Robert covered the Field numbers on prop 1A, but there was a bunch of information in the poll released yesterday (PDF). As you see to the right, data was released for 4 other props yesterday. From Prop 4, numbers from September are in parentheses, July for Prop 3. Prop 3, children's hospital bonds look safe to pass. While you'll get a slightly higher no percentage than you would get in a typical year because of the budget mess, it's hard to vote no against sick kids. There are plenty of reasons to vote no, including the fact that the allocation is a little heavy to non-public hospitals. However, it's sick kids, and that will pass.
The numbers are slightly improving on Proposition 4 as people learn that this is just Prop 73 and Prop 85 redux. I imagine there will be similar dynamics on Prop 4 as Prop 8. Turnout will be key and all that. Make some phone calls against Prop 4 tomorrow, if you get a chance. It might end up being a squeaker.
Now, another one that worries me: Prop 10. It currently leads by 10 points, a greater lead than Prop 1A currently holds. Unfortunately, T. Boone Pickens' "reprehensible scam" is nothing more than an attempt by one rich dude to raid our state budget. Please, tell all of your friends, relatives, and casual acquaintances to vote No on Prop 10. Every major environmental group as well as pretty much everybody else says No on 10. If this passes it will be because progressives support it. Currently Prop 10 is leading amongst self-described liberals by a wide margin. We need to make sure that we aren't duped by an oil man and his $19 million.
Oh, and Prop 12, a small veterans bond, is passing, and will pass on Tuesday.
On Thursday, I headed over to Berkeley for a press conference at the Sierra Club against Props 7 & 10. Also there were the CA League of Conservation Voters, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. All four of these groups are opposed to the two environmental measures on the ballot, Prop 7 and Prop 10.
Unfortunately, these two measures were not sufficiently vetted. Prop 7 could discourage renewable development with poor siting mechanisms and a risk of shuttering small renewable producers. Prop 10 is a massive giveaway to natural gas interests, and Swiftboater T. Boone Pickens.
The San Francisco Bay Guardian, certainly no friend of the utilities, also reluctantly came to the decision that both of these props were losers. Join the Calitics Editorial Board in voting No on Props 7 & 10.
Well it's about time that some of California's big groups got around to mentioning that Prop 10 is an enormous giveaway to T. Boone Pickens and the natural gas companies. A bit later this morning (10AM to be precise), a big group of folks will be gathering on the West Steps of the Capitol to let T. Boone and the gang that he can't raid our coffers so easily. They're dubbing it the "Coalition of everyone." And really, it is quite a diverse coalition, including the CA Labor Federation, CA Nurses Association, the CA Federation of Teachers, the League of Women Voters and the CA Chamber of Commerce.
The group describes Prop 10 as "Texas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens' money grab at the taxpayers' expense." And, bingo, bango, bongo, that's exactly what it is. T. Boone, the leading funder of the Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004. Basically, Pickens wants the state to get thousands of natural gas cars on the road and help from the state to build a bunch of natural gas fueling stations. How is it in our best interest to spend billions on a technology, while admittedly cleaner than gasoline, is an unrenewable fossil fuel? It's searching for answers in the past. We need to look forward to build a sensible renewable policy, not give away money to natural gas barons.
Here we go again, another round of endorsements. The bulk of these will be fairly uncontroversial here. On Prop 7, Brian Leubitz did not vote due to the fact that he works for the campaign. See the flip for more information on our positions.
T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire Texas oil tycoon behind Proposition 10, has doubled down on the alternative energy bond, plunging another $4 million into the measure through his company Clean Energy Fuels Corp.
Pickens' company was already the largest financier of the ballot measure, having given $3.75 million to the campaign. The measure would provide $5 billion in rebates to help promote natural gas vehicles, the types of vehicles that could be Pickens' company's customers.
The rebates would be paid for through a general obligation bond, repaid by the state over 30 years.
Just as Goldman Sachs is using the US Treasury to bail itself and its allies out (h/t to jsw), T Boone is seeking to raid an already-stressed California budget to help boost his natural gas business. We're already - and rightly - going to commit $10 billion in bond funds to Prop 1A, and even that is touch-and-go given public unease at the budget crisis and credit crunch. California cannot afford to give a handout to Oklahoma oil billionaires - we need to give that money to in-state, long-term, sustainable projects like high speed rail.
I was wondering if everyone was aware of California's Prop 10 - a deceptively named initiative on the November ballot that seeks to authorize "$5 billion in bonds ($9.8 billion with interest), much of which would provide rebates to buyers of natural gas run vehicles. First off, environmental groups including the California League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club oppose Prop 10.
And for the purposes of full disclosure, I work for a non-profit consumer rights organization called the Consumer Federation of California. We started doing some research on Prop 10 and couldn't believe what we found.
