Hillary's Lame Campaign

I want to start by making clear that this is just about the campaign, and not about who should be President or the Democratic nominee.  If you like Hillary Clinton's positions, or Hillary, or think it is important to nominate a woman, by all means vote for Hillary.  If you like Bernie Sanders' positions, or Bernie, or think it is important to nominate a Jewish social democrat, vote for Bernie.  If you like Martin O'Malley (and he is still in the race when you vote), vote for Martin.  (The Republicans are a whole different story...)

What is odd about about Hillary Clinton's campaign is how bad it is.  This is not the first time this has happened - she had the inside track in 2008, but fell apart in the face of the Obama campaign (which admittedly was brilliant, but more on that later).

Facing a surprisingly strong challenge from the left in the person of Bernie Sanders, Clinton's campaign appears to be freaking out, and at a loss as how to counter Sanders' seemingly growing momentum.  (We still have to see how well a Jewish Yankee will play in the Bible Belt.)  In fact, Clinton's campaign seems to mostly be confirming Sanders' criticisms.

Sanders argues that Clinton is the Establishment candidate, and that if you want to change things, you should vote for Sanders, not Clinton, and he has staked out clear and ambitious (and quite possibly unattainable) positions, like single-payer health care and publicly-subsidized college tuition.  He has been critical of Wall Street, and opposed the disastrous war in Iraq.  As a result, he has attracted a following of potential voters who agree with those positions, and who want change.  Sanders excites people with his passion and boldness, and his willingness to take on the powerful entities that seem to have bought control of our political process.

Clinton got to where she is by playing the conventional insider political game, and doing it well.  She built her resume, gained experience and qualifications and name recognition, cultivated the key players in the Democratic party, raised money for the party (and herself), and avoided taking potentially controversial positions.  She maneuvered herself to be the clear party choice, and her positions mirror those of the mainstream party.  So one problem she faces is that when Sanders accuses her of being an Establishment candidate, he is basically correct.

But the bigger problem she faces is how she has responded to Sanders' campaign.  When Sanders makes bold promises of single-payer health plans and free college tuition, Clinton's response is to say, "No, that is not realistic, you are not going to get those things.  I will get you something else. It won't be as nice, but I can get it for you.  No, I can't tell you what it will be."  That simply does not excite people. 

And it also raises a few questions: 1) If you truly believe in those things, why won't you even try to get them?  Do you really believe in those things?  2) If you don't ask for them, you will never get them.  The Republicans will likely oppose anything that a Democratic President proposes, no matter how moderate it is.  Why start off by compromising your real position when the Republicans will oppose it anyway?  You might as well go after what you really want. 3) What will you actually ask for?  What kind of bargaining leverage will you have, particularly if you have already given up the moral high ground?

Another approach that Clinton has taken is to try to discredit Sanders.  First, she built on the above line of reasoning by essentially accusing him of being naive and unsophisticated on how Washington D.C. really works. This one would make sense against someone like Obama in 2008, or maybe Bobby Jindal or Carly Fiorina, but it is simply weird to make that accusation against someone who was in the House of Representatives from 1990 to 2006 and in the Senate since 2006.

She doubled down on this by focusing on foreign policy, which she considers a strength of hers from being Secretary of State.  But she did this by invoking the name of Henry Kissinger, one of the most Establishment figures there is.  In other words, she just confirmed again what Sanders was accusing her of.  Sanders response was simple: "I don't like Kissinger and his policies, and I am going to do something different."

She tried a light version of the Swift Boat attack, by having John Lewis say he never saw Sanders during the civil rights movement.  Again, Lewis is now part of the Democratic Party Establishment, so that again confirmed Sanders' position. And then, given that Sanders' participation in the civil rights movement was pretty clear, Lewis backed down from the implications of his statement.  And this came just after another Establishment figure, Madeleine Albright, had to back down from her statement in support of Clinton (in which she basically said that women who vote for Sanders would burn in hell).

Clinton's response to Sanders has been: "Look, all the really important people, the people you should listen to, the Establishment people, say you should support me."  Not only does this just confirm what Sanders has been saying, the way that Clinton used them has been incredibly inept.  Albright, Lewis and Gloria Steinem (who I think may be sort of part of the Establishment now, but I'm not sure) all seemed to annoy potential Sanders voters more than persuade them to switch to Clinton, and all of them issued apologies or "clarifications" of their remarks.  So that did not work well for Clinton.

