Archive - November 2005 Ballot

The best thing that could have happened actually did. Voters rejected the entire slate of Propositions. The Governor, who insisted on holding this special election, costing the state over $55 million, has had to apologize. Personally, I think he should reimburse us for what was entirely his fault. Although I had voted yes on the last two Props, they were not enthusiastic endorsements. All state Propositions these days are flawed, and these were not exceptions. Here are my summaries of the Propositions of November 2005:

Prop 73 - FAILED Amends the state constitution to bar abortions for minors until 48 hours after parental notification. Makes exemptions for medical emergency, or judicial waiver. Unlike the US Constitution, California’s charter explicitly guarantees an individual’s right to privacy. As a result abortion opponents have been unable to pass a parental notification law that passes constitutional muster. In 1996 a law of this sort was struck down by the state Supreme Court. In its decision the Chief Justice acknowledged that parents have the right to make most medical decisions for their children. However, he said, “because the decision whether to continue or terminate her pregnancy has such a substantial effect on a pregnant minor’s control over her personal bodily integrity, has such serious long-term consequences in determining her life choices, is so central to the preservation of her ability to define and adhere to her ultimate values regarding the meaning of human existence and life..., we conclude that a minor who is pregnant has a protected privacy interest under the California Constitution...” So the people behind Prop 73 decided to change the constitution. Led by a pair of registered nurses (and funded by a Catholic newspaper publisher in San Diego), they have crafted an amendment that would remove this right to privacy for minors. Note: the prop would not require parental consent, only notification. I’ll admit that the prop sounds reasonable, especially when I ask myself how I would feel if my own daughter were seeking an abortion. I would want to know. However, I also believe that we cannot legislate family harmony, and we cannot assume to know the conditions under which a young woman must make her choices. The decision to have a child must be made with the same maturity as the decision to end a pregnancy. In this I agree with the Chief Justice. There are some matters in which we must treat people as adults regardless of our own beliefs. As Your Political Friend, I suggest you vote NO. Want to see for yourself? Here's the text.

Prop 74 - FAILED This is the first of five initiatives backed by the Governor. Prop 74 seeks to increase the initial probationary period for teachers from two to five years. It would also modify the process by which the school board can fire a tenured teacher. This measure is primarily opposed by The Alliance for a Better California, a coalition of teachers, nurses, cops, and service employees. In case you haven’t been paying attention, Schwarzenegger has spent much of his short time in office publicly attacking these people. Several of his proposed initiatives (one aimed at privatizing public employee pensions, another at raising patient to nurse ratios) raised such protest and media scrutiny that he was forced to shelve them. It seems that he took the whole thing personally. As a result, this entire special election is a testament to his disdain for unions and the political trouble they’ve caused him. The proposition itself is a head scratcher. Why is it on the ballot at all? The proposed changes seem too small and incremental to justify a state referendum. The savings, if any, appear negligible. What is more, the Legislative Analyst says that it will likely increase evaluation costs. So why do we need it? The answer comes when we look at it from the other side. Teachers who are on probation have much less bargaining power than tenured teachers. This measure will keep new teachers fearful and obedient for an additional three years. Everyone knows our schools are inefficient. But are the teachers to blame? The supporters of this prop tell us a horror story about a school district that "spent more than $100,000 in legal fees and $25,000 to resign". They don't mention specifics, but do they really expect us to get upset over a $25K payoff when UC Regents make more than $350,000 and thousands of school bureaucrats and consultants make six-figures? And how many jobs do you know of that require a five year probationary period? And why can't supporters provide data demonstrating that this would improve student performance (assuming this Prop is intended to help the students)? Something just smells wrong with this one. Read the text for yourself and vote NO.

