Here is a table of some Progressive Voter Recommendations. You can also click on links below the table to read about their reasoning.
Friends Committee on Legislation California
Courage Campaign (includes other organizations’ recommendations as well)
San Francisco League of Pissed-Off Voters
Here are California Proposition recommendations from the Friends Committee on California Legislation
This link below gives you the full newsletter with in-depth analysis of each
http://www.fclca.org/images/stories/pdfs/fall2018newsletterfinal.pdf
Brett Kavanaugh is unfit to be a Supreme Court nominee regardless of what he may or may not have done as a teen.
First of all, his record is more of one of a political hack—someone who has spent much of his career involved in party politics on behalf of the Republican party, meaning he is not likely to be unbiased in political type cases—e.g. gerrymandering and voter registration—that are likely to come before the court.
Then has been Kavanaugh’s demeanor in the hearings. The hearings are a form of a job interview, and his attack on his employers—the people who vote to appoint him or not, show he does not have the demeanor to be a judge. A judge of the highest court in the nation needs to be able to not take a job interview personally and let his emotions control his actions. His actions in the hearings do not show that.
It is also hard to believe Kavanaugh’s testimony about what kind of person he was at that age, given what is known about him from others and the culture of the school’s he went to. His attack any for questioning him on such an unlikely story, again shows is lack of character.
He accused the Democratic party and Senators of creating a conspiracy against him. If someone goes into the court believing one party is conspiring against him, and states so publicly, he cannot then be seen as impartial.
And even if here was an attempt by one party to disqualify him, does he feel the same way regarding how the Republican party openly conspired against Obama’s nominee? The Republican’s did not even allow a hearing, and then changed the rules once they had power to allow a simple majority to select the Supreme Court judge when up until then it took 60 votes. I call that a conspiracy. A democracy is not the rule of the majority over the minority, but a working together of the whole for the good of all. The Republican’s did not even try to hide their partisan purpose behind those actions.
Any single one of these, and more, are reasons alone to disqualify Kavanaugh to serve on the Supreme Court. Put together they make a travesty of our legal system and our Democracy.
I am probably preaching to the choir, but the claim of giving tax relief to the rich and corporations will help the middle class or poor is patently false, both logically and from past empirical evidence.
The claim is that the savings would be used to create jobs. Since those getting the tax breaks currently are making record profits or already have huge amount of money, if they wanted to invest it to create jobs they could do so now without further incentives, so giving them more is unlikely to change whether they use it that way or not. In fact, in the past they have used such profits to move jobs overseas, to buy up other companies in mergers, which reduces jobs, especially middle management jobs—those of the middle class. The rich, in such times as now, find safe places to invest their monies, such as real estate and expensive goods, neither of which create much employment. Their investment in real estate often in fact creates higher housing costs for the rest of the population.
Then there was the statement by the Administration that companies would use the tax break to automate, which would save them more money, which they could use to raise wages. Let us look at that statement and take it apart. If they did use it to automate, that would mean job losses not gains. And while they could use the money to raise wages, what incentive would they have to do so? Under capitalism, when they have more workers wanting the same jobs, they are more likely to lower wages when there is more competition for the same jobs, not raise wages.
The idea of reducing or eliminating capital gain taxes also goes against basic fairness. The idea that earnings from actual work that produces something is taxed more than income made from doing nothing, simply from the fact that one is rich, seems absurd. Should not unearned income –income made off of the work of others, be taxed higher than the earned income which is earned by ones sweat and toil? The earning income from investments rather than hard work again is mostly in the hands of the very rich, so any breaks there would again be heavily weighted in favor of the extremely wealthy.
There is also the plan to eliminate the estate tax (tax on estates at death). Currently only the very rich pay this, as it is only paid on amounts over $5,400,000 ($10,800,000 for couples). This tax saving would be enormous for the children of multi-millionaires and billionaires who did nothing at all to earn that money, except be born to the right parents.
When the poor or middle class have more money, they do spend it. The money they spend is likely to create more jobs since increased purchase of consumer goods means there is an incentive to produce more goods, which does create jobs.
If one really wanted to help the economy while not raising the debt one would be increasing taxes to those who have the money, the rich, who are richer than ever before in history, and large corporations, who are currently making record profits. Lowering taxes for the middle class and getting money to the poor will create jobs by putting it in the hands of those who need it and will spend it. Basic logic and past empirical evidence bears this out.
George Lakoff, UC Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics, is a renowned expert in neural theory of language and thought. His perspective on how to frame issues and respond to our current crisis is helpful. You may have seen his 10 point list going around Facebook:
1. If you repeat Trump, it helps to spread his message. Never use his language – use your own words and values to reframe the conversation.
2. This is a regime, and he’s not acting alone.
3. Do not argue with those who support him; it doesn’t work.
4. Focus on his policies, not his orange-ness and mental state.
5. Keep your message positive; the administration wants the country to be angry and fearful because this is the soil from which their darkest policies will grow.