Clinton has run a strong conventional campaign, and simply deterred or buried all of the potential conventional opponents, but Sanders is not a conventional opponent, and she seems to be at a loss how to deal with him effectively.  This raises some concerns about how she would do in the general election, depending on who the Republicans eventually nominate.  Clinton may be okay against a conventional opponent, like Jeb Bush.  But given her flailing response to Sanders, how well she could deal with the unconventional but media-savvy Donald Trump is unclear. 

Obama managed to excite people with his soaring rhetoric and inspirational message, while simultaneously not scaring Wall Street and the Democratic Establishment.  That is a difficult maneuver to pull off, and Clinton has not managed to do it.  (Neither did Al Gore or John Kerry, despite their qualifications.) Sanders has not done it either, but he isn't trying to. 

If Clinton wants to solidly win the nomination (without resorting to things like pre-pledged "superdelegates" that will turn off many potential voters), she is going to have to step up the quality of her campaign. So far, her attempts to make Sanders look bad have largely backfired on her.  She should stop those, and focus on making herself look good.

It's Not About the Guns

My apologies to both sides of the current gun control debate - but in my opinion, it is not about the guns.  Guns are a symptom - and a symbol - of a deeper problem.

Let's look first at the argument that guns guarantee our freedom - that guns, and the right to own guns, are a bulwark against a totalitarian government.  In other words, when the federal troops are sent in to put down dissent and popular rebellion, the people will have the means to fight back.

In practice, however, this has not worked so well.  In large part, this is because government repression in the US generally does not involve sending in troops.  When the government passed the Patriot Act, with widespread abridgment of rights, did anyone take to the streets with their guns to right this wrong?  What about when we found out about the NSA's domestic spying?  When we found out that the justification for the Iraq war was a lie?  When we found out about waterboarding, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib? Did we grab our guns to rise up in defense of Edward Snowden and Bradley/Chelsea Manning, who took huge risks to inform us of government lies and overreaching?

Another problem is that repression usually starts with attacks on those who are unpopular.  I do not recall hearing about armed resistance by the general population when the US shipped its own citizens of Japanese descent off to internment camps.  Where was the armed resistance to protect Blacks and Chinese against lynch mobs (often encouraged by local government officials)?  Was there armed resistance to the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act? Hitler started with the Communists and Gypsies and homosexuals and Jews, the Puritans in Salem went after "witches," and now political figures in the US are arguing that we should exclude or expel Muslims. In none of these cases did guns in the hands of citizens stop the repression.  In fact, citizens with guns sometimes showed up to assist in the repression, such as the lynching of Blacks and Chinese.  The main recent beneficiary of an arms-bearing citizenry appears to be Cliven Bundy, the rancher who is resisting paying fees for grazing his cows on federal land.  Grazing fees - yes, that is the type of government repression so extreme that it cries out for armed resistance.

Let's look at the argument on the other side - that the ready availability of guns, and especially military-style guns, are a major cause of violence, and particularly mass shootings.  In other words, if we significantly reduced or eliminated access to guns we could also significantly reduce or eliminate violent attacks, and particularly mass shootings.

The problem with this argument is that there are plenty of societies (including the US) that have historically had plenty of guns, and yet did not have nearly so many shootings (mass or individual).

In Israel, almost every 19 and 20 year old is in the Army.  But when they are off duty, they are still in uniform and they still have their military weapon with them.  So in the mall food court, on the bus, walking down the street, most of the male 19 and 20 year olds are carrying an M16.  In womens' restrooms my wife liked to see the various ways that women soldiers answered the question, "What do you do with your Uzi while you fix your makeup?"  The installer at the local art museum wore a pistol, the family on the kibbutz near Gaza kept the Uzi on top of the refrigerator (so the grandkids couldn't reach it).  While Israel certainly has many issues, domestic mass shootings are generally not one of them.

As Michael Moore pointed out in Bowling for Columbine, Canada (at that time) had a similar level of gun ownership as the US, but a much lower homicide rate.  Likewise, Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership and much lower homicide rate.  Historically, it has been easy for people to acquire guns in the US as well.  So while the US has lots of guns and lots of gun violence, it does not seem to be the guns themselves that are the problem.  In other words, limiting access to guns will likely not solve the problem.

