Liberation News Voter Recommendations

Liberation News Voter Recommendations

In this posting:

California Propositions
Santa Cruz Measures and Candidates
Other Elections Nationally

California Propositions:

No bond measures are supported here because they are a massive rip-off that line the pockets of the wealthy at great expense from the tax dollars of working class people. There are much better ways to fund social programs and needed infrastructure.

Proposition 1A: NO
Transportation Funding - Road, Freeway repairs
Bond Measure.

Proposition 1B: NO
Transportation Funding - includes public transportation
Bond Measure.

Proposition 1C: NO
Housing and Emergency Shelter
Bond Measure.

Proposition 1D: NO
K-12 School Construction
Bond Measure.

Proposition 1E: NO
Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention
Bond Measure.

Proposition 83: NO
Would place GPS electronic monitoring requirements both on those convicted of serious sex crimes and those convicted of absurd laws such as 18 year-olds convicted for having sex with their 16 year-old girlfriends and people convicted for “indecent” exposure. Can be applied retroactively against past convictions. It would also impose a residency ban on all of these people, not allowing them to live within 2,000 feet of parks or schools (effectively banning them from most urban areas and pushing “sex-offenders”, both real and wrongly labeled, into high concentrations in rural areas). No on 83!

Proposition 84: NO
Water Quality, Safety And Supply
Bond Measure.

Proposition 85: NO
Would amend the California Constitution to require doctors to notify parents 48 hours before terminating the pregnancy of an unwed minor. Nearly identical to Prop 73, which was rightly defeated last November. Sometimes teens have very good reasons for not wanting to involve their parents in such decisions such as their parents being abusive, violent, or religious fanatics. Judicial bypasses will delay and impede important decisions that have nothing to do with the judicial system. Pregnant teens need counselors and doctors, not lawyers. No on 85!

Proposition 86: NO
Would place a regressive tax of $2.60 per pack of cigarettes on nicotine addicts. Poor and working class people would pay the disproportionate share on this tax. No on 86! Tax the rich instead!

Proposition 87: YES
Taxes California oil producers. Money would be used to establish a program to reduce oil consumption through incentives for alternative energy. Workforce training included.
(<http://www.yeson87.com/>http://www.yeson87.com/)

Proposition 88: NO
(<http://www.noprop88.com/>http://www.noprop88.com/)
The California Federation of Teachers and the California Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO) both oppose this one for good reason. While it would bring in several billion dollars for public education, it would do so by imposing a $50 tax on each real estate property parcel in the state. This is another regressive tax that has working class people paying a higher percentage of the taxes than the rich. In addition Prop 88 would award its facility grants to fewer than one in a hundred schools, targeting schools without state bond monies and with standardized test scores in the top half. Its backers' intent is to quietly favor charter schools. More money is needed for education, but it needs to be distributed where it is most needed (not least) and based on a fairer progressive taxation. No on 88.

Proposition 89: NO
89 taxes corporations for public financing of political campaigns. This would be a good thing if the requirements weren’t so high as to prohibit most third parties from receiving the money. A candidate running for governor would have to receive 25,000 qualifying contributions at $5 dollars or more with documentation of each contribution in order to receive this money. That’s at least $125,000, something easy for the corrupt money chasing Republocrats to raise, but a lot harder for working class socialist candidates. We need election reform that does not continue to favor the pro-corporate warmongers of Democrat and Republican Parties. No on 89!

Proposition 90: NO
Would infringe on local laws for rent control, mixed-income housing, anti-discrimination, and the protection of endangered species by restricting the government’s authority to regulate the use of private property for the public good. Vote no on 90!
(http://www.noprop90.com/)

Santa Cruz Measures and Candidates:

Measure G: YES
Would raise the minimum wage in the City of Santa Cruz from $6.75 to $9.25.
See:
Raise The Minimum Wage, Yes On Measure G!
http://indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/20/18321935.php

Measure H: NO
Funded by a regressive sales tax instead of a tax on the rich. Billed by proponents as a way to fund road repairs, 37% would go to the police. The repressive and over-funded Santa Cruz Police need less funding, not more! No on H!
See:
Measure H will fund Police 4x more than fixing roads
http://indybay.org/newsitems/2006/11/05/18326667.php?show_comments=1#18326989

Measure I: YES
Would end City services to UCSC until the University complies with mitigation measures intended to offset environmental impacts.

Measure J: YES
Gives voters in the City of Santa Cruz more rights in limiting UCSC growth to more sustainable levels. Gives voters the ability to protect the City’s remaining water supply from UCSC expansion by putting expansions of water sewer services up for public vote. The City Council will, however, have loopholes in carrying out such expansions in the name of public health and safety. Yes on measure J.

Measure K: YES
Would require the Santa Cruz police to make enforcement of marijuana laws their lowest priority. Reduce the number thrown in jail for a victimless crime! Yes on K!

City Council:
Do not vote for the worst: Mike Rotkin, Cynthia Mathews, or Lynn Robinson. Independent candidate (not of the Independent Party, but independent of a party) Simba Kenyatta is the only City Council candidate worth considering, although he fell short of a Liberation News endorsement for lacking clear stands on many of the issues.

California Candidates:

Governor: Janice Jordan (Peace and Freedom Party)
See:
No to Angelides and Schwarzenegger!
Critical Support For Janice Jordan, Peace and Freedom Party Candidate For Governor
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/182062.php

US Senate: Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party or Jeff Mackler of Socialist Action
Pro-War Diane Feinstein, What Are The Alternatives?
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/08/28/18302034.php

Gerald Sanders for State Treasurer (Peace and Freedom Party)

Margie Akin for Secretary of State (Peace and Freedom Party)

Liz Barron for Controller (Peace and Freedom Party)

Jack Harison for Attorney General (Peace and Freedom Party)

Tom Condit for Insurance Commissioner (Peace and Freedom Party)

Dave Campbell for Board of Equalization, 1st District. (Peace and Freedom Party)

Other Elections Nationally:

Liberation News urges voters to reject all candidates of the capitalist and pro-war Democrat and Republican parties and to vote socialist wherever possible. In New York we have given critical support to Bill Van Auken of the Socialist Equality Party against Hilary Clinton.
See:
Pro-War Hillary Clinton, What Are The Alternatives?
http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/77262.html


Liberation News:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news