<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16443"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Cambria; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 14pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=4 face=Cambria>
<DIV><FONT size=4>For Thursday's meeting. Deadline for decisions to be
reported (by a County Council member) is Saturday April 28th.
Warner</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<HR>
</DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:
marnie@cagreens.org<BR>To: <BR>Sent: 4/5/2012 1:08:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight
Time<BR>Subj: Prop 28 and Prop 29<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000
size=2 face=Arial><FONT size=2 face="Arial, Verdana, sans-serif">Hi County
Council members and GPCA leaders.<BR></FONT>
<P>Below is an analysis of Propositions 28 and 29 by several active members of
the Green Party of Alameda County. Thank you Alameda Greens.</P>
<P>We are asking all county councils to discuss and vote yes, no, no position
or abstain on these propositions.</P>
<P>THE DEADLINE TO SEND US YOUR POSITIONS IS APRIL 30.<BR><BR>Thank you to the
county councils that have already sent your positions to us: San Diego,
Tulare, Alameda and Marin.</P>
<P>Please contact us if you have any questions.</P>
<P>Best wishes,<BR>Marnie Glicmkan, 415.259.7121<BR>Richard Gomez, Fresno
County, <SPAN>nate136_66@yahoo.com</SPAN></P>
<P>***</P>
<P><SPAN style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline"><STRONG>Proposition 28 (Changes to
term limits) -- Yes (with reservations)</STRONG></SPAN></P>
<P>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.</P>
<P>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.</P>
<P>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.</P>
<P>The Green Party’s position on Proposition 28 should be: “Yes (with
reservations)”. </P>
<P><SPAN style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline"><STRONG>Proposition 29 (Tobacco
tax) -- Either "No position", or "No"</STRONG></SPAN><BR><BR>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%.</P>
<P>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.</P>
<P>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.</P>
<P>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.).</P>
<P>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. </P><BR></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>