|
DAN KALB’s RECOMMENDATIONS - NOVEMBER 2006 BALLOT
Governor – PHIL ANGELIDES
California is a blue state that deserves a real Democratic Governor. Mr. Angelides will enact progressive reforms in health care, provide more funding for public education, and ensure strong protections for our environment.
Lt. Governor – JOHN GARAMENDI – The Republican candidate in this race is the most right-wing state legislator in office today. Mr. Garamendi will use this office to promote Democratic values and help protect consumers and the environment. We must stop McClintock from getting elected to this position, which is only a heart-beat away from the Governor’s office. www.garamendi.org
Secretary of State – DEBRA BOWEN – Ms. Bowen will make sure our voting systems are free from corruption. She is a strong, no-nonsense person who will stand up to local election officials who, all too often, don’t seem to be terribly concerned about having the best voting equipment available. The appointed incumbent is a nice enough guy, but this job requires someone tougher. Vote Bowen. www.debrabowen.com
State Controller – JOHN CHIANG – Mr. Chiang is probably the most qualified person to run for this office in my lifetime. He is an elected member of the State Board of Equalization and a former tax law specialist with degrees in finance and law. He has worked for Democratic elected officials in the past and will be a hard-working Controller. www.chiangforcalifornia.com
State Treasurer – BILL LOCKYER – Mr. Lockyer, our current Attorney General, will win this office rather easily. That’s fine, since he would be much better than his Republican opponent.
Attorney General – JERRY BROWN – The office of Attorney General is the second most important office in the state. Whatever you may think of Jerry Brown, he will no doubt be a much stronger Attorney General than his Republican opponent when it comes to protecting consumers and the environment. We can’t afford another right-wing attorney general in our state. Vote for Jerry. www.jerrybrown.org
Insurance Commissioner – CRUZ BUSTAMANTE – This race is a disappointment with two rather mediocre candidates for an important statewide office. The Republican candidate, STEVE POIZNER, is a multi-millionaire with no relevant experience in this area. The Democratic candidate, Bustamante, has been a lackluster Lt. Governor. Nevertheless, I choose Cruz, although I there are folks I respect who will be voting for Poizner.
United States Senator – DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Member, Bd. of Equalization –
Seat #1 – BETTY T. YEE
Seat #4 – JUDY CHU
State Senate
2nd S.D. – PAT WIGGINS
6th S.D. – DARRELL STEINBERG (Excellent!)
8th S.D. – LELAND YEE
10th S.D. – ELLEN CORBETT
12th S.D. – WILEY NICKEL
26th S.D. – MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS
State Assembly
6th A.D. – JARED HUFFMAN (strong enviro!)
11th A.D. – MARK DESAULNIER
12th A.D. – FIONA MA
13th A.D. – MARK LENO
14th A.D. – LONI HANCOCK
16th A.D. – SANDRÉ SWANSON
18th A.D. – MARY HAYASHI
79th A.D. – MARY SALAS
Member of Congress
8th C.D. – NANCY PELOSI – Future Speaker of-the-House
9th C.D. – BARBARA LEE
11th C.D. – JERRY MCNERNEY – This is our best chance in California to pick up a seat in the House. The incumbent, Mr. Pombo, is one of the most anti-environmental and pro-Bush members of Congress in the country. Go to www.jerrymcnerney.org to see how you can help get Jerry elected.
12th C.D. – TOM LANTOS
27th C.D. – BRAD SHERMAN
STATE PROPOSITIONS:
1A – NO – Transportation Funding Constitutional Amendment. This Amendment would prohibit the state from using the sales tax revenue on motor fuels for any purpose other than transportation funding as specified in the previously approved Proposition 42. This is too restrictive. Prop 42 was a mistake; this amendment would just make it worse by reducing much-needed flexibility in tough economic times. It deserves a 'NO' vote.
1B – Yes – Highway Construction and Repair, Transit Expansion, and Air Quality Bond Act. This bond proposal will fund improvements and repairs to highways and local roads, as well as seismic upgrades of bridges. Also provides funds for public transit and air quality mitigation near ports. There are many things to not like in this bond proposal, but there are also some good things. Additionally, we need to get this type of bond out of the way, so we can focus on High Speed Rail in 2008.
1C – YES – Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Bond Act. This bond proposal will fund important shelters for battered women and their children, as well as new housing for low-income senior citizens. Also provides home ownership financial assistance for disabled residents and accessibility upgrades in apartment buildings.
1D – YES – K-12 and University Facilities Bond Act. This bond proposal will fund much-needed construction and renovation of public school facilities to relieve over-crowding, improve seismic safety, repair deteriorating school buildings, and fund vocational education facilities throughout the state. Includes higher education facilities as well.
1E – YES – Flood Disaster Prevention Bond Act. This bond proposal will fund repairs and renovations to existing flood control structures, including levees along the delta.
83 – NO – Sex Offenders Punishment, Restrictions and Monitoring. This is a costly and mostly unnecessary initiative that will let every city and town expand residency restrictions for all sex offenders, even misdemeanor violators who served their time decades ago. It would also require an expensive and unproven lifetime GPS tracking system that could take law enforcement resources away from going after truly violent predators. See www.cacj.org for more info.
84 – YES – Water Quality, Parks and Natural Resource Conservation Bonds. This bond initiative authorizes $5.4 billion in bonds for improvements in water management and drinking water quality, protection of rivers, natural lakes and coastal fisheries, improvements in flood control projects, acquisition and enhancement of local, regional and state parks, protection of coastal watersheds and wildlife habitats. More info at www.Yeson84.com.
85 – NO – Parental Notification and Mandatory Waiting Period for Abortions by Minors. This Constitutional Amendment would mandate that doctors deny an abortion to teenagers until the parent is notified and a waiting period has gone by. This measure creates onerous procedures for minors, including those in troubled families, to ob-tain a lawful abortion. More info at www.NOon85.com.
86 – YES – Increase in Cigarette Tax to Fund Health Programs and Emergency Room Expenses. This initiative adds an additional 13¢ tax per cigarette to fund hospital emergency services, nurse training programs, nonprofit clinics, children’s health care coverage, heart disease, stroke and cervical cancer programs, and tobacco control research, among other health-related programs. More info at www.Yesprop86.com.
87 – YES – Alternative Energy Funded by Oil Extraction Fee on In-state Oil Producers. This initiative creates 10-year oil severance tax to fund much-needed clean energy and alternative fuel incentives, research and development. All other oil-producing states currently have an oil severance tax except California. Endorsed by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. More info at www.Yeson87.com.
88 – YES – $50 Property Parcel Tax to Fund Public Education needs. This initiative creates a modest $50 per parcel state property tax earmarked for much-needed public education expenses. This is supported by Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell.
89 – YES – Public Financing of Political Campaigns and Campaign Spending Limits. Known as the California Clean Money initiative, this proposition creates a system of public financing of state political campaigns funded by a minor increase in the corporate tax rate. This will likely reduce the influence of private corporate contributors. Supported by CA Common Cause, League of Women Voters, and the Alameda County Democratic Party. More info at www.Yeson89.org.
90 – NO – Regulation of Private Property and Limits on Government’s Ability to Adopt Certain Laws. This Constitutional Amendment is an extreme proposal that would cost taxpayers and local governments millions of dollars and make it much more difficult to enact new land use, housing, and consumer and environmental protection laws. This is not merely about eminent domain—it’s about private interests versus the public interest. Please vote NO! More info at www.NoProp90.com.
Selected local races/measures below...
|