Most know about Texas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens through his "Pickens Plan" ads. Many
don't know that he was a primary funder of the false and slanderous attack ads against John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans of Truth in 2004, has an egregious legacy on the
environment, and a long track record of conning communities and local governments into deals that benefit Pickens at the expense of the public. Well, he's set his sights on the natural gas market...and he's using Prop 10 - a $10 billion Texas Boondoggle - to do it.
In fact, its T. Boone Pickens natural gas corporation that spent millions to get Prop 10 on the ballot and now is spending millions more to make sure it wins in November.
What's amazing about this Proposition however, is how obvious an attempt it is to greenwash Californians in order to enrich the natural gas industry (and therefore Pickens). Prop 10 doesn't require any clean air improvement, yet asks taxpayers to shell out $2.5 billion in subsidies to trucking companies to purchase so-called "clean" vehicles that can pollute every bit as much as diesel and gasoline powered trucks. Hybrids are not even considered "clean" under Prop 10.
The tax giveaways favor vehicles that fill up at his corporation's fossil fuel stations and shortchange other cleaner technologies. Meanwhile, interstate trucking companies can collect California handouts of $50,000 per "clean" truck, and re-locate the trucks out of state. Prop 10's California price tag: $10 billion.
The Bad News:
The non-profit coalition that opposes Prop 10 has almost no real campaign money, so we're being outspent millions to one. T. Boone Pickens has received a free ride from the corporate media, and many voters believe it is "green" because of the slick ads promoting it..
So we're asking that everyone check out our No on 10 website www.noonproposition10.org and share it with as many people as you can and hyperlink it to your blogs or websites if possible.
The Good News:
On top of the opposition from leading environmental organizations, all four of the state's four major consumer right groups - TURN, UCAN, CFC, and Consumer Watchdog - are also opposed.
EVERY NEWSPAPER editorial board to date has blasted Prop 10 out of the water...with the Los Angeles Times calling it a "reprehensible scam". Even the three major taxpayer rights groups - California Taxpayers Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and the California Tax Reform Association - are opposed to Prop 10.
Hell, groups as diverse as the California Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women Voters, the California Federation of Teachers and the California Nurses Association even agree this is a sham.
The fact of the matter is Prop 10 is a corporate greenwash of the highest order...the question is will the truth beat out all their fossil fuel money?
I will be on KRXA 540 AM at 8 this morning to discuss this and other California politics issues
One of the defining features of capitalism in the 21st century has been the arrogance of its most wealthy practitioners, now manifested by their belief that they'll be bailed out and not forced to suffer any consequence for their criminally reckless bad judgment.
So it's not just coincidence that as the financial robber barons of our time are demanding a massively unpopular bailout, another wealthy baron who made his money at the expense of Americans is seeking a bailout from California voters this November.
T. Boone Pickens is worth about $3 billion, a fortune amassed from his years as a corporate raider during the 1980s and his large stake in oil companies like ExxonMobil and Occidental.
Along the way he became a leading funder of right-wing causes, and was the primary backer of the notorious Swift Boat veterans, whose lie-filled ad against John Kerry helped swing the 2004 election to Bush. T. Boone promised he'd pay $1 million to anyone who could disprove the allegations, but reneged when John Kerry himself took him up on the offer.
T. Boone is seeing the handwriting on the wall for the oil economy, and wants to build up his natural gas business. Problem is, he wants to build up that business at our expense. He put Proposition 10 on the ballot and is spending his own money to run ads for it. Essentially he wants California taxpayers to bail him out to the tune of $5 billion.
The LA Times last week editorialized against Prop 10, explaining it and why it is such a bad idea. They call it a "reprehensible scam":
This measure asks taxpayers to fund $5 billion in bonds -- at a time when the state is in desperate financial straits and may be approaching a dangerous level of indebtedness -- for a scheme disguised as an effort to benefit the environment. Yet its true aim is to subsidize vehicles powered by natural gas, which would build a customer base for its sponsor: Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a company Pickens co-founded that operates natural gas filling stations throughout the U.S. and Canada.
The measure generously doles out taxpayer money for a variety of green-sounding initiatives: $200 million for alternative energy demonstration projects at eight California cities, none of which are clamoring to perform them; $1.5 billion in grants and incentives for research and development of clean energy technologies and alternative fuel vehicles, a field that venture capitalists are already shoveling cash into; $250 million for renewable energy generation equipment. But the lion's share of the bond money, $2.875 billion worth, goes for rebates on purchases of alternative fuel vehicles.
The rebates are structured so that only a small amount of money goes to truly environmentally beneficial vehicles, while most would subsidize those that run on natural gas.
The American public rightly opposes the Bush Bailout for Wall Street crooks. Why should Californians support a bailout for an already-wealthy oilman, one responsible for some of the most disgusting political lies of our time?
