Saturday, May 29, 2010

California Primary 2010

This guide presumes a Republican Primary voter, although believe it or not, I do know people who vote in the Democrat primaries for "damage control" reasons.

On that note, there is actually a Primary Democrat I wish to endorse for

US SENATE: Democrat: Robert M. "Mickey" Kaus
US SENATE: Republican: Chuck DeVore

Unfortunately, Barbara "AND YOUR LITTLE DOG, TOO!" Boxer has this primary wrapped up, and may well be sent back to befoul us for another six years, but she must be defeated. Not only for the crypto-communist voting record, but also for sheer arrogance mixed with ignorance, as this clip from YouTube demonstrates.

Soldiers are trained to answer, "Yes, Ma'am / No, Ma'am" like they say "Yes, Sir / No, Sir". What a horrid little harpy.

And her condescending discussion with the Black Chamber of Commerce official is also revealing.

Anyway, Mickey Kaus doesn't have a chance, but he's a former Clinton Administration official now a reasonably thoughtful web logger "Blogger" journalist, and he comes from a long lost time when Democrats actually stood for working Joes and Janes, rather than (1) decadent and un-American academic, entertainment and media elites, and (2) ghetto parasites who threaten to riot if they don't get their welfare checks.

On the GOP side, the best of the three prominent choices is Chuck DeVore, followed by Carly Fiorina, followed by Tom Campbell, in that order.

Why DeVore? Because Chuck DeVore has worked his way up from the California State Assembly, and hasn't sold out his constituents in the process, unlike a certain Gubernator I can think of.....

Carly Fiorina, for all her money, is a newbie to the Great Game of California GOP politics, and her tenure at Hewlett-Packard was not a very successful one. I think the current and former employees of Hewlett Packard will unanimously vote against her.

Tom Campbell is a sell-out, go-along-with-the-Demunists-to-get-along, RINO (Republican In Name Only), and a three time loser in past Senate races.

But ANY of them would be better than the evil witch who has befouled California for the last 18 years.

GOVERNOR: Steve Poizner

Actually, originally I was going to go with Meg Whitman, as she appeared to have a more polished campaign and primary rival Steve Poziner was floundering at first. Meg originally had a very positive campaign, with her "Talk To Meg" advertisements. But then two things happened. First, Meg Whitman started smearing her primary rival Steve Poizner, even though she had a comfortable lead and plenty of war chest money. I am sad to see Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner both beating each other up and getting nasty. But since Meg started the nasty smears, I have to primary vote for Poizner. Second, Steve had the courage to support Arizona’s decision to enforce and in fact mimic federal immigration laws when Meg Whitman cut and ran in the face of the usual racial demagoguery.

Either one, however, would be better than former Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown rising out of his political crypt, with his "era-of-limits" (for individuals, but not for nanny-state government), "small-is-beautiful" (but not for the State), "don't build things and people won't come", new-age nonsense. A political vampire indeed. But to defeat him, either Whitman or Poizner will need to stock up on the Holy Water, silver bullets, garlic and wooden stakes.


There are two prominent candidates here: Sam Aanestad and recently appointed by Ah-nold, Incumbent, Abel Maldonado. Abel Maldonado betrayed the solid GOP stand against even more tax hikes for what is already the most taxed state in the land. Abel Maldonado broke his signed taxpayer pledge and bears responsibility not only for the biggest tax increase in California’s history, but also for lack of serious spending restraints in the budgets that ran California off the fiscal cliff. Abel Maldonado also supports the half-baked and demented Proposition 14 (see below). Sam Aanestad is the better choice. He is well liked among his constituents, and like Chuck DeVore above, served them well without selling them out.


John Eastman is a legal scholar at the Claremont Institute – a public policy think tank devoted to restoring American founding principles to the public policy debate. John is a nationally renowned Constitutional advocate and scholar whose leadership is desperately needed in the Attorney General’s office. Imagine having an Attorney General who not only respects the Constitution but who understands and reveres it, and doesn't give us the "living breathing document" crap which means a rule of whims, not a rule of originally intended Constitutional Law.


Brian's primary rival, Mike Villines, was another of the sell-out Republican votes on the massive tax increase that crushed what was left of our state’s economy last year, after signing a no-new-taxes pledge.


Prop. 13 YES - No property tax increase for earthquake-retrofitting old buildings

What Prop. 13 would do: Current law allows owners of masonry buildings only 15 years of exclusion of higher property taxes that are triggered when they do earthquake retrofitting. This policy was viewed as a disincentive by California legislators who unanimously placed Prop. 13 on the ballot. This proposition forever exempts commercial property owners from higher property tax assessment on the basis of retrofitting masonry buildings to survive earthquakes.

Why YES on Prop. 13: Current law financially punishes property owners who do the right thing and reinforce old masonry buildings. Passing Prop. 13 will protect property owners’ wallets and restores basic fairness by exempting these property owners from higher taxes. The result will be more buildings that survive the next big earthquake.