Michael Moore attributed the problem to a culture of fear, and I think he may have something there. Israel and Switzerland have high levels of military participation, which means a couple of things.  First, gun owners there are likely to have significant training in proper gun handling.  In Israel, the soldiers never had a clip in their M16 (except those on guard duty in very dangerous locations, who also had on flak jackets, and tended to look very unhappy).  They were not parading around the fact that they had an assault rifle.

Second, that higher level of military participation may contribute to a feeling of belonging to a larger society, as opposed to the US emphasis on the individual.  The NRA, in its efforts to further the interests of gun manufacturers, has gladly helped stoke the fears of those already afraid because of job losses, economic uncertainty, rapid societal changes, and a black President.  Their pitch: "Are you scared? Buy a gun!" seems to be working, especially when coupled with the extra dose of fear ladled out by Fox News.  Gun sales skyrocketed as the odds improved that Obama would be elected President.  The fear drives the gun sales, meaning that the guns are the symptom, with fear being the underlying cause.

So how to counter fear? With confidence and community, and with actions that address (at least some of) the root causes of fear.  Reducing the economic pressures on the middle and working class would be helpful - if you know that you will have a secure, well-paying job that will allow you to buy a house, support your family, and send your kids to college, you will be a lot less scared.  Making health insurance and college education affordable and ceasing to threaten social security would help, too. Addressing climate change would be helpful - given that there are a lot of credible people saying we have a serious problem, the fact that we are not doing much about it creates anxiety.  Taking steps to increase community and reduce isolation would be helpful - maybe we could have universal service (not just military service) for all high school graduates, where they not only do work for the public good and contribute to local communities, but they can also develop connections and friendships. And finally, turn off the scary movie - don't watch Fox News and the other similar "news" sources whose real message is to be afraid.  We must be able to think rationally and calmly, instead of reacting in fear, which drives bad decisions and lashing out in violence.

If we don't get rid of the fear and isolation, neither buying guns nor banning them will solve our problems.

After Santa Barbara

After the (most recent) mass shooting in Santa Barbara, I posted the following on facebook; I am reposting it here for continued accessibility.

So we live in a surveillance/military state, where the NSA knows who we are talking to and when and for how long, where to get on a plane we must leave our water bottles and put our toiletries in clear bags, where our bus passes and bridge passes and phones track our whereabouts, where the local cops have armored personnel carriers and assault weapons, where we spend massive amounts of our tax dollars on the most advanced weapons ever made.

But are we safe? All of this "war on terror" - at a huge cost to our finances and our freedoms - has done nothing to protect the victims of attacks at Sandy Hook or Washington Navy Yard or Santa Barbara.

Maybe that is because we are looking for terrorists in the wrong place - all of our money and resources are focused on protecting us from "the other," those bearded and turbaned 9/11-style terrorists. But these terror attacks (a "mass shooting" must count as a terror attack) are not by others, but by us - the fellow student, the co-worker, the neighbor, the relative.

Yet we keep focusing on and fearing the other, taking action to counter the latest moves (that we deem suspicious) by Iran or Russia or China or North Korea or al Qaeda or Venezuela or Cuba, and doing little to even think about the source of the domestic shooters (or bombers) who have killed far more Americans, and most of whom having boring, "American" names like Harris or Rodgers.

There is a problem with our society (and it is deeper than, but connected to, guns and misogyny), and I think Michael Moore was partially on the right track when he focused on an American culture of fear. (Which is ironic given our wealth and power.)

But it is not just that - the erosion of a sense of community, or society, or civilization has added to that. The emphasis on the individual, the cult of celebrity and wealth worship, the "greed is good/grab what you can" mentality, the naked use of power and influence, all erode social cohesion and remove barriers to profoundly selfish, fame-seeking acts that harm others, with the killings being an extreme form.

If we were less isolated from each other, less encouraged to victimize each other for our own personal gain, we would be less afraid. There would be fewer guns, less misogyny, and most importantly, fewer killings. Let us strive for connection and overcome fear. Peace to all, and peace to ourselves.

The Nanny State

Some folks on the rightward end of the political spectrum seem to like to use the phrase "the nanny state," and while their application of that label seems to somewhat arbitrary and scattershot, I actually kind of like the phrase.

