With less than a week to go, EGP remind voters to take the time to review the numerous propositions and candidate choices on the Nov. 2 General Election Ballot.
Your Los Angeles County issued sample ballot should list your Polling Place. If not, or if you lost or did not receive a sample ballot, you can go to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s voter information website — http://www.lavote.net/Voter/Default.cfm — or call 1-800-815-2666 to get information about where to vote. You can also call the County’s main 2-1-1 information line.
Brown for Governor
We are confident that Jerry Brown knows his way around Sacramento and believe that to be an advantage going into what promises to be a bumpy budget and legislative year –years – ahead.
Well some may see his being a political insider as a negative, we see it as an asset. His experience as a former governor, mayor and our current attorney general give him a depth of knowledge that will allow him to cut through the subterfuge that often accompany the legislative and budgetary process.
We are confident that Brown has the ability to engage both sides of the aisle in the dialogue and practice needed to move the state forward, and to say no to both Democrats and Republicans who would stand in the way of moving the state toward much needed reform in an open and transparent manner.
We recall Brown saying that small is better; we wish that our legislators had remembered what he meant.
During his previous stint as governor, Brown was frugal, yet compassionate. One of his past failings was his occasional tendency to dismiss the opinions of people he felt were not up to his intellectual standard, we hope the years have tempered that a bit.
Some have said that Brown reinvents himself every few years, well, we think that’s okay. Isn’t that what adults do? We grown up, we change, we learn from our experiences, and hopefully, we get wiser as a result. Staying the same is akin to being stagnant. That’s not Jerry.
Meg Whitman may have been a successful CEO but the political shenanigans that go on in private industry are no match for politics in Sacramento. California is in too delicate a state to wait for someone who will have to spend time learning her way around.
And while we may yearn for the efficiencies that are supposed to be the hallmark of business, California is not a business, nor should it be run as one.
We look forward to what Jerry Brown says about his ability to deal with a California in an unofficial recession, because right now he’s the only one we see who can handle the job.
We have no endorsement for Lt. Governor, we feel that Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado or Gavin Newsome can do a good job as Lt. Governor. —No Recommendation
Our endorsement goes to Dave Jones for his experience and his experience as a consumer protections advocate in the state legislator.
Superintendent of Public Instruction
We believe Larry Aceves is the best person to be state Superintendant. A retired school superintendent, we believe Aceves has the experience to deal with the state’s school budget woes, low-test scores and poor performance of many school districts. As a former teacher, Aceves may also be able to engage teachers as partners in the process to improve the education process for all of California’s students.
Justices of the Supreme Court—Chin, Moreno and Cantil-Sakauye
We regret we even have to vote for members of the court since we believe members of the court should be free from the political whims of the election process, unless accused of conduct unseemly for a Supreme Court Justice. —Vote to Reelect: Ming William Chin, Carlos R. Moreno, Tani Cantil-Sakauye
United States Representatives
The following candidates are being recommended for reelection because we believe they are all well qualified and have represented their constituents in an appropriate manner. We look forward to them continuing their good work. We hope they make every effort to listen to their constituents concerns and vote accordingly.
—Vote to Reelect:
31st District: Xavier Becerra
32nd District: Judy Chu
34th District: Lucille Roybal-Allard
36th District: Jane Harman
38th District: Grace F. Napolitano
39th District: Linda Sanchez
22nd District: Kevin De Leon
30th District: Ronald Calderon
45th District: Gil Cedillo
46th District: John Perez
48th District: Mike Davis
49th District: Mike Eng
50th District: Ricardo Lara
58th District: Charles Calderon
PROP 23—Suspends Implementation of Air Pollution Control Law (AB 32) Requiring Major Sources of Emissions to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming, Until Unemployment Drops to 5.5 Percent or Less For Full Year. Initiative Statute.
In a nutshell, Prop 23 if passed would delay implementation of California Assembly Bill 32, AB 32, a state law that requires greenhouse gas emission levels in the state be cut to 1990 levels by 2020. Certain provisions in the law, namely to begin the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, are set to begin in 2012.
