[MetroActive News&Issues]

[ North Bay | MetroActive Central | Archives ]

[whitespace] Flag Model
Photograph by George Sakkestad

Stars & Strikes

Come hither: Our Election 2000 voter guide

THE PRESIDENTIAL election is expected to be the closest in 40 years, thanks to a shootout between the left and the far left of the Democratic Party. So don't be sitting on your keister and complaining that this election is irrelevent when the fate of the environment and the U.S. Supreme Court is hanging in the balance.

Fortunately, the initiative gods have given California voters a reprieve this election cycle by asking us to weigh in on only eight state propositions. During the March primary, voters had to study more than 20 propositions, some of which required a yes if you really wanted to vote no, and some which nullified others on the same ballot.

There is no such madness on the Nov. 7 ballot. Yes means yes, and no means no on all eight items in question. How quaint!

Not only are the state props refreshingly simple this go-round, but they're also relatively free of controversy. In the recent past, California has served as a testing ground for homophobic, xenophobic, or racist initiatives. This time, we're dealing with more mundane things like bonds, engineering contracts, and perks for the state Legislature.

Sure, the school vouchers (Prop. 38) initiative is kind of controversial. But didn't we already vote on that in the '90s?

Despite the seeming lack of sexy topics on the state initiatives ballot, voters shouldn't be lulled into a sense of complacency. They still need to get to the polls and prevent school vouchers from crippling public education. They also need to vote yes and make it easier to pass bonds to upgrade crumbling schools (Prop. 39).

To paraphrase Woody Allen, half of life is just showing up. Here's a guide for what you should do after showing up at your designated polling place:

[line]

The Hot List: The Bohemian's handy guide to select endorsements in local, state, and national races.

[line]

U.S. President
Al Gore

Picture this with your eyes wide open: A Republican in the White House. A Republican-controlled House. A Republican-controlled Senate. A Republican-led Congress rubber-stamping the GOP president's anti-abortion Supreme Court nominees.

And this is no campy Halloween horror flick--it's closer to reality than many voters think. If nationwide polls are to be believed, George W. Bush will soon be the nation's Fratboy-in-chief. Meanwhile, the GOP will, according to most predictions, easily retain its majority in the U.S. Senate. Only the House of Representatives is potentially up for grabs, but only if Democrats can win six seats nationally.

Vice President Al Gore, wife-kissing aside, has been unable to whip voters into any kind of impassioned frenzy. Here in California, where Gore once held a double-digit lead, the latest polls show Green Party nominee Ralph Nader siphoning support from the vice president, who now leads Bush by only five points.

An apathetic electorate, a dull Democratic nominee, and an insurgent third-party candidate--it's a recipe for imbalance and disaster.

To those contemplating voting for Nader, we think this is too close an election to throw away a vote on a symbolic candidate. We can already hear Naderites preaching the lefty party line: It doesn't matter if you vote for Gore or Bush because they are both from the same party--the Party of Big Business. While there's plenty of truth to that, Bush and Gore have very different positions on a woman's right to choose, the environment, school vouchers, healthcare, tax policy, Social Security, and campaign finance reform, which Gore has promised to make his top priority if elected.

Eight years--and more, counting lifetime Supreme Court appointments--is a long time to endure the fallout of a "protest" vote, especially when Republicans want to maintain the surplus by returning money to the rich rather than paying down the nation's debt.

We think voters should pay close attention to this election and make every attempt to balance the branches of government at the national level. At the state, regional, and local levels, they should vote for those who will safeguard the environment and protect the interests of the North Bay. Vote for Al Gore.


U.S. Senate
Dianne Feinstein

During the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, Rep. Tom Campbell, R­San Jose--who was shut out by his own party at the Republican convention--had a prominent speaking role. Not at the "real" convention in La La Land, but at Arianna Huffington's alternative Shadow Convention. To a crowd of professional protesters and malcontents, Campbell spoke passionately about the country's misguided war against drugs.