The editorials are starting to trickle out of the newspapers. Let's start out with a big one from the San-Diego Union-Tribune going no on Prop 8:
As gay couples have gone to the courthouse and entered into matrimony, usually surrounded by champagne, family and friends, the worst fears of gay marriage opponents suddenly seem greatly inflated. For instance, Christian conservatives have asserted for years that allowing gays to marry would undermine heterosexual unions - hence, such laws as the Defense of Marriage Act. In truth, however, there has been no discernible impact on traditional marriage between a man and a woman now that gay couples in California have the same right.
* * *
In the past, this page has advocated civil unions for gay couples rather than marriage. But our thinking has changed, along with that of many other Californians. Gay and lesbian couples deserve the same dignity and respect in marriage that heterosexual couples have long enjoyed. We urge a No vote on Proposition 8.
This echoes a similar shift from San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. I would expect most of the big city papers to go No on 8 with a few holdouts here and there.
Prop 4, or the Vote No, No, and No again to parental notification measure, is also getting some bad reviews. Like this one from the Bakersfield Californian: (yeah, really)
This is the third time in four years California voters have been asked to place a "notification hurdle" in the way of minor women obtaining an abortion. Twice California voters have said NO. They should do so again.
* * *
If the woman fears having her parents or guardians notified, she can ask a judge to waive the notification requirement or ask that an alternate adult be notified instead.
But for an alternate adult to be notified, the minor must claim she is being abused - sexually, physically or emotionally. Her report is sent to law enforcement and child protective services. Likely a young woman who fears retaliation would reject the notion of provoking a criminal investigation of her family to obtain an abortion.
* * *
Again, this year's attempt falls short and should be rejected.
Follow me over the flip for a few more endorsements...
Another No on Prop 10 Website, this time from the Prop 87 Proponent, Anthony Rubenstein. In 2006, Prop 87, a royalty tax on the oil companies, was really the most contentious item on the ballot because Arnold had pretty much pulled away from the pack. With the support of big-time enviros like Al Gore and a ton of money, it was kind of close for a while. But then Chevron threw down and that was that. This time, Rubenstein says of Prop 10 in an email:
Prop10 is being funded by Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens and Oklahoma natural gas tycoon Aubrey McClendon who have been spending millions on TV ads pushing their national so-called "Pickens Plan" for U.S. Energy Independence. The reason these out-of-state guys operating in California's initiative process is, in my opinion, because they can use their wealth to a fund a ballot initiative campaign in order to avoid going through the California Legislature where this measures would never have stood a chance.
For example, in contrast to presently on-going California alternative fuel subsidy programs, Prop 10 requires no accountability in terms of measuring tailpipe emissions reductions, petroleum usage reductions, and doesn't even require that taxpayer subsidized natural gas powered trucks and cars even stay in California. Meanwhile Prop 10's commercials tout support for hybrid vehicles, while the only hybrid on the road that actually qualifies for funding from Prop 10 is the Toyota Prius, which arguably doesn't need any subsidy because it's on back-order.
All of prop 10's dubious programming will be funded by making the State borrow $5 billion which when paid pack with interest will cost California taxpayers around $10 billion paid over 30 years at a cost of $330-plus million per year. This at a time when our state is in the midst of a budget crisis caused by a $15 billion deficit. Think about Prop 10 this way: would you ever buy yourself a car on a 30 year mortgage? Not with your own money, you wouldn't. And neither would Prop 10's backers, Pickens & McClendon - that's why they're trying to spend yours.
The Consumer Federation of California has a No on 10 website here. While the Calitics Editorial Board is currently making decisions on the propositions, I can say for myself that I sincerely hope that Prop 10 is defeated. Soundly. It is an effort to wrap a gift to T Boone in a green pashmina.
• Today we'll see just how infatuated John McCain is with the policies of our nation's worst president ever, George W. Bush. If you want to learn more about the man of so many flip-flops and political lives, I'd recommend you check out NYT reporter David Kirpatrick's interview on Fresh Air this morning. It's a bit long at 43 minutes, but quite interesting. Get ready to hear Mr. Third Term try to distance himself from Bush, while trying to reassure the Republicans that he'll be Bush redux.
• I really like Alyson Huber. She's a great candidate in a district (AD-10) that's trending our way. And now she's got a new website. Sweet!
• Mayor Gavin Newsom put the available to all ID card program on hold pending legal review. The legislative proponent of the cards, soon to be Asm. Tom Ammiano, says they will still be issued in November.
• Capitol Weekly has their wrap of bills that were passed.
• Despite the fact that T. Boone Pickens sponsored the Big Tent, I still find him an abhorrent person for his Swift Boat attacks against John Kerry. The man has no principles, is a liar and Democrats who get chummy with him should remember that. That includes you Sen. Obama. And oh yeah, NO on Prop 10! It's just a scheme to make Pickens even more wealthy and poor public policy. The Consumer Federation has more info on Prop 10. Vote NO!
• Anything else on your mind? McCain or otherwise?