Prop 75 - FAILED Prohibits public employee unions from using membership dues for political purposes except with the prior written consent of individual employees each year. This proposition is vile. Presented to voters as “Paycheck Protection” it declares that public employees are being mistreated by their unions which spend membership dues on political candidates whom the employee might not want to support. The argument in favor says that they just want to protect workers’ rights. And it’s signed by Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman, the Godfather of the Neo-Conservative movement, does not give a rat’s ass about workers. He has spent his career chipping away at protections for the environment, worker safety, and public health. He has hailed “free trade” agreements such as NAFTA and GATT, knowing that they give workers less self-determination and security. No, the point of this initiative is to make it more expensive and difficult for unions to engage in political speech. And you don’t help workers by silencing their unions. This proposition would be fair if Schwarzenegger were proposing the same for corporations, which routinely spend shareholders’ money on political purposes without their consent. Even the auto club, AAA, lobbies for legislation that would deeply offend many of their members, if they were ever informed of these activities. The fact is that unions are, by their nature, political organizations, as are corporations. To limit the abilities of one is to give the other an unfair advantage. And corporations already have a dramatic head start over unions. In the 2004 election, business interests outspent unions in political contributions at an approximate rate of 15-to-1. The initiative is also supported by the National Taxpayer Limitation Committee. It’s opposed by the Alliance for a Better California. Read it for yourself. Then vote NO.

Prop 76 - FAILED In 1979 the state established an overall spending limit that grows according to the state's population and economy. Because of the economic recession in 2001, our current spending is actually less than what the established formula allows. This prop would establish a second spending limit based on prior year expenditures and revenues. It would also set side a "rainy day" reserve when revenues exceed average growth. That all sounds good. But the proposition gets complicated from there. The way things are now, every year the state budgets a certain amount of money for schools. This is called a "minimum funding guarantee". When the state pays less than this minimum, the shortfall is called a "maintenance factor", and must be paid back to the schools over time (our current "maintenance factor" is $3.8 billion). When the state allocates more than the minimum, however, that extra amount is added onto the budget for the next year, and it remains as an additional obligation. This is also true for when the Maintenance Factor is paid back. It's like this – you send your credit card company more than the minimum payment due. But, instead of lowering your balance, they add that overpayment to next year's debt. Prop 76 would change this. Under the measure, future spending over the minimum guarantee would be counted as "one-time" funding and would no longer raise the minimum guarantee amounts. Likewise, the outstanding $3.8 billion "maintenance factor" would also become a one-time payment, and would not raise the minimum. In many ways, this is a reasonable change. The state should not be punished next year for being generous this year. Nor should it be punished for paying back its debts. The teachers, however, warn that this is a budget cut. In some ways it is. By converting the $3.8 billion to a one-time payment, schools will be losing the raise in the "base" funding caused by the debt's repayment. Additionally, the effect of this proposition over time would be to lower the minimum guarantee relative to current law. But the main ingredient that has people worried is a provision that would grant the Governor new powers to unilaterally reduce state spending. According to the plan, the Governor can "declare a fiscal emergency based on his or her administration's fiscal estimates". So, conceivably, Schwarzenegger would be able to make up vastly inflated "fiscal estimates", then declare an "emergency" when the state's economy doesn't match up. Upon this declaration, the legislature must meet in a special session to decide how to address the shortfall (imaginary or not). If an agreement is not made within 45 days, the Governor can reduce spending at his discretion. Except for a few obligations required by Federal law, the Governor can select any state expenditure, including "any General Fund spending related to contracts, collective bargaining agreements, or entitlements…" So the unions and the poor are well justified in their distrust of Schwarzenegger's motives. As a result, I cannot shake the suspicion that this prop is a well-crafted Trojan Horse. It is deeply frustrating to see so many proposals, which seem to have merit, being used to hide what appears to be a sinister intent. If only the voters had the line item veto. As your political friend, I must suggest that you deny its many charms and vote NO. Read, if you dare.

