[GPSCC-chat] Prop 28 and 29

[Jim Doyle]

  Hi County Council members and GPCA leaders.

Below is an analysis of Propositions 28 and 29 by several active members
of the Green Party of Alameda County. Thank you Alameda Greens.

We are asking all county councils to discuss and vote yes, no, no position
or abstain on these propositions.

THE DEADLINE TO SEND US YOUR POSITIONS IS APRIL 30.

Thank you to the county councils that have already sent your positions 
to us:
San Diego, Tulare, Alameda and Marin.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Best wishes,
Marnie Glicmkan, 415.259.7121
Richard Gomez, Fresno County, nate136_66 at yahoo.com

***

*Proposition 28 (Changes to term limits) -- Yes (with reservations)*

Proposition 28 reduces the number of years persons elected after June 5, 
2012
can serve in the Legislature from 14 years to 12 years total in a lifetime.
At the same time it increases the number of years persons can serve in 
either
House (Assembly or State Senate) to a maximum of 12 years.

Proponents of Proposition 28 include the League of Women Voters,
Common Cause, the Congress of California Seniors, the Democratic Party,
and Dan Schnur, Chair of the California Fair Political Practices 
Commission.
Opponents include U.S. Term Limits, Parents In Charge, the National Tax
imitation Committee, and Americans for Prosperity.

The virtue of this proposition is that it is a small change for the 
better. It is a
tacit admission that term limits, which went into effect in November 
1990, have
been a fiasco for public policy. (The effect of term limits has been 
strengthening
the hand of corporate lobbyists in dealing with a revolving door of 
legislators.)
But we have two reservations. First, this is a very small improvement. 
It will
not undo the damage done by term limits. (We are totally opposed to term 
limits.

Term limits are an assault on the process of democracy, in which the voters
decide whom they want to represent them.) Second, this measure does not 
address
the real problems of the Legislature; the lack of responsiveness to the 
99% caused
by the exclusive dominance by the two corporate parties. As Ralph Nader 
says,
“We need more voices and choices.” To this end, in the short term, we 
propose
ranked choice voting,as is now used for city council elections in 
Oakland, Berkeley,
and San Leandro. In the longer term, we favor moving to a system of 
proportional
representation, as is now used in most countries in the world, including 
Japan, Brazil,
Venezuela, and in almost all European nations.

The Green Party’s position on Proposition 28 should be: “Yes (with 
reservations)”.

*Proposition 29 (Tobacco tax) -- Either "No position", or "No"*

Proposition 29 is largely another example of blaming and punishing the 
victim.
Nicotine is a drug that is addicting. Those who are unfortunate enough 
to smoke
are currently paying 87 cents in excise taxto the state for every pack 
of cigarettes,
accounting for 905 million dollars annually, and by adding one dollar 
per pack,
Prop. 29 would more than double that. The same people who would pay this 
tax
are generally people who are already suffering from the effects of 
tobacco. It's
doubtful we can ever succeed in getting everyone to quit smoking and 
another
tax on cigarettes and all tobacco products will only serve to put more 
stress and
burden on those who smoke -- almost all of whom are part of the 99%.

Proposition 29 would create another politically-appointed bureaucratic 
entity to
administer these funds without any real accountability. One of the most 
chilling
things about Proposition 29 is the fact that if this tax goes into 
effect it has built in
immunity to any changes for the next 15 years.

While it's probably true (as the proponents argue), that increasing the 
cost of
cigarettes by about 25% would somewhat discourage teenagers from starting
o smoke, it should be noted that only a small portion of the funds that 
are raised
would actually go to prevent people from (or help them to stop) smoking. 
Instead,
the bulk of the money will mostly subsidize highly paid researchers. If 
Prop. 29 were
truly serious about helping to prevent smoking, then the bulk of the 
money would
instead have been used for prevention programs.

Finally, voters should be aware that the notorious Don Perata (formerly 
leader
of the State Senate) used this ballot measure as one of the main 
vehicles to raise
money to help him (indirectly) with his 2010 campaign for Oakland Mayor. For
example, in early 2010, Perata's state initiative campaign fund already 
had $700,000
in its accounts and it was sharing an office with his Mayor's campaign 
-- and
"the Don" was using some of that initiative money on consultants who 
were also
working on his Mayoral campaign, and on mailers which publicized himself to
Oakland voters, as well as on fancy hotels and meals, etc. (See: 
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/the-cancer-in-the-oakland-mayors-race/Content?oid=1600133. 

And after Perata lost the Mayor's race to Jean Quan, he then paid his 
friend,
city council member Ignacio DeLaFuente, $12,000 to be a "consultant" on the
nitiative campaign, etc.).

Of course, Perata calculated that it would be very unlikely that any 
major group
would (sympathetically) defend addicted smokers from a tax increase on 
tobacco,
and that (probably) only tobacco companies would contribute much money to
defeat it (which so far is the case), so for the solid majority of 
voters, the
"politically correct" position is going to be to approve this proposition.
Which means that this could easily become a "hot potato" for the state 
Green Party.
Therefore, despite all of the reasons cited above for defeating this 
proposition,
"politically", it may well be smarter for the state Green Party to just 
"stay out of it" --
and have "No position" on Prop. 29.



Go ahead. Go Green Party.
http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/ 
<http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/?e=9a3141e7526130fbe9374017079886deb24692e4&utm_source=cagreens&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=county_apr_5&n=1&recruiter_id=120557> 


-=-=-
Green Party of California · PO Box 485, San Francisco, CA 94104
This email was sent to j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net. To stop receiving 
emails, click here 
<http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/unsubscribe?e=9a3141e7526130fbe9374017079886deb24692e4&utm_source=cagreens&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=county_apr_5&n=2&recruiter_id=120557>. 

-=-=-

Created with NationBuilder 
<http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/r?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnationbuilder.com%2F&utm_campaign=county_apr_5&n=3&e=9a3141e7526130fbe9374017079886deb24692e4&utm_source=cagreens&utm_medium=email>, 
the essential toolkit for leaders.