Endorsements

In 1892, Edward Bellamy wrote the pledge of allegiance. The original text read: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Flash forward nearly 120 years, and Bellamy might be shocked at what he would see. Once a strong “united” nation, we have become so divided, so polarized in our politics, that even the name of our country seems to be a farce.

Instead of fighting for liberty and justice “for all,” only those holding citizenship papers can have liberty, and those looking for justice are typically guilty until proven innocent these days, at least in the court of popular opinion.

It is a sad state of affairs this election season. But we don’t believe in giving up on the hope that we can once again be that strong nation, united together for good and fighting for a better life for all. That’s why it is a must to get to the polls on Nov. 2, if you haven’t already mailed in your ballots. Before you vote, think about the long term, think progressive, think about how we change the future. We know times are tough, but this is only a temporary setback.

And as we vote, we can change our long term if we make the right choices now. We spent a long time mulling over our endorsements this election season and hope they help you to make the right choices. Please enjoy!

U.S. Senate
It is tough to be a Democratic candidate this election season, especially an incumbent. Senator Barbara Boxer has had to come out fighting. Fortunately for Boxer, she has her record to carry her. She voted against the Iraq invasion, spoke out against warrantless wiretapping, voted against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act. Boxer has remained steady in her commitments to defend our civil rights and our environment. Challenger Carly Fiorina, on the other hand, has little to show. Her politics are Tea Party-esque, though her work ethics say otherwise. As the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina outsourced 30,000 jobs. Just the fact that Fiorina received Sarah Palin’s endorsement should be enough reason not to vote for her.

We believe Boxer to be tried and true, a civil servant dedicated to her constituents who has remained steadfast in the face of adversity. Vote for Barbara Boxer for U.S. Senate.

U.S. Congress
Elton Gallegly is like Brett Favre. He just won’t go away. Like Favre, he has teased his constituents with retirement plans, only to trudge back on the field. They are both 20-plus-year veterans of their professions. Though Favre has had a bit more success in his line of work (three MVP’s, one Super Bowl ring) compared to Gallegly (nine successfully enacted bills out of 179 bills he authored), the two men have continually been praised for their work ethic throughout the years. Yet in the twilight of their careers, their popularity has waned. Favre is loathed in cities where he was once loved, and simply cannot connect with his teammates the way he used to. Gallegly is a Republican representing a newly turned-Democratic district; and in the past four election years, Gallegly’s margin of victory has been steadily decreasing. Gallegly also refuses to make public appearances or engage in discussions important to those living in his district.

Tim Allison is young, poised and eager to serve. Yes, compared to Gallegly, Allison lacks experience. But who wouldn’t? Though Allison has never held a political office, the former statewide officer of the Environmental Caucus for the state Democratic Party is a refreshing choice for a district that Obama carried in 2008.

Vote for Tim Allison for 24th Congressional District.

Governor
While it may seem like a good idea to run California like a business, with all the buzz about its financial shortcomings, our state’s top leader’s first priority shouldn’t only be whether or not its bottom line looks good. People come first.

The state’s diverse landscape encompasses the rich and poor, healthy and sick, employed and jobless, and everyone in between. The role of our governor is to act like a great moral compass, balancing the needs of the people while keeping our budget balanced. Billionaire Republican Meg Whitman has proved that she is as far removed from regular people as an iceberg floating in the tropics. Her nonexistent Republican voting record demonstrates that her run for governor is only a power grab, something to do in her spare time as she squanders more than $140 million of her own money to buy the governor’s seat. While all the reasons not to vote for Whitman are too many to list here, her stances against clean energy, cracking down on illegal immigration and opposing gay rights are high on our list. Our vote is for Democrat Jerry Brown. We admit he has his flaws, but we aren’t worried about what Brown will do once elected. Having been there, done that, Brown hasn’t strayed from California’s political landscape in decades. He knows the ropes, and we feel confident with California’s future in Brown’s hands. The social disaster that would occur on Whitman’s watch is too much to even ponder. Vote for Jerry Brown for Governor.

Controller
Other than the fact that incumbent Jon Chiang has proven himself as chief auditor by saving California taxpayers more than $2 billion in his tenure thus far, we recommend turning to your handy dandy California General Election Voter Guide to compare the résumés of Chiang and challenger Republican Tony Strickland as a guide at the polls this season. The only reason Strickland jumped into the race was to be Whitman’s right hand man. If you love Meg, then you’ll love Tony. The choice is easy. Vote for Jon Chiang for Controller.