South Bay voters already know Tom Campbell as an enigma. In 1997, he defied his party's leaders by voting to oust then House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The following year, he toed the party line by voting to impeach President Clinton, angering many of his Starr-fatigued constituents.

For a Republican, Campbell's run an unorthodox campaign against Democratic incumbent Dianne Feinstein--he has, to a great extent, run to her political left.

The top question in our minds is (assuming Campbell gets elected), which Campbell will show up at the Senate confirmation hearings for a new Supreme Court Justice: the party boy who impeached Clinton or the party pooper who told Newt to get lost? Hard to say. In typical Tom fashion, he refuses to prejudge nominees or apply a litmus test. While we think Campbell will raise controversial issues worthy of debate that an inside-the-box politician like Feinstein would never touch, he may be a little too quirky, even in an age of empty, blow-dried politics and politicians.

While we wish Feinstein would have the guts to raise the issue of the failed drug war, we like her record on gun control and the environment. Stick with Feinstein.


U.S. Congress
Sixth District

Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, has a lock on this race--the Republicans are unable to field a strong candidate in this overwhelmingly Democratic district that includes parts of Marin and Sonoma counties. But Woolsey hasn't squandered her support--the former Petaluma mayor has taken strong positions on everything from nuclear disarmament to the need to stop federal support of the homophobic Boy Scouts of America, stances that often put her at odds with Bill Clinton and in face-to-face confrontations with the good ol' boys in the U.S. Senate. Vote for Lynn Woolsey.


State Assembly
Sixth District

Maybe it's his name, but Joe Nation seems destined for higher office (or at least for a career as a political fundraiser, having amassed a $300,000 war chest)--he's now on the Marin Municipal Water District board of trustees. Unfortunately, this New Democrat has shown little to inspire confidence that he's fit to represent a progressive district in the state Legislature. Most notably, last spring he won and then lost Sonoma County Conservation Action's coveted environmental endorsement after it was determined that, as an MMWD board member, Nation has supported pro-development water policies that could endanger the Eel and Russian rivers. Vote for Anna Nevenic, a nurse who promises to focus on health-care issues.


State Assembly
Seventh District

Democratic incumbent Pat Wiggins, a former Santa Rosa City Councilmember, has done a great job in her first term. Send her back to Sacramento. Vote for Pat Wiggins.


Proposition 32
Housing Assistance for Vets

The so-called Veterans Bond Act of 2000, put on the ballot by the Legislature, asks for voter approval to--for the 29th time in the program's history--renew funding for the state-run program that helps California veterans of the Vietnam War and earlier conflicts get first-time home buyer home loans at a special low-interest rate. The Office of Veterans Affairs says that the $500 million that the bond raises will help about 2,400 Vietnam veterans purchase new homes or farms--none of which, one can only presume, will be in the vastly inflated Bay Area, where $250,000 won't get you a one-room hovel. And therein lies the core of our argument in favor of the bill: in today's ridiculous real estate market, we feel that everyone deserves a break toward owning their first home. The bill's opponents do not agree. But they err in the voter pamphlet when they say, disapprovingly, that under this bill, "even someone who stayed home in the National Guard is a qualified 'veteran' under the Cal-Vet loan program." According to the experts, such a person does qualify for some Cal-Vet loan programs, but not for the particular program these bonds will go toward, which requires that the vets in question saw wartime service abroad before the end of the Vietnam conflict (the last U.S. conflict that qualifies vets for participation in this program). Theoretically, taxpayers could end up paying off some of the debt that will be incurred herein, but only if all the veterans who take advantage of it default on their loans. That has never happened in this loan program's 88-year history, so what Prop. 32 really comes down to is how generous we feel toward veterans as a group. Vote yes on 32.