Prop. 14 NO - “Jungle primary” system causing more corruption in California

This half-baked idea was soundly defeated as Proposition 62 back in 2004, but unfortunately this half-baked idea got money for slick and deceptive radio ads, and is rising up again.

What Prop. 14 would do: Prop. 14 eliminates the party primary system and replaces it with a single “jungle primary” ballot for primary elections for most state and congressional offices. The top two vote-getters on the primary ballot would advance to the general election, regardless of party. There would still be partisan primary elections for presidential candidates and political party offices. Prop. 14 was placed on the ballot in exchange for the Feb. 2009 vote of former state Senator Abel Maldonado in favor of increasing the state sales, income, and car tax.

Why NO on Prop. 14: This measure denies choice to voters by allowing general election ballots with no Democrat or Republican candidates. It also allows mischief, for example, by permitting sabotage voters of one party to go urinate in the other party's primary voting pool. More deception will occur when existing Democrat or Republican office holders utilize Prop. 14’s “No Party Preference” designation in both the primary and general elections.

Proponents claim that Prop. 14’s “jungle primary” system will get rid of entrenched incumbents. However, currently, only two states --Washington and Louisiana--use “top-two” elections. In 2008, Washington State had 139 races, but only one incumbent lost a primary. In 1992 Louisiana, the corrupt and entrenched incumbent Governor Evan Edwards used some of his money and supporters to throw support to, and in effect "choose", his primary opponent, the loathsome David Duke. Edwards took the political entitlement and patronage machine that he had built over the last decade and a half, and had a number of his supporters vote for and donate to David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan in Louisiana. The open primary system allows sabotage voters from one party to go urinate in the other party's voting pool, and Edward's political machine did just that. The decent Republican and likely winner in a normal "closed" primary system, Buddy Roemer, was outfoxed in the primary election, and Edwards "chose" David Duke his general election opponent. The voters were faced with the choice of a crook or a neo-Nazi in the general election, and they reluctantly had to choose the crook. Manipulated by Edwards, the Louisiana primary system, which elevates the top two vote getters to the general election, regardless of party, had selected these two slimy creeps to be the choices the voters faced in November.

Now, here in California, some "reformers" want to import this system to California, through Proposition 14, as if we didn't have enough trouble already. These folks claim that our current system is insufficient-that, when you vote in your party primary to choose the person in your political party that you want to represent you in the general election, you don't know what you are doing. So-they want to use the Louisiana-style primary to choose the top two vote getters in the primary elections, regardless of party registration, to go to the general election.

Prop. 15 NO - Government funding of candidates for public office

What Prop. 15 would do: Establishes a new candidate fundraising system where candidates for California Secretary of State can qualify to receive “base funding” and “matching funds” from the state government in exchange for limiting their private fundraising, participating in debates, and submitting campaign expenditure records to the state. This new program would purportedly be funded by increasing lobbyists’ annual registration fees by 2,800%. In effect, this is "Welfare for politicians".

Why NO on Prop. 15: Government funding of political campaigns is not the purpose of government, and opens the door to abuse. Prop. 15 wouldn’t prevent these tax-funded Secretary of State candidates from raising other funds from lobbyists and special interest groups. The measure specifically allows these tax-funded candidates to raise money for “separate accounts” to pay for officeholder expenses, legal defense fees and inaugural parties. And it probably allows these tax-funded candidates to benefit from independent expenditures, another potential loophole. What’s more, if the weren’t enough revenue raised from increased lobbyist fees, this proposition allows the state general fund to be raided to make up the difference and send that money to candidates. Finally, Prop. 15 allows the California Legislature to expand government funding of campaigns to every state campaign, including those of incumbent politicians. Bottom line, Prop. 15 is the proverbial “camel’s nose under the tent” that sets the stage for incumbent politicians and their big-government “farm team” of candidates to dip their hand deep in the public trough and make off with state treasury funds.

California voters have consistently rejected taxpayer-funded campaign financing. In 2006, 74% of voters opposed Prop. 89. In 2000, two-thirds of voters rejected public campaign financing when they defeated Prop. 25. They should say “no” again. (Gee, how many bad ideas keep rising up like zombies who don't get that one shot to the head? California--State Of The Living Dead.)

Prop. 16 YES - Require 2/3rds voter approval for local government-run electricity

What Prop. 16 would do: This measure makes it harder for local governments to start up electricity entities which local residents are responsible to pay for, in addition to their normal utility bills.

What triggered this initiative is when the public power monopolies in Sacramento, San Francisco and Marin tried to take over some PG & E turf. My own public power utility, the Sacramento Metropolitan Utilities District (SMUD), tried to take over utility service from PG&E in the City Of West Sacramento. Where I live in Sac, this was bitterly opposed by we the existing SMUD ratepayers; we didn't want our rates raised to finance this empire building exercise. Nor were the people of West Sacramento (SMUD's targeted conquest area) noticably happy with the proposed change. I'm not sure what happened in Marin County or San Francisco.

