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

Are They Qualified to be Attorney General?

Steve Cooley (Republican) and Kamala Harris (Democrat) have both been prosecutors. Both have both worked in local district attorneys' offices. But that is all they have done. Neither Cooley nor Harris has experience in civil litigation, neither of them have worked in the private or non-profit sector, neither have them have worked on energy or environmental issues, neither of them has been a judge or administrative law judge, neither of them have worked for a state agency, and neither of them have even worked in the other half of the state.

Given the broad responsibilities of the California Attorney General, their lack of relevant experience is striking. By comparison, I have significantly broader experience. I have worked for law firms, a non-profit, a state agency, and a major city. I have lived and worked in both Northern and Southern California. The following chart (based on information from the candidates' websites) shows the difference in experience between me, Cooley and Harris:

Candidates’ Experience	Peter Allen	Steve Cooley	Kamala Harris
Civil Litigation	X
Consumer Advocacy	X
Criminal Prosecution	X	X	X
Energy Law	X
Environmental Law	X
Financial/Securities Fraud Litigation	X	?	?
Judge or Administrative Law Judge	X
Telecommunications Law	X

Three Free Signs!

Here are three signs - choose which one you like the best or print out all three and post them in visible places.

Send them electronically to your friends!

Going Back For More?

The logic of much of the voting public, at least those responding to polls, escapes me. The Republicans (with assistance from the Democrats) blew up the US economy, in a big and ugly way. The Democrats (with resistance from the Republicans) have not managed to fix it. So now, according to various polls, people are going to vote for...Republicans?!?! This seems especially odd given that the Republicans are promising to run the economy the same way they did before.

This is like taking your car to the mechanic for a tune up, and he wraps it around a tree. So you take it to a second mechanic, but when he is having difficulty fixing it, or maybe is just taking too long, you take it back to the first mechanic. Who assures you he will treat it like he did before.

If you really thought the second mechanic could not fix it, wouldn't you take it to a third one, rather than back to the one who broke it in the first place? Maybe we should try that with elected officials as well.

Proposition 23 - The Job Killer

Jobs or the environment - that is the choice presented by Proposition 23, a ballot initiative sponsored mainly by oil refiners, which proposes to suspend California's greenhouse gas law, AB 32, until unemployment drops below 5.5% for a year. But that is a false choice. The choice we really face is about the short term versus the long term.

The argument for Proposition 23 is simple - limiting greenhouse gas emissions under AB 32 will cost money, and will likely cost jobs in industries that generate greenhouse gasses. Based on that logic, Proposition 23 would only allow implementation of the greenhouse gas reductions currently in California law if California unemployment drops below 5.5% (it is currently over 12%) for a year.

But if California unemployment stays higher than 5.5%, or even if it drops to 4%, but bumps up to 6% after three quarters, then California would take no action to reduce greenhouse gasses.

Under Proposition 23, regardless of why unemployment is higher than 5.5%, California would take no action to reduce greenhouse gasses. Even if unemployment is high because jobs are being lost due to climate change - think of ski resorts closing due to no snow, fisheries destroyed due to changes in water temperature, beach resorts and airports damaged by higher sea levels, redwood forests dying from heat, valuable crops lost due to extreme weather conditions, and rivers running dry - we still would take no action.

The logic of Proposition 23 is the logic that says don't limit logging until all the trees are gone, because limiting logging takes away logging jobs that could last a few more years, or don't limit fishing until all the fish are gone, because limiting fishing takes away fishing jobs that could last a few more years. But how many logging jobs are there when all the trees are gone? How many fishing jobs are there when all the fish are gone?

If Proposition 23 passes, the oil refiners and other carbon-intensive industries who are backing it may get to make their profits for a bit longer. But at what long term cost? What happens when California and the rest of the world start really suffering from the effects of climate change? The potential job losses could make us nostalgic for the time when unemployment was only 12%.

Is it worth gambling with our economy, our health, perhaps even our survival, so that a few large companies can squeeze out a few more profitable years? The short term benefits to Valero and Tesoro are not worth the long term costs to every Californian and every California business. Vote no on Proposition 23 - we cannot afford it.