California Legislature
Dear Das:
While we are certain you will like what is at the end of this letter, we would like to address a few things. We aren’t sure exactly what it is about you, but we think some changes need to be made.

We are still confused as to why you supported the PXP offshore oil drilling deal several months back, but it left a bad taste in our mouth. Also, we have heard and noticed some things about you that put off some of us Venturans. We can’t quite put our finger on it, but we hope something will change. Maybe the best way to put it is what a friend told us recently: “I’ll probably vote for Das, but I don’t feel good about it.”

You are well-liked in Santa Barbara; we hope that maybe we get to see that side of you that is appreciated there.

Either way, we can’t support your opponent, Republican Mike Stoker. While his focus is on small businesses and lowering taxes, he doesn’t have a plan to address the great social needs in our area. You, as a liberal Democrat, instinctively do.

Therefore, we give you our endorsement and hope to see some great things come from you.

Sincerely,

VCReporter

Vote for Das Williams for 35th Assembly District.

Oxnard City Council and Mayoral Race
This is perhaps the most interesting race in Ventura County. Since it is likely the DA’s probe into the potential misappropriation of public money, conflicts of interest and contract irregularities will not conclude before elections, voters have some difficult choices to make. Though details of the case have been only speculative, voters do know that two of the three incumbents, Mayor Tom Holden and Andres Herrera, have had their homes raided during the investigation. This may influence the public to err on the side of caution and vote for the candidates who won’t possibly be indicted after being elected. We think, however, this isn’t necessarily the right approach. As we wait for the DA to issue indictments, we continue our support for Mayor Tom Holden. He has a track record of putting the residents of Oxnard first. In 2008, he was successful in his campaign with Measure O, winning voters over to pass a half-percent sales tax increase for street improvements. Vote for Tom Holden for mayor.

For City Council, we like challenger Tim Flynn and incumbent Dean Maulhardt. Flynn’s previous Council experience and political vigor would be a much-needed unique viewpoint. Maulhardt has done good work in helping to keep Oxnard fiscally sound. Losing that experience may be another setback for Oxnard at an already apparently difficult time. Vote for Tim Flynn and Dean Maulhardt

Rio School Board
We know that there is something wrong in Rio. We were considering the idea that perhaps the school board needed a fresh clean slate to get back on track, to get to a place where the stories of petty theft (top management), child molestation (former trustee), restraining orders and threats of violence (Union president and a Rio teacher), protests (angry parents and teachers) and a district on the verge of insolvency might fade away. But with four candidates vying for seats on the board accepting donations from a construction company that is tied up in a lawsuit with the district, we aren’t sure what to think anymore. While it isn’t illegal to accept such donations, it appears to be more of the same. We hope a true leader emerges to right the ship. Unfortunately, we don’t know who that will be. No endorsements.

Measure H (Ventura Unified School District)
Measure H is the parcel tax of $96 per year for property owners in the Ventura Unified School District. If voters pass Measure H, the district will collect an estimated $4.5 million a year, for the next four years, when the measure sunsets. Because it is a local initiative, the money can’t be taken by the state. (Property owners older than 65 could request exemptions.) If Measure H fails, the district will continue to fight for funding — it has already lost $17 million over the last 18 months due to budget cuts at the state level.

The great thing about Measure H is that there can never be enough money for schools, for education, for our children. Improving our education is always a win-win situation. The bad thing about Measure H is there isn’t any guarantee these millions of dollars will be poured into ensuring smaller classroom sizes, improved curriculum and a better overall educational experience for our children. In general, the costs of administration, at times, seem to be more of a priority than the actual classroom.

But the pros outweigh the cons with Measure H. We are taking a leap of faith here by supporting Measure H, that the funds will be guided into the classroom rather than administration. Vote Yes for Measure H.

Proposition 19
Though Proposition 19 is losing steam in its popularity in the polls, that doesn’t mean the initiative should go up in smoke. There are many reasons to legalize marijuana, including the fact that it is already a $14 billion industry in California (combining medical marijuana and recreational use sales), that the state could be collecting an estimated $1.3 billion in sales tax revenue rather than the $18 million it currently collects annually from dispensaries, and the realization that medical marijuana is a joke. (Seriously, who can’t get a medical marijuana card?) There are also no statistics regarding how many people a year die solely due to marijuana use or because someone was high behind the wheel. Law enforcement officials around the state also say that the legalizing of marijuana would diminish the power of foreign drug cartels. We agree.