The mammoth utility therefore went to the ballot with Prop. 16 to propose that a two-thirds voter approval is needed before local governments get into the electricity business. Taxpayer's right to vote" (on this one little issue only) is an overblown and deceptive slogan, but it is shorter than "Taxpayer's right to shoot down bureaucrats who want to expand their turf and ream their existing ratepayers to do it."

Why YES on Prop. 16: I was initially very skeptical of Prop. 16 due to the self-serving interest of Pacific Gas & Electric. However, Prop. 16 DOES NOT affect private energy companies entering the market should a competitive market for power ever emerge, as it did with telephone service. Moreover, the public power areas are also monopolies in their own little fiefdoms, so the claim that PG&E is somehow squelching public power "competition" is just bunk. As for public-power always being cheaper, nearby Roseville dwellers in the clutches of Roseville Electric might beg to differ, and forcing PG&E and other private utilities to divest their generating capacity back in the late 1990's has a lot to do with that claim.

I'm not thrilled with PG&E. I remember how PG&E financed attempts to destroy marriage and overturn Proposition 8, presumably to curry favor for its power projects with leftist Gay politicians.

However, watching bureaucrats think they can expropriate a private utility, even a regulated quasi-public one like PG&E, is straight out of Hugo Chavez's bandito-land.

Prop. 17 YES - Allows auto insurance companies to offer “continuous coverage” discounts to new policy holders

What Prop. 17 would do: This measure deletes a small part of the state law that currently prohibits automobile insurance companies from providing “continuous coverage” to new customers. This prohibition was a strange part of Prop. 103, which was narrowly passed in 1988 to establish a number of insurance regulations). Even Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature agreed with removing the ban several years ago, but the courts struck that down, ruling only the ballot voters can amend a ballot initiative like Prop. 103.

Why YES on Prop. 17: If you have been a long-time customer of an automobile insurance company and want to keep your "good driver" and “continuous coverage” discounts, passing Prop. 17 will mean you won't lose those when you change insurance companies. The opposition to this claims that people who let their insurance lapse and stop driving for an extended period of time will get rate hikes, but really, how many people like that are there in California?

Why is Mercury Insurance, one of the smaller California insurance companies, funding Prop. 17? Probably because they think they can win new customers, and that’s just fine. Let’s open up more competition among private insurers, which benefits consumers.


John Geesman, former Calif. Energy Commissioner, 2002 - 2008 said...

Curmudgeon,if the voters don't go NO on Prop. 16, you could have trouble selling your house there in Sacramento.

Does it make any sense to subject every new customer account -- every home purchaser, every new or relocated business -- to a public election requiring a two-thirds majority approval before electricity can be turned on?

To qualify for exemption from Prop. 16's election requirement, a municipal utility has to be the "sole provider" within its service territory. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a single one of the state's utilities that meets that standard -- no surprise, given the spread of solar systems, cogeneration projects, and direct access contracts, not to mention legacy accounts still served by for-profit utilities.

The result -- a viral infestation in each of these 48 communities, which include Los Angeles, Anaheim, Burbank, Cerritos, Glendale, Modesto, Moreno Valley, Pasadena, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, Sacramento, Santa Clara and a host of others.

So it's no surprise that among the first organizations to oppose Prop. 16 was the California Association of Realtors. Ditto for the California Manufacturers & Technology Association.

Brad Alexander said...

You're incorrect when you claim that West Sacramento residents opposed being taken over by SMUD. I live in West Sac and was looking forward to paying much less for electricity than I am now. PG&E is raping us and trying to keep it that way with this anti-competition initiative.

Steve Rankin said...

Proposition 14-- "top two open primary": You mentioned Louisiana's 1991 runoff for governor between Edwin Edwards and David Duke. In the first round, the national Republicans and the state GOP had endorsed different candidates, neither of whom made the runoff. In the runoff, President Bush I and the Republican leaders backed the Democrat Edwards over the Republican Duke.

The 1995 runoff for governor featured a white conservative Republican versus a black liberal Democrat (now-US senator Mary Landrieu had finished third).

Washington state's "top two" is facing a trial in US district court in October, as well as probable future litigation in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Prop. 14 is almost certainly unconstitutional for congressional elections. A line of US Supreme Court rulings has established that any candidate who has met a previous vote test of 5 PERCENT is entitled to be on the November ballot for Congress. Prop. 14, however, sets a 25 PERCENT threshold for the November ballot.

Why should the voters be limited to just two choices in the final, deciding election-- both of whom may be from the same party?

Click here and see especially "History" and "Louisiana System."

This was written during California's and Washington state's 2004 "top two open primary" initiative campaigns.