Passage of Prop 23 would not repeal or reverse AB 32, but would suspend its implementation until California’s unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. It would further prohibit the state from proposing or implementing greenhouse-gas-reduction programs, such as increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major emission sources such as manufacturing and power plants and oil refineries, under AB 32, until the suspension ends. Enforcement of previously adopted regulations would also be prohibited.
Backers and opponents both claim that passing Prop 23 will impact jobs.
Supporters of the measure say that not suspending AB 32 would further hurt the economy and cost the state jobs, and are campaigning for its passage under the renamed “California Jobs Initiative.” They cite the state’s 12.3 percent unemployment rate as the primary reason to delay implementation, which they say will result in higher costs to businesses, forcing more job losses and increased energy costs to California household. They also say that reaching the 5.5 unemployment rate is doable and that the state has done it numerous times since 1988; the last time was between October 2005 and June 2007.
Opponents see Prop 23 as a scheme by out of state oil companies and other big businesses to kill California clean air standards and investment in clean energy jobs. They are calling Prop 23 the “Dirty Energy Proposition.” They say setting the unemployment rate threshold at 5.5 percent for one full year will doom AB 32 by indefinitely delaying its implementation. They cite a number of economic forecasts that keep the unemployment rate at above 5.5 percent for sometime to come. The uncertainty caused by Prop 23’s passage would kill investments in clean and green technology in California, reducing the number of new jobs already being created in the state.
AB 32 includes a provision allowing the Governor of California to suspend the provisions of AB 32 if there are “extraordinary circumstances” in place, such as “significant economic harm.” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed AB 32 into law and sees it as a major accomplishment of his tenure as governor, has made no move to pull the “significant economic harm” trigger despite California’s current economic woes.
Elizabeth Hsing-Huei Chou’s story this week on Prop 23 does an excellent job of detailing the on-going debate in this state over two great needs: jobs and a clean environment.
While both supporters and opponents have each trotted out studies and data to support their jobs forecast, we believe at the core of the debate is what kind of jobs do we want, and what are we willing to pay or sacrifice to get them.
So it comes down to this: Do you believe that delaying implementation of AB 32 will cost us jobs of the future and destroy the states advancement in green technology and our environment? If so, Vote No on Prop 23.
But if you believe that the state’s economy is currently so bad that anything that raises energy costs will hurt businesses, forcing them to layoff workers and raising the state’s unemployment rate, then Vote Yes on Prop 23.
Both Prop 23 and AB 32 are extreme in their solutions and proposals, which is why we believe its up to the voters to decide which way to vote.—No Recommendation Version:1.0
More EGP Ballot Recommendations
Prop 19—Legalizes Marijuana under California but not federal law and allows local governments to regulate and tax the commercial production, sale and distribution. As written, the Initiative doe not provide sufficient regulation and safeguards. —Vote No
Prop 20—Takes redistricting process away from legislators and places it in the hands of a Citizens’ Commission. —Vote Yes
Prop 21—Adds another $18 to the Vehicle License to pay for State Parks and Wildlife Programs. —Vote No
Prop 22—State legislators should be prohibited from taking funds from local governments to balance its budget. —Vote Yes
Prop 24—Repealing recently approved business tax breaks will hurt many small businesses already struggling with the bad economy and burdensome regulations. —Vote No
Prop 25—Amending California’s Constitution to allow the State Legislature to pass the Budget on simple majority vote rather than the two-thirds vote currently required is not a good idea.—Vote No
Prop 26—Redefining certain fees as taxes is an underhanded way for businesses to saddle everyone with certain mitigation costs resulting from their business. —Vote No
Prop 27—Californians have already voted to take the job of redistricting away form state legislators, there is no reason to overturn that decision before it is given a fair chance to be implemented.—Vote No
United States Senator — EGP endorses Barbara Boxer
State Attorney General — EGP endorses Steve Cooley
State Controller — EGP endorses John Chiang
Secretary of State — EGP endorses Debra Bowen
State Treasurer —EGP endorses Bill Lockyer
To read more details about EGP News endorsements, go to www.EGPNews.com