Sonoma County Progressives Nix All Initiatives
by Submitted by Alice Chan, Media coordinator
Posted on 2008-01-25 16:12:33
The Progressive Democrats Sonoma County organization announces that it opposes all California state-wide ballot initiatives appearing on the February 5th ballot. It has voted to reject Propositions 91 through 97, appearing on the February 5th ballot.
Proposition 91: Vote no. This Proposition was already passed in a similar form in a prior election. It would only serve to further erode budget flexibility in the State. Its intent is to protect the road-building jobs for the State, which too often does not think about alternative forms of transportation or new ways of helping our State overcome transportation issues. It does nothing to help develop the alternative methods of transportation that California needs, in its quest to reduce greenhouse gases. The fuel sales-tax borrowing loophole that this proposition was intended to close has actually already been closed by Proposition 1A, passed in 2006. The original authors of Proposition 91 now recommend a “no” vote, as well.
Proposition 92: Vote no. Beware of unfunded spending bills. No one will deny that California’s community college system needs additional funding and that students would benefit from tuition decreases; a Constitutional amendment, however, is not the way to deal with this issue.
Proposition 93: Vote no. Proposition 93 is a deceptive attempt by incumbent career politicians to circumvent the will of the California voters, who passed term limits in 1990 and rejected a revision in 2002. This year, the summary on the ballot seems to say that the term will be reduced from 14 to 12 years. But built into Prop 93 is a "transition period" that ensures politicians’ employment beyond their allotted time, set to end this year under present term limits. This means that they will control redistricting after the 2010 census. While the idea of 12 years instead of 14 could be appealing, it needs to come without the extra baggage of a sweetheart deal for those incumbents who are promoting it. The corruption that was the primary reason for enactment of the term limits in the first place is alive and well as the corporations continue to pour money into the coffers of incumbents of both parties; the progressive agenda will be blocked as long as the interests of the corporations take precedence over those of the people. One important example of a program blocked by corporate interests who control politicians is Universal Single-Payer Health Care for All. A better solution than Proposition 93 is to end term limits at the same time that true campaign finance reform is enacted through Clean Money.
Propositions 94 through 97: vote no. These 4 propositions are identical except that each relates to a different tribe. We oppose these Indian gambling (not "gaming") contracts for several reasons. Passage of the propositions would mean that these four tribes would not have to adhere to certain labor and environmental standards that are currently part of the Indian Gaming legislation. Because tribes have Federal rights, it is important that the communities they are in demand strict environmental standards for every step of a casino’s development. And labor is soundly against their being exempt from labor laws. Even their own tribal members who work at the casinos are subject to labor abuses. It is important that the casinos begin to acknowledge and allow unions to organize on their grounds.
|
