, Inc. of Phoenix, AZ, Mirant Services, LLC of Atlanta, GA, and Strategic Energy, LLC of Pittsburg, PA.

A good link for you to decide:

http://www.calvoter.org/voter/elections/2005/special/props/prop80.html

I haven't made my mind up on this yet

[Carolab]

4. Here's where the Allilance for a Better California stands on this

http://joetrippi.com/?p=1430

The Alliance is specifically campaiging for progressive results in the special election ballot initiatives this November. These include:

No on Proposition 75 - “The Paycheck Deception Act”
No on Proposition 76 - “The Cuts School Funding Act”
No on Proposition 74 - “The Punish New Teachers Act”
No on Proposition 78 - The Drug Companies’ “Bad Prescription” Act
Yes on Proposition 79 - “The Cheaper Prescription Drugs for Californians Act”
Yes on Proposition 80 - “The Affordable Electricity and Preventing Blackouts Act”

[BlueCaliDem]

6. Sons and I Voted Early (Absentee) & Voted No on Props...

...73 thru 78; Yes, on 79 (because the California Legislature could do the haggling better for better priced medicine in CA than Big Pharma), and Yes, on 80 because I'm still pissed off about what the so-called "deregulation" has done to us.

In the original deregulation, CA consumers were supposed to be able to CHOOSE which electricity provider they thought was fairest, and perhaps that's why so many voted to deregulate the electricity industry (although Gray Davis had been against the deregulation from the start but got blamed for all the blackouts that followed passage of the one-sided "deregulation" nonetheless!).

The small town where I live not only has the highest quality of water in all of Southern California (reviewed by an independent source), but they generate their own electricity and are cheaper than Southern California Edison (the company that ensured those infamous blackouts in 2001), but although deregulation was already fully in effect, the publicly traded power companies, like SCE, were able to stall this part of the bill in the courts until they gouged as much as they could, and even now, I can't choose which power provider to service our home.

In light of these events, I believe deregulation has failed miserably and I believe we need to bring back regulation in order to have at least the tiniest bit of leverage against the billion-dollar power companies.

That's why my sons and I voted "Yes" on Prop 80, and I encourage fellow Californians to do the same IF they really want to lower their electric bills, and not leave that "choice" up to the for-profit, share-holder electric companies!

[IChing]

7. I'm leaning yes on 80

Most contributors that oppose it, if you saw my post are from out of state.
The other are in agreement with barbara.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. I say vote NO on everything. Reject the whole god damned thing

They can redo the good stuff when it's more appropriate.

[Boo Boo]

5. Appropriate = "When Arnold is gone."

I voted the Boxer line (as it turns out) the other day, but I think one can follow your advice as well. Arnie's special elections should be rejected out of hand, I think. I don't want to deal with it, really. I don't want to run the State by ballot measure; I want the people I sent to Sacramento to do their jobs.

[IChing]

8. Who should I listen to on this debate? I have no doubts....Barbara Boxer!

or someone else?