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

[Gerry Gras]

My responses are below.

Gerry


WB4D23 at aol.com wrote:
> 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)”.

I don't understand this.  I agree in that I too oppose
term limits.  What I don't understand is why this change
is an improvement.  For someone who wants to only be in
the Assembly, this is an improvement.  But for someone
who wants to keep "moving up the ladder", and wants to be
in both the Assembly and the Senate, he/she has 2 LESS years.
(I will send a copy of this to Marnie and Richard and Greg Jan.)

>
>     *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.

I don't understand this either.

I agree that this would be unfortunate for current smokers,
especially if it does not reduce their smoking.

On the other hand, smoking does cost society a lot in terms
of cancer and other illnesses.  Would not society benefit
from a higher cost?

As for researchers, I know nothing about the rationale for
spending money on the researchers.

(I will send a copy of this to Marnie and Richard and Greg Jan.)

Gerry