Peter's Quick Guide to the Propositions, Part 2 - Props 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

Here is the rest of them:

Prop 22 - Neutral. The idea of keeping the state from raiding local coffers when it can't balance its own budget is good, but this may go a bit further than that. I simply have not dug deep enough into this one to tell if it is good or bad. (If you have, feel free to let me know.)

Prop 23 - Strong NO! This is the effort by the oil refiners to halt implementation of California's landmark greenhouse gas law. It is nothing but corporate dirty energy self interest, pretending to be a jobs bill. But it presents a false choice between jobs and protecting our environment. Failing to take action on global warming will cost us far more than taking action. Furthermore, Prop 23 it will damage the ability of renewable and clean energy developers to get funding, by creating uncertainty in state policy. So it will actually harm job creation in the state. Prop 23 is bad for the California businesses that are actually growing, and it is bad for all Californians. Vote NO.

Prop 24 - Medium Yes. This repeals three corporate tax breaks, mostly benefitting large corporations, that the Republicans managed to extract in budget negotiations in 2008 and 2009. It seems like a weird time to be creating new billion-dollar tax breaks for large businesses. (I understand the right-wing theory that says you get more tax revenue by cutting taxes, but it just does not work in practice.) This puts things back how they were before 2008. Businesses seemed to mostly be doing okay then, so this should not do them much harm.

Prop 25 - Medium Yes. This allows the state budget to be approved by majority vote, rather than the current 2/3 vote. Given the embarrassing gridlock the 2/3 requirement has caused, this is probably a good idea. Very few other states require a 2/3 vote to pass a budget. Of course, this also makes it easier to pass a lousy budget, too.

Prop 26 - Strong No. This would require certain fees (such as fees to pay for cleaning up oil spills and toxic waste) to be approved by a 2/3 vote. While increased fees can be a problem, the 2/3 requirement to raise taxes and pass a budget have eviscerated California's infrastructure and education systems, so extending that requirement to fees appears more likely to extend the harm than to solve the real problem.

Peter's Quick Guide to the Propositions, Part 1 - Props 19, 20, 27, 21

Prop 19 - Strong Yes! Legalizing Marijuana. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol - people kept drinking, and it financed the rise of organized crime. Funny, but the same thing happened with marijuana. Substance abuse is a serious problem, but criminalizing the user is not the answer. Will there be implementation problems? Yes, but it is still worth saying "No" to our expensively failed drug policy.

Prop 20 - Mild No. Redistricting. In 2008, we passed Prop 11, which shifted state legislative district drawing from the legislature to a new commission, but it has not actually gone into effect yet. Prop 20 would extend the new process to federal congressional districts, too. Since we have not seen how Prop 11 actually works (it sounds good in theory, but may have some issues in practice), it seems a bit early to be extending it to other offices. Let's see how it works first.

Prop 27 - Medium No. More Redistricting. This would repeal Prop 11, and give state legislative district drawing back to the legislature. Of course, the last time the legislature did redistricting they engaged in extreme and shameless gerrymandering that has contributed to our ongoing budget gridlock, and that led to passage of Prop 11 in the first place. Why should we trust them again? Besides, maybe we should see how Prop 11 works before we repeal it.

Prop 21 - Medium Yes. Vehicle Fees for Parks. Parks are good. Higher fees on cars are good (see my entry of July 10 re taxes). Fees on cars paying for parks instead of going towards public transit or air quality or road maintenance is sort of weirdly indirect. And having a specific budget set aside for parks will make budgeting harder still. On balance, while not the ideal approach, it is probably still a good thing.

More Propositions coming soon.

See Me, Hear Me!

You can now see my videotaped interview on the California Channel, as well as the interviews with (most of) my opponents. Take a look here: https://www.calchannel.com/channel/sr1/Candidate%20for%20Attorney%20General

Kamala Harris totally botched one question - seemed like she was not listening very well.

I was also on Forum with Michael Krasny on KQED radio. Steve Cooley declined to participate, which for those of us in the Bay Area seems very weird. The four minor candidates shared half the show, while Kamala Harris got most of the other half. Take a listen here: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201010060900