Prop 77 - FAILED Every ten years, after the national census, voting districts in California are redrawn (aka redistricted) according to changes in population. Currently, redistricting plans are included in legislation that is passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. Any disputes between the Governor and Legislature are decided by the state Supreme Court. This proposition would change the process so that a panel of three retired judges would be appointed to develop the state redistricting plan. This plan would then be presented to the voters for approval. If approved, the plan would be used until the next redistricting is required. If rejected, another panel would be appointed to prepare a new plan to be presented to voters at the next general election. But, according to this proposal, the state would be redistricted BEFORE the very election in which we vote on whether or not to approve the redistricting plan. Furthermore, if we reject the plan, the people who were just elected through the now-irrelevant redistricting plan would actually stay in office until the next election. For those not familiar with the politics behind redistricting, be aware that political parties can gain or lose power depending upon how the voting districts are drawn. For example, a large urban population of Democrats can lose representation if their voting district is cut up and incorporated into the surrounding, mostly Republican, suburbs. This process of manipulation is known as gerrymandering. Supporters tell us that the redistricting process needs to be taken out of the hands of politicians. That's fine, but this plan would put the process into the hands of voters who, let's face it, don't always understand the issue they're being asked to decide (unlike you, most voters don't have a Political Friend). Any future redistricting plans would likely be decided, not upon their merit, but upon their advertising budget. This proposition would also require that a new redistricting plan be completed immediately, instead of waiting until the next census. There is no explanation for this apparent urgency. Of course, it does not take much imagination to see this as an attempt by the Governor to draw more Republican-friendly districts going into the 2006 election. Should we change the Constitution to allow him this power? Read for yourself and vote NO. 

Prop 78 - FAILED The state and federal governments run several programs to provide prescription drug coverage to low and moderate income families. Prop 78, known as Cal Rx, is an attempt to assist the millions of Californians who do not qualify for these programs, yet still cannot afford health coverage. The initiative would create a discount prescription drug program for all individuals earning less than $28,000 (or $56,000 for a family of four) who do not already have private or state health benefits. However, in order to evaluate Prop 78, one must compare it with its competing initiative, Prop 79. The Voters Guide even provides a side-by-side comparison chart. They're similar in many ways, so take care not to confuse the two. Prop 79, known as Cal Rx Plus, would expand the program to individuals earning less than $38,000 ($77,000 for a family of four). It would also extend the discount program to people with medical expenses at or above 5 percent of their family’s income. Both Props assign the Department of Health Services to administer the program. The costs for these activities (estimated in the low tens of millions annually) would be borne mostly by the state's General Fund. The main difference between the two props is in the way that the state may negotiate the drug discounts. Prop 78 negotiates voluntary rebates from the drug manufacturers. This means that there is no guarantee of actual savings, because there is no penalty to the drug companies if they don't come through with the discounts. In 2001 California attempted a similar program, Golden Bear State Pharmacy, which only sought voluntary rebates from the manufacturers. The drug companies refused to participate and the program was never implemented. Prop 79, on the other hand, will use Medi-Cal as a carrot to convince the drug companies to participate. If they don't, the state is directed to end any Medi-Cal contracts it might have with that company. Exceptions would exist for drugs with no equivalent drug available. Proponents of Prop 78 often point to Ohio's Best Rx program as the successful model on which their prop is based. However, 90% of the discounts in that program come from pharmacies, not from manufacturer rebates. Only 8% of the discount can be attributed to manufacturer rebates. Prop 78 is sponsored by The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a trade group representing 48 of the leading US Pharmaceutical companies. They have dumped more than $80 Million into convincing us to support their initiative, and reject 79. If both pass, only the one with the most votes will prevail. Prop 78 will cost the state millions, but provide only small changes, many of which will probably never go into effect, due to their voluntary basis. If Prop 79 were not on the ballot, I would recommend you vote "yes", since it probably will not do any harm. But, given the likelihood that both Props will pass, I think Prop 79 deserves a chance over 78. I'm voting NO.