It seems to me, however, that we get most into a "nanny state" when dealing with social welfare programs for low-income folks.

For example, you can get what used to be called "food stamps" (now WIC), but there are very detailed requirements about what foods you can and cannot buy.  For example, only certain species of canned mackerel can be purchased, and no olives or pickled vegetables or imported cheeses are allowed.  Check it out: http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/wic-food-packages-regulatory-requirements-wic-eligible-foods

Likewise for housing assistance or "Section 8" housing.  You have to provide the government all sorts of information about your family and income, and they have to inspect the housing you find to make sure it is acceptable.  http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8

For unemployment insurance, you need to provide the government specific information about why and how you left your last job (among other things), and then they will determine if you are eligible for unemployment: http://www.edd.ca.gov/Unemployment/FAQ_-_Eligibility.htm#Whataretheeligibilityrequirements

So we have all these huge bureaucracies that exist to look in detail at every person who wants help buying a can of mackerel or renting an apartment, and will tell that person what food they can buy and what apartment they can rent and if they left their job for the wrong reason.  If you want small government that is not intrusive into peoples' lives, it would make sense to eliminate these bureaucracies.  It would certainly reduce the "nanny state."

So how can we do that?  Provide a basic minimum income to everyone - enough money for basic housing, food, clothing, medical care, utilities, etc.  And then leave it up to the recipients how they want to spend it - they can spend it smart or spend it stupid, just like everyone else, with no government oversight over what food they are buying, what apartment they are renting, or why they left their last job.  And we could get rid of all of those administrative "nanny" bureaucracies...

Ballot Measures - The Tricky Ones: 31, 33 and 35

These ones are a bit trickier, for various reasons.  Two are well-meaning, but likely to create problematic unintended consequences.  The third one looks innocuous, but is a narrow special interest move.

Proposition 31
This one is an attempt to reform and reshape the (dis)function of California state government.  It does a whole bunch of things, the effects of which are hard to predict.  Some of them I kind of like, others I am not so sure about.

It would move the state from a one-year budget cycle to a two-year budget cycle.  I like this idea, as it would presumably result in more stable funding levels, and avoid the annual budget fiasco.  Except that a big part of California's budget problem is that the state (post-Prop 13) is highly dependent upon income and sales taxes, both of which are highly volatile and hard to forecast.  How can you do a longer-term budget when you don't know what your revenues will be even over one year?  So this is nice in theory, but unlikely to work in practice.  The way the Proposition addresses this is to give the governor more budget cutting authority if revenues are falling short.  I have concerns about this, and it undercuts the additional certainty a two-year budget cycle would provide.

Proposition 31 also rearranges the relationship between the state and local governments in fairly sweeping ways.  I can't figure out exactly how this would work in practice, except that there would be a lot of confusion and probably litigation.  Again, the idea is interesting, but it is not clear that this has really been thought out well.  Whatever you think the appropriate balance should be between the state and the locals, right now it is relatively clear (and there is still litigation over it).  If this passes I am concerned that the chaos and uncertainty would outweigh the possible benefits.

The proposition also has a number of provisions that attempt to add discipline to the budget process.  Again, this seems like a good idea, but the reality is more likely to be an increase in bureaucratic box-checking rather than real reform, so once more the costs might outweigh the benefits.

Finally, it requires that bills be published at least three days before the legislature votes on them.  (Yes, the legislature often does not have time to read the bills they are voting on.)  This is a great idea, that should have been put in place long ago.  

I like this provision, but it is not enough to overcome my concerns with this proposition.  I am reluctantly going to vote no on Proposition 31.

Proposition 33
This is the latest attempt by Mercury Insurance to undo prior legislation limiting what car insurers can charge.  On its face, its looks innocuous, as it just allows insurance companies to give a discount in certain situations.  The reality is much nastier, as it would allow Mercury (and other insurance companies) to charge significantly more money to many customers.  Vote no on Proposition 33.

Here is a good description of what is going on here: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/21/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20121021

Proposition 35
This one is difficult.  This proposition has the support of well-meaning and knowledgeable people, who are legitimately concerned with human trafficking.  They want to bring attention to the (very real and thorny) problem and crack down on it.  On the other hand, it does this in large part by increasing prison terms for human trafficking, just when we may be starting to move away from the "more years in jail is better" model (see Proposition 36) as being expensive and counterproductive.

