The election is now only days away, the commercials are hitting harder and harder, and frankly it is becoming more difficult to understand the various propositions and what each side is saying.
This week, I’m going to finish up the last five propositions on the ballot, and hopefully bring some clarity to what would otherwise be a muddy pool of arguments between warring sides.
The governor was elected on the premise that he was going to change the way we do business in Sacramento. He was going to be a reformer and be a voice of “da peoples.” So let’s see what he’s come up with: Proposition 76: State spending and school funding limits. This is the one the governor has called the “living within our means” act. This proposition would automatically renew the prior year’s spending limits if a budget was not passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. Not a bad idea in and of itself. Here’s the catch: The proposition also allows the governor to call a “fiscal emergency,” which is based on his/her own estimates, and if the “emergency” is not corrected within 45 days, the governor is given the power to cut spending wherever, and however he/she wants, with no oversight. A bad idea.
As for school funding, it requires that borrowed funds be repaid, a good idea. But over a 15-year period, a bad idea.
Given this governor’s track record on “borrowing” money from our schools, I don’t think I want him getting his hands on any more money.
Proposition 77: Redistricting. Here is one of those arcane, picayune little areas of the state government that allows for party politics to be played. The story behind this proposition is that there are districts in this state that bear no rational relationship to geography, but they do bear a strong resemblance to voters registered parties.
For example, our district extends from Oxnard to the southern tip of Santa Monica. I have nothing against the people of Oxnard. I also have very little in common with them, from a legislative standpoint.
This proposition attempts to take the legislators out of the legislative districting. It’s a good idea to put redistricting in the hands of the independent judicial branch of government. This proposition has a panel of three judges, chosen by the leaders of the political parties, to do the drafting.
There is a formula for how the districts are generally decided, and I assume that the judges are there just to put a fine point on the niggling details, like which district does this particular side of the street fall in.
The problem I see with this is that it is voter approved, meaning after the judges draw the district lines, it goes to the voters to approve the plan. Apathy being what it is in America, no plan is likely to be approved because most voters won’t take the time to read it, and they will then just reject it.
This is a good attempt at a much needed reform. This is the best redistricting plan we’ve seen in a while on the ballot, but it still falls short of greatness.
Propositions 78 and 79: Prescription drug plans. These are two very similar propositions who serve the goal of getting reduced cost prescription drugs into the hands of the people who need them. Both involve getting rebates from drug companies.
Both plans have an annual fee — Prop. 78 charges $15 and Prop. 79 charges $10 annually. Both have a structure that allows low-income families and individuals to qualify. Under Prop. 78, an individual who makes under $29,000 and a family of four that makes under $58,000 qualify. Prop. 79 raises those limits to $38,000 for an individual, and $77,000 for a family of four.
Prop. 78 costs more, but benefits fewer people. Prop. 79 costs less and benefits more people. Thus of the two plans, Prop. 79 seems better. But there is a catch: It creates civil penalties for drug companies who profiteer, or overcharge, on other drugs. The Attorney General’s office can enforce, but so can anyone affected. This will create more litigation. Lastly, it creates an oversight board to administrate the program and enforce the profiteering. California does not need one more “board.”
Of the two, Prop. 78 is the better of the two plans. It is more realistic and it provides a solution without creating additional agencies and bureaucracy.
Proposition 80: Electric service providers. This is the mind-numbingly dull one. It has to do with how 11 percent of the state receives its electricity and who regulates them. Currently there is a segment of society, mostly commercial and light industrial enterprises, who receive their electricity from a group of companies that are not regulated by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The PUC wants control of them, and to regulate who can become part of their customer base.
In the only bit of irony in this whole matter, the PUC does not actually regulate the publicly-owned utilities, they regulate the privately-owned ones. If the PUC is charged with regulating the private electric companies, they should regulate them all equally. This proposition requires that a small number of private electricity providers fall under the PUC net.
As a free market capitalist, I don’t like the idea of the government regulating most aspects of business and life. I’d prefer to see the affected customers be able to continue to choose their electric providers, and this proposition would stop that.
I know people are upset over the dereg-ulation in the electric utilities and the havoc it caused. But the bigger question here is, should the PUC regulate all electricity? If you believe yes, then you should vote “yes” on this. If you think no, you should vote “no.” But the most important thing to do is to vote. It is vitally important that this governor and this legislature hear from the public, and the best way for that to happen is for people to exercise their right to vote.
Remember, when you stay home, the other guy gets to decide the election. How’s that working for you so far? (David Pisarra)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 1, 2005. Read the original PDF.