Proposition 33
Pensions for State Legislators

Prop. 33 would allow members of the state Legislature to receive retirement benefits from the Public Employees Retirement System, like all other public employees. It would counteract part of Prop. 140, an amendment voters enacted in 1990 to eliminate pensions for legislators. According to the ballot summary, PERS costs would come out of a fixed annual amount provided in support of the Legislature. Supporters say it's only fair that legislators, who serve six to 14 years, should have access to the same retirement benefits that most other state workers get. "We want to have the same retirement benefits as the guy who cuts the grass, the guy who maintains the vehicles," says Assemblyman Bret Granlund, R-Yucaipa. Supporters argue that the lack of additional benefits discourages low-income candidates from running for office, and the availability of a retirement plan would encourage diversity. But the proposition's opponents call it an unnecessary perk, called for by the legislators who would receive the benefits. "This is not for the benefit of the public," said Lewis Uhler, the president of the National Tax-Limitation Committee. "This is crass self-interest." We agree. Legislators already earn $99,000 per year and are eligible for about $25,000 per year more in tax-free reimbursement for living expenses. That's plenty of dough to invest in their own retirement. Vote no on Prop. 33.


Proposition 34
Campaign Donation Limits

Prop. 34 is a cynical attempt by state politicians to sell voters a package of positive campaign finance reform. Voters shouldn't buy into it. Proposition 34 would allow for almost unlimited campaign donations and undo the work of Proposition 208, the 1996 campaign reform initiative passed by 61.3 percent of voters. A year after it was enacted, a federal court suspended the proposition. But this year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled favorably in a Missouri case with provisions similar to 208. Legal experts believe that, based on this case, Prop. 208 will be reinstated. If Prop. 34 passes, however, the chances of reviving Prop. 208 may diminish, if not be killed. Even more suspect than the politicians' cheap ruse is the way in which Prop. 34 was fast-tracked through the Legislature, without public input. Gov. Gray Davis, a Prop. 34 supporter, has even said that the bill was "devised largely in secret, without input from the public or knowledgeable sources." Under Prop. 34--which does almost nothing to curb the influence of soft money--politicians and big parties win, not the voters. Vote no on Prop. 34.


Proposition 35
Caltrans Private Contracting

We Bay Area folk know all too well just how long Caltrans can take to finish anything. Almost all the major regional highways--880, 17, 280, 101, 680--are in disarray and in need of repair and maintenance. Traffic congestion plagues the Bay Area as well as the rest of the state, which makes voting yes on Prop. 35 a wise decision. The California Department of Transportation--Caltrans--has a backlog of public works projects that are completed largely by in-house engineers and architects. Current California law allows the state to contract outside services, but only under limited circumstances. Under Prop. 35, state agencies such as Caltrans would be able to use qualified private engineers and architects to simply get the jobs done safely and efficiently. And maybe even more cheaply. According to the Yes on Prop. 35 campaign, an economic study of the proposition showed that the use of private sector services would save California taxpayers $2.5 billion annually and create 40,000 additional private sector jobs. Opponents of the proposition say that the initiative is only following a trend toward privatization, and in doing so, public employee unions lose out on pay and work. They argue that public works projects should be completed by public employees. But we're going along with the countless supporters of the proposition--sponsor Taxpayers for Fair Competition, the California chapter of the American Institute of Architects, and the California Minority and Women's Business Coalition--who say spread the wealth and the work. With more people working on the job, long-term projects are accomplished sooner--on time and on budget. Vote yes on Prop. 35.