It also has the potential to significantly increase the number of people required to register as sex offenders (a practice I already find disturbing), and the opponents to the proposition argue that the spouses or children or roommates of prostitutes could be considered guilty of human trafficking, and have to register as sex offenders.  To the extent that this proposition would have prostitution arrests or convictions require registration as a sex offender (as argued by some similarly well-informed and well-intended opponents), it may actually re-stigmatize the very victims it is trying to help.

I am concerned that the side effects will be more damaging than any good that it might do.  There must be better ways to address human trafficking. I am going to vote no on Proposition 35.

Here are a few editorials on it:

http://obrag.org/?p=67263

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-prop35-20121010,0,1226807.story

http://www.thedailyaztec.com/2012/10/prop-35-sex-traffic-law-vaguely-expands-police-power/

Ballot Measures - The Easy Ones: 32, 34, 37 and 40

The last post was about the propositions with budget impacts.  This one is about the ones that are just so clear (okay, clear to me) that it is easy for me to figure out how to vote.

Proposition 32
This is a particularly shameless power grab by the 1%, trying to neutralize the only really organized opposition to them that exists: labor unions.

It pretends to be neutral, by prohibiting both corporations and unions from funding political contributions from paycheck deductions.  But gee, only unions fund political contributions that way - corporations take the money they need for political contributions out well before it gets to workers' paychecks.

And it prohibits both corporations and unions from making political contributions.  (Which might not stand up under Citizens United.) But it allows Super PACs and uber-wealthy individuals to still make those contributions.  Vote no.  No, no, no.

Here are some editorials that lay it out pretty well:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_21583886/contra-costa-times-editorial-proposition-32-is-deceptive

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/23/4843939/endorsements-proposition-32-power.html

Proposition 34
This one would end the death penalty in California.  (Okay, I know I already posted about this, but I feel strongly about this proposition.)  I am excited that this is on the ballot. Vote yes!  Yes, yes, yes!

As I put it when I was running for California Attorney General in 2010:


The death penalty process in California is broken, and the costs of California's death penalty are too high.  The costs are too high for taxpayers, for crime victims and their families, for the court system, for the convicted criminal, and ultimately for all Californians.

The death penalty has become an absurdity.  A criminal has already been convicted and is locked up in prison, yet we spend 20 or even 30 years more on the case, continuing to argue about whether we should kill him. Stop already! Move on, go after the violent criminals who are still out there.

As these cases drag on for decades, the costs of the lawyers on both sides are being paid by California's taxpayers.  Victims and their families keep being reminded of their trauma as the cases drag through the already clogged court system.  And what is the product of all this time, money, energy and pain? The state gets to kill one of its citizens.  Or maybe not.  The whole process is a pointless waste. The costs are far too high and the benefits far too low.  

The solution is to end imposition of the death penalty.  Life in prison without possiblity of parole would become the maximum sentence imposed in California.  With this one change, the appeals process could be cut to a fraction of its current duration, the state would save millions of dollars, our most capable and experienced prosecutors would be freed up to go after more violent criminals, court backlogs would be reduced, crime victims and their families could try to move on with their lives, and the state would no longer be in the business of killing.

Eliminate the death penalty.  California cannot afford it. 

And now we can eliminate it by voting yes on Proposition 34.

Proposition 37
Do you want to know what is in your food?  Proposition 37 would require that genetically engineered food be labeled to disclose that it has been genetically engineered.  Seems like a good idea to me, so I am voting yes on 37.

Countries in Europe and Asia already do this.  With labeling, if you like genetic engineering, you can buy foods produced that way.  If you don't like it, you can avoid them.  Right now you can't do either, because you can't easily tell from the label whether something has been genetically engineered or not.

Here are a couple of editorials:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/11/opinion/la-oe-imhoff-prop-37-gmo-labeling-20121011

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frances-moore-lappe-and-anna-lappe/gmos-facts_b_2009917.html

Proposition 40
This one is a bit odd, and the back story is way convoluted.  But in the end it is pretty simple.  (The answer: vote yes.)

Remember how a few years ago we voted for a citizens commission to redraw legislative districts, rather than having the legislature gerrymander districts into weird shapes?  Well, even if you don't remember, we did that, and the commission drew up new maps accordingly.  Voting yes on Proposition 40 just confirms that yes, we do in fact want to use the maps drawn up by the process we voted for.