6. Minimize helpless-hopeless-apocalyptic talk.
7. Support artists and the arts.
8. Be careful not to spread fake news; check it.
9. Take care of yourselves.
10. And #Resist!
Lakoff’s most recent blog – I would underline his point that “The best resistance is positive persistence.” can read be read online at https://georgelakoff.com/blog/
Below are my recommendations on the 17 California Propositions
(links to other explanations and recommendations)
There is a part of me that wants to just vote no on every proposition as the initiative process is in my opinion a severely flawed process for making law. The reason we elect representatives is to make and pass laws—it is their full time job. To expect every citizen to become an expert on 17 issues this year, many of which have complex provisions in them, is ludicrous and ends up meaning people often vote based on knee jerk reactions to the initiative’s title. Legislative bills go through the give and take of compromise and debate to amend them, which I think is a good process. Propositions are voted up and down as is, with no opportunity to fine tune them. And the outcome is actually more, not less, influenced by big money as people tend to get their info from TV ads or just going by who supports or opposes it, if not simply the title. Not a good way to makes laws and amend our State Constitution.
Proposition 51, School Facility Bonds: No
While more money for schools is always good, there are a couple of hidden poison pills here. One is that it exempts developers from paying fees to go to schools when they create new developments until all the bond money is used up (such developments often creates the need for new schools, and so traditionally developers pay fees to offset such costs). It therefore transfers the burden from developers to increased general state debt.
Also it gives a disproportionate share of the money to charter schools, which actually undermines traditional public neighborhood schools.
Proposition 52, Medical for Private Hospital fees: Abstaining
While the proposition makes sense, this was originally done by the legislature and no reason they cannot extend it as a bill. We should not be voting as propositions what our legislatures can easily do themselves. We elect and pay them to be the experts and understand the details and repercussions of such bills. Additionally this is a Constitutional amendment. Constitutional amendments are extremely difficult to change or amend if need be, like if there is a need to change these fees in one direction or the other. I am not voting no as I do not want to send the message that I am against these fees.
Proposition 53: Public vote of Revenue Bonds: No
Revenue bonds are paid off by users of the service the bond pays for (e.g. tolls if used to a bridge). This bill was put up by one individual who does not like one particular project. We elect our representatives to make these decisions. And no reason everyone in the state should be voting on every project—and need to be an expert on all the pros, cons and details of them that is needed to make an informed decision — especially projects that do not affect those voters in terms of paying for them or serving them.
Proposition 54: Changes in Legislation Process: No
This bill would require 72-hour notice before any bill could be voted on, among other things. On its face, this proposition does seem to offer more transparency in government, but in reality would make passing any bill extremely difficult. As bills are normally passed, they go through a process of adjustments and amendments to both make compromises and fix problems with them. If every amendment or minor change meant a 72-hour wait, it would take forever to get anything done. This is why Republicans, who are in the minority in California want it, as they want to be able to obstruct bills.
Proposition 55: Tax on High Incomes: Yes
This extends the 1%-3% additional tax on individuals making over $250K and couples over $500K per year. The money mostly goes to schools. Since our infrastructure is falling apart and the rich have been getting richer at the expense of the rest of us over the last decade or so, it only makes sense to get the additional money our society needs from those who both most can afford it and have benefited the most from our economy.
Proposition 56: Tobacco Tax: Undecided
I am mixed on this. Cigarette and “sin” taxes tend to hit the poor much more than the well to do. But it is in society’s interest to discourage smoking as higher prices do, and smoking has societal costs that these taxes help offset.
Proposition 57: Parole, and Sentencing: Yes
We have several times the percentage of our population in jail as any other civilized country, and when you look at the percentage of our oppressed minority groups, the numbers are staggering. The evidence is that the longer people spend in jail the less fit they are to reintegrate themselves back into society. Reducing sentences for those that are not a clear and present danger only makes humane sense (and economic sense, as keeping people in prison is extremely expensive).
Proposition 58: English Language Education: English Language Education: Yes
This overturns the anti-bilingual proposition passed 17 years ago. It does not require bilingual education, but allows schools to once again use it if they wish. All research has shown bilingual education to be at least, if not more, effective than the English Only instruction required under the previous Unz initiative. Arguments that it has raised test scores are wholly false. For one thing, state testing only became high stakes after Unz, as well as the fact that all sorts of other instructional changes have taken place, so the number of factors that might affect test scores are too numerous to count. Furthermore, the tests have changed more than once, so any comparison is meaningless.
Proposition 59: Citizens United Advisory: Yes
While in some ways meaningless, any message that we object to the Supreme Court ruling that Corporations have the right to spend unlimited amounts influencing political elections since they are “people” is worth it.
