[GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Prop 28 and Prop 29 / For Thursday's Meeting

[WB4D23 at aol.com]

For Thursday's meeting.  Deadline for decisions to be  reported (by a 
County Council member) is Saturday April 28th.   Warner
 
 
  
____________________________________
 
From:  marnie at cagreens.org
To: 
Sent: 4/5/2012 1:08:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight  Time
Subj: Prop 28 and Prop 29


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 Limitation  
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 to 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  initiative 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. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20120422/5d6d970c/attachment.html>