So yes means yes, we meant yes, and we still mean yes.  And pretty much everyone actually agrees on this one.  Vote yes on 40.

An editorial:

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Yes-on-Prop-40-for-fair-redistricting-3954742.php

And for the truly masochistic, here is the background story (that I can barely sort of follow):

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-prop-40-fiasco-20121023,0,7870049.story

Ballot Measures - The Budget Propositions: 30 and 38, 34, 36 and 39

Okay, I figured I would give a quick rundown of my take on the various ballot propositions.  This post focuses on the ones that have budget implications: 30 and 38, 34, 36 and 39.

Propositions 30 and 38
I don't really like either of these, but I am reluctantly supporting both of them.  Proposition 30 is Jerry Brown's proposal to raise income taxes and sales taxes to support education and to help balance the budget.  Proposition 38 is Molly Munger's proposal to raise income taxes to support education.

On the down side, I don't like sales taxes - like or not, we have a largely consumer-based economy, so putting a tax on the main driver of the economy seems to be counterproductive.  It also tends to be regressive, as lower-income people spend a much higher proportion of their income and wealth than do wealthy people.  

While I am sort of okay with income taxes, I would prefer a heavier reliance on resource extraction taxes (you pay to take oil or water or timber) and toxics taxes (you pay to make or sell or use carcinogens, respiratory irritants, and other poisons), along with limiting Proposition 13 protections to a primary residence.  (If a business model, such as real estate development or commercial leasing, depends upon and assumes increasing property values, but the taxes on that property do not reflect those same increasing property values, you have a subsidy.)  Car taxes also are a reasonable way to ensure that those who impose costs (air and water pollution, road building and maintenance) help pay for them.

That said, California needs more revenue.  On a per capita basis, our government (believe it or not) is relatively lean.  Physical infrastructure and education are investments in our future, not costs to be minimized.  I do believe in cutting costs (more on that later), but we cannot cut our way out of our current hole.  So I will vote for these two measures.

Why both? Because I want to show that Californians understand the need for more revenue.  If they both fail - for whatever reason or reasons - the conventional spin will be that California is opposed to taxes, and really wants to just cut things.  The result would severely damage California and its economy to an extent I don't think people fully realize.

Proposition 34
This would end the death penalty in California, and replace it in life in prison without possibility of parole.  This is a great idea, and would save lots of money that is now wasted - we spend millions of dollars every year paying lawyers to argue if some criminal already in prison should be killed or not.

We should spend our money catching and prosecuting the criminals out of the street, not the ones already locked up.  And besides, the state should not be in the business of killing people.  The arguments I made during my campaign for attorney general can be found here: http://www.peterallenforag.com/main/page_crime.html

Anyway, the death penalty is a ridiculously wasteful and unnecessary money sink, and should be eliminated.  Yes on 34.

Proposition 36
This proposition would soften California's "three strikes" law that currently requires stiff sentences (like life in prison) for a third criminal conviction.  Proposition 36 would alter that law so that a life sentence would only be imposed when the third conviction is serious or violent.  This would be a step in reducing the huge size of the prison population and its corresponding cost.

It is not clear how much it would save, but we can use any savings right now, and this seems to take a reasonable approach.  So I am voting yes on 36.

Proposition 39
Proposition 39 would eliminate a recently-created tax loophole that allows out-of-state corporations doing significant business in California to evade paying California taxes.  That same loophole also discourages them from opening facilities in California.  So 39 would fix this nonsensical arrangement, and potentially bring in an additional $1 billion per year, without raising taxes on Californians.  So far, so good.

Here is an L.A. Times piece that describes the issue: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/10/local/la-me-cap-prop39-20121011

But 39 then goes on to earmark half of the money for energy efficiency and alternative energy projects by creating a new fund, with its own oversight board.  While energy efficiency and alternative energy are good, I have concerns about yet another budget-by-ballot measure that prevents us from spending the money on something that turns out to be a more urgent priority, and I also don't think we need to create a new government program and entity now.

So I am leaning slightly toward yes, since the tax loophole is really big and stupid and problematic, and it is not clear whether the legislature can get its act together to fix the problem.  If you think the legislature will be able to fix it, then voting no on 39 makes sense.

More on other races soon!