Proposition 60, Condoms: No
While wearing condoms is a good idea this bill is horrible. There actually are laws already on the books requiring the use of condoms. This would allow individuals to sue anyone involved in the porn film as individuals and the person filing the suit would personally get some of the proceeds from the fines involved as well as court fees, giving enormous incentive for any anti-porn people to file frivolous law suits in the hope of financial gain. It also requires the actors to divulge their home address. It also has the potential of making the writer of the bill the Porn Czar if any one challenges the amendment. It also likely applies to individuals who shoot their own private porn movies, not just commercial movies.
Proposition 61: Prescription Drug Costs: No
Many good organizations and people seem to be supporting this, and the intent is good—bring down prescription drug costs. But the devil is in the details. It only applies to a small number of residents (Medical patients who are not under managed care systems). It also is impossible to really do what it says. The negotiated prices are not public, so how would we know if we are getting lower price? It mandates the government to get the lower prices but not the drug companies to agree to those prices. It could encourage the drug companies to raise prices to the Vets so that then the price the government has to match is actually higher not lower. This is the wrong solution to a real problem. Whether it will actually reduce drug prices is dubious, and even possibly could create higher prices.
Proposition 62: Abolish Death Penalty: Yes
Killing people is just wrong, even (or especially?) if done by the state. It does not bring justice, only revenge. It is not a deterrent—people committing crimes that lead to death penalty do not think—“oh, I might get the death penalty if I do this!” It does not make up for anything the perpetrator has done. It is expensive to carry out. The death sentence is disproportionately given to minority and poor people. And sometimes innocent people are executed. We are one of the few countries with a death penalty. Those that do have it tend to be religious extremists and totalitarian (e.g. some Muslim states and Russia and China).
Proposition 63: Gun and Ammunition sales: Yes
This would make it more difficult for those who have committed violent crimes and with certain types of mental illnesses to get ammunition. If it makes it a little more inconvenient for others to also get ammunition, I do not see that as a bad thing. I do not see why we make it easier to buy guns and ammo than we do to check out a library book!
Proposition 64: Making Recreational Marijuana Legal: Yes
There are some problems with the details of this bill, and there will be problems with its implementation, as we have seen in other states. Also, I would rather see this done by the legislature than as an initiative. Waiting might have some advantages, in that we could learn more about what is working and not working in other states that have legalized marijuana.
However, I plan to vote yes anyway. The societal costs of criminalizing marijuana use are just not worth it, both in terms of costs of prosecution and jail, and ruining the lives of those who are prosecuted. Legalizing marijuana take it out of the hands of the criminal market to where it is easier to regulate the industry. If it gets voted down would send a message to the legislature that the public does not want to legalize it (an example of why I do not like the initiative process as I cannot send a nuanced message, as I might be able to do when a bill is working its way through the process).
Proposition 65: Carry out bag fees: No
Paid for by plastic bag industry to confuse the issue of Prop 67, the ban on bags, and to punish the supermarkets for their support of the ban. It claims to support the environment, giving the money for bags to a conservation organization, but the only supporters of the bill are the plastic bag industry. Environmental groups are NOT supporting this bill.
Proposition 66: Death Penalty procedures: No
Makes it easier to carry out the Death penalty, and makes appeals harder.
Proposition 67: Plastic Bag Ban: Yes
Plastic bags are extremely bad for the environment, and these bans have been very effective in getting people to use reusable bags instead of paper or plastic ones. The only real opposition is the Plastic Bag industry–who put it up in the first place hoping to override the bill the legislature already passed with a no vote on this. This is a straight forward example of big private money trying to hijack the legislative process.
Official voter guide http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/
BallotPedia: Gives extensive information on each Initiative, with pros and cons and who is for it and against, and money contributed, and all sorts of analysis. Non-partisan
https://ballotpedia.org/California_2016_ballot_propositions
Cal Matters: Gives quick summaries of each. Non partisan
https://calmatters.org/elections/
Friends Committee on Legislation of California: Gives their recommendations with detailed explanations.
http://www.fclca.org/images/stories/pdfs/2016fallnewsletter.pdf
DailyKos blogger analysis and recommendations: Mostly agrees with my analysis
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/2/1577123/-Analyzing-California-s-17-Propositions-on-the-November-2016-Ballot
California league of Women Voters recommendations:
https://lwvc.org/vote/elections/ballot-recommendations
California Democratic Party:
http://www.cadem.org/vote/2016-ballot-initiatives
| Proposition | Me | Friends Committee | League of Women Voters | DailyKos-Mainstreet | Democratic Party |
| 51 | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 52 | * | No | * | Yes | Yes |
| 53 | No | No | * | No | No |
| 54 | No | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| 55 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 56 | * | * | * | No | Yes |
| 57 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 58 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 59 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 60 | No | No | * | No | No |
| 61 | No | No | * | No | * |
| 62 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 63 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 64 | Yes | Yes | * | Yes | Yes |
| 65 | No | No | * | No | * |
| 66 | No | No | No | No | No |
| 67 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
* No Position or Undecided
Nicholas Meier 