Prop 79 - FAILED Currently, the state's drug assistance programs require that pharmacies, not drug manufacturers, give the discounted price as a condition of the pharmacy's participation in the Medicaid program. In 2001 an additional program was created to add discounts from drug manufacturers. This program, however, only sought voluntary rebates from the manufacturers. The drug companies did not participate and the program was never implemented. Prop 79 would use Medi-Cal as a way to force the drug companies to offer these discounts. Medi-Cal currently has a list of preferred drugs that doctors may prescribe to Medi-Cal patients without prior approval. Though the drug companies sell their drugs to Medi-Cal at a reduced cost, preferred status can be very lucrative (inclusion in the Medi-Cal program currently earns drug companies more than $4 billion annually). Prop 79 says that any drug company which does not participate in the new program will be prevented from contracting with Medi-Cal. This provision would not apply to a drug if there were not an equivalent drug available. But Prop 79 is not a perfect solution either. Two of its provisions aren't so great. The first is that it would create a new nine-member Prescription Drug Advisory Board "to review the access that state residents have to prescription drugs", and "to provide advice and regular reports on drug pricing issues..." The creation of any new bureaucracy plays squarely into the hands of the opposition, who warn of waste and redundancy. There is no estimate given for what this panel will cost. Second, the Prop would change state law to make it a civil violation for drug companies to engage in profiteering from the sale of prescription. Profiteering, by definition, includes demanding "an unconscionable price" for a drug. This sounds great, however, the description of what would qualify as profiteering is vague. Furthermore, any citizen, not just the Attorney General, would be able to file a lawsuit against a drug company for breach of this provision. The opposition warns of a flood of frivolous lawsuits. My guess is that it was put in to protect against the drug companies' possible retaliation by raising prices across the market (I haven't read that anywhere, it's just a suspicion). Still, in my opinion, neither of these additions qualifies as a "poison pill". If we are to have any discount drug program, Prop 79 has a much better chance of being effective than Prop 78. Despite its flaws I offer Prop 79 my tempered support. Vote YES and hope for the best. Prop 79 is backed by the Alliance for a Better California and Health Access. It is also endorsed by AARP. But there's really no way that I can express the full complexity of these initiatives. If you want to know more, I strongly recommend you read the most thorough comparison I've found HERE.

Prop 80 - FAILED Most Californians receive their electricity from Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) such as PG&E, and Southern California Edison. These companies are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). In 1996 the CPUC began the process of deregulating electric companies so that rates, in theory, would be determined by a competitive market. The process was halted in 2001 due to the energy crisis and scandal brought about by Enron, among others. Prop 80 is an attempt to reinstate regulatory controls on electricity providers. First, it would require that IOUs procure new electricity primarily from "cost-effective" energy efficiency and conservation programs before turning to traditional sources such as fossil fuel burning power plants. Second, it would require all electricity providers to "show that they are able to meet peak demand with adequate reserves to ensure system reliability". Third, it would require that power plants draw 20 percent of their total supply from renewable sources by 2010. Incidentally, all three of these requirements are already CPUC policy, though they are not required by law. The Prop would, however, require that companies continue to expand the proportion of renewable energy sources by one percent per year. Current law allows companies to stop at twenty percent. There is another type of energy provider in California called an Electric Service Provider (ESP), which is not regulated by the CPUC. They serve power directly to customers who choose not to buy from the utility in their area. These customers tend to be large businesses or community aggregates. After the energy crisis, the state placed a hold on individual customers entering into direct access service. Prop 80 would continue this ban, as well as place ESPs under the regulatory control of the CPUC. The costs of this initiative are small and would depend upon the amount of additional enforcement carried out by the CPUC. These costs would be paid by electricity customers, as they are now. The initiative's main proponent is a consumer protection organization called The Utility Reform Network (TURN). Ironically, it is opposed by another progressive organization called The Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT). The rift exists over the provision that would prohibit individual consumers from switching to an ESP. They warn it will diminish the chances for independent power generators, many of whom use renewable sources, from breaking into the market. Personally, I believe that energy is an essential service too important to be left to the changes of a competitive market. Deregulation, to the extent it was implemented in California, has been a disaster. One of its more damaging aspects was to shift regulatory authority from the state to the federal level, where legislators don't always have California's interests in mind. Of course, one must look at the funding. Prop 80 is supported by the Alliance for a Better California. It is opposed by Californians for Reliable Electricity, a coalition of energy producers including Mirant Services Llc., one of the leading conspirators in the California energy crisis. The coalition also includes Calpine and Constellation Energy Group, both of whom have paid millions of dollars to settle allegations of price gouging in California. These companies have shown nothing but disdain for California's consumers, environment, and security. How, then, can we take their claims against Prop 80 seriously? As Your Political Friend, I suggest you read it and decide for yourself. I'm voting YES.