Proposition 36
Diversion of Drug Offenders

Proposition 36, backed by the same sponsors that helped pass the Medical Marijuana initiative, presents a sticky situation. Since the war on drugs has been waged, federal and state measures combating drugs have focused on criminal-law enforcement over prevention and treatment. In California, where prisons have become a boom industry, that effort has largely failed, and the public seems itching to enact more liberal drug policies. At first glance, Prop. 36, which seeks to put most first- and second-time drug offenders in treatment programs instead of in jail, seems to fit that growing sentiment. If passed, the proposition would divert approximately 37,000 nonviolent drug offenders from California's prisons, which have the highest rate of admissions for drug-related offenses in the United States. So what's not to like? Couched in decriminalizing terms, the proposition is cleverly misleading. Prop. 36 does not push for any real accountability, excluding what drug-court judges regard as crucial court sanctions--the "carrot and stick" approach--used to get addicts to clean up. Prop. 36 also prohibits spending any of the money allocated in the initiative for drug testing, which, according to judges, is the only tried-and-true method to determine if someone is using drugs. When drug-court graduates were asked what kept them in treatment, 91 percent said jail sanctions and 87 percent said frequent drug testing, according to a study done by American University. The lack of treatment opportunities for offenders has important implications, and, if anything, Prop. 36 accurately pinpoints California's growing interest in doing more about it. But the oddly worded initiative undermines the work currently being done by California's drug-treatment courts and provides no satisfactory solution. Vote no, and let's wait for more precise and forward-looking legislation on drugs.


Proposition 37
Hazardous Businesses Fees

Let's pretend we don't give a damn about reading through lengthy and complicated propositions. Let's just say that all we want to do is show up at the polls and choose the vote that will least embarrass us when we discover what the proposition was really all about. There's actually a way to cut through the mumbo-jumbo--a Cliff Notes for schooling ourselves on which way to vote. Just follow the money. Take Prop. 37, for example. Philip Morris ponied up $350,000, the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States kicked in $200,000, and Chevron sweetened the pot with another $200,000 to push it through. With this much information, do we even need to know what Prop. 37 is before making an educated guess on which way to vote? For the record, companies that create hazards to our health have to pay a fee to the state to monitor and then clean up their messes. Proposition 37 would redefine these fees as taxes, therefore subjecting the fees to a two-thirds vote for approval. In other words, we--not the polluter--would be footing the cleanup bill. Who's against Prop. 37? The American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters--and the Bohemian. Vote no on Prop. 37.


Proposition 38
School Vouchers

The theory behind Prop. 38, venture capitalist Tim Draper's school voucher initiative, appears to be that since California's public schools are in need of some help, we should just take their funding away and give it to privately funded educational institutions. This logic is a little like attempting to cure the homeless problem by taking away people's cardboard boxes. The initiative proposes to hand out vouchers in the amount of $4,000 per child, funds that would be used to enroll children in private schools. According to state budget analysts, this initiative, if passed, would cost around $3 billion, money that would be unloaded from the state's coffers, and certainly from the already inadequate public school budget. While the parents of children already enrolled in private schools would no doubt welcome a publicly funded reduction in tuition payments, this action would indisputably jeopardize the futures of our children still remaining in public schools. Vote no on Prop. 38.


Proposition 39
Easier Passage of School Bonds

You know we're in trouble when a numbskull like George W. Bush can pass himself off as an education candidate. Closer to home, California has its own problems--namely, overcrowded schools and, in some cases, students who are forced to attend classes in Third World conditions characterized by portable trailers, minimal libraries and computer labs, broken heaters, crumbling plaster, and poor plumbing. If passed, Prop. 39 would overhaul the way school bond money is spent. It would amend the state constitution (which now requires a two-thirds vote of the electorate) to allow school districts to authorize by a two-thirds vote the sale of bonds not exceeding $100 per average household. The bond issue must then be approved by 55 percent of the voters. The proposition offers greater safeguards than those guaranteed under Prop. 13, which set no limit on the amount of bonds that can be issued. At the same time, Prop. 39 makes it easier for struggling school districts to order the kind of capital improvements sorely needed in California, which ranks second in the nation in class size (only Utah averages more students per classroom). We urge a yes vote on Prop. 39.


[ North Bay | MetroActive Central | Archives ]


From the November 2-8, 2000 issue of the Northern California Bohemian.

Copyright © Metro Publishing Inc. Maintained by Boulevards New Media.




Foreclosures - Real Estate Investing
San Jose.com Real Estate