Another great aspect of Prop. 19, if it were to pass, is that it would open up a countrywide debate on federal pot prohibition and “devil weed.” All the reasons for pot prohibition, including the idea that it is a gateway drug to harder narcotics, such as heroin, have been proven to be erroneous. While it may be a little arduous at first, being the only state where marijuana would be legal, the passage of Prop. 19 is the only practical way that this topic would ever be seriously considered in D.C.

But none of these reasons are why we are endorsing Proposition 19. We are endorsing Prop. 19 because of this . We believe you should be able to plant and grow this little seed without worrying about the authorities coming to investigate. Vote Yes on Prop. 19.

Propositions 20 and 27
In 2008, California voters passed the Voters First Act, aka Proposition 11, which transferred the task of setting (or redrawing) the geographic boundaries of the state’s 120 legislative districts from legislators to the Citizens Redistricting Commission. The purpose: to prevent legislators from gerrymandering to win re-elections.

This election season, Prop. 20 is on the ballot. This initiative, in essence, is the same as Prop. 11, except it addresses congressional districts. With all the talk about how frustrated voters are this year, it wouldn’t surprise us if Prop. 20 passed with an overwhelming majority — the people are fed up with complacent politicians and want to be assured they have some power in government. We endorsed Prop. 11 two years ago, and we stand behind Prop. 20 as well.

Proposition 27, however, would nullify both propositions (11 and 20) if it receives more votes than Prop. 20 on Nov. 2, ensuring that legislators at the state and federal level have complete control over what districts they have (knowing full well how that district will vote). Being a politician doesn’t mean being able to have full job security. Prop. 20 means we will have accountable leaders, not just popular people, representing us in D.C. Vote Yes on Prop. 20; No on Prop. 27.

Proposition 21
This proposition would raise the vehicle surcharge fee by $18. And that $18 fee has sparked quite a debate. On one side, state parks are as much a part of America as baseball and apple pie. The first state park opened in 1902 and many soon followed. The possibility of even reducing their availability is not something we can afford to do right now as the need is great and the number of users is up in this down economy. Voting yes will generate approximately $500 million for state park maintenance, and remove state parks from future budget negotiations. Nearly 25 percent of state parks, covering 1.5 million acres and one-third of California’s coastline, have had to curtail their operating hours, with some only open on weekends. Operating hours will continue to decrease and parks will continue to close if additional funds are not secured. If passed, cars with California license plates will receive free admission to state parks for day use.

On the other side of the debate, $500 million is a lot of money. With schools, universities, health clinics and transportation all lacking essential funds, wouldn’t taxpayer money be better used toward one of these vital programs?
Maybe. But currently, the whole park system is on America’s proverbial Most Endangered Places list. Let’s keep our parks as a high priority. Vote Yes on Proposition 21 .

Proposition 22
Proposition 22 would prohibit the state from borrowing funds from local government. Revenue derived from locally imposed taxes is dedicated to cities, counties, special districts and redevelopment agencies, but currently the state can borrow from the funds in case of a fiscal emergency, and it must be paid back with interest in three years. Local government officials do not like this since it affects city budget planning and development, and transfers state money problems to local communities. But the initiative may also limit the ways the state can balance its budget and could lead to deeper cuts for schools, public safety and health care. Prop. 22 protects redevelopment funds and agencies.

Though we like the idea of holding Sacramento fiscally accountable for its funds, local monies are needed locally.

Legislators shouldn’t have the ability to raid local coffers to fix the state’s problems. Vote Yes on Proposition 22.

Proposition 23
Proposition 23 would suspend Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 put California in the limelight for its progressive environmental laws; Proposition 23 would be a regression, and the state would no longer be the leader in eco-friendly initiatives.

If you care about the environment and are concerned about climate change, then vote NO on Prop. 23. If you believe we need to become less dependent on oil and more dependent on cleaner, safer alternative fuels, then vote NO on Prop. 23. If you aren’t fooled by Big Oil’s propaganda, then you will vote NO on Prop. 23. (Big Oil claims that AB 32, which limits green house gases and makes businesses accountable for their emissions, actually prohibits job creation and, therefore, the only way back to a relatively low unemployment rate is to suspend clean energy legislation. This is only a stall tactic.) There is only one choice. Vote No on Prop. 23.

Proposition 24
Three business tax laws were passed in 2008 and 2009 as a compromise between the legislature and the governor in order to pass the state budget. These laws are about to sunset in 2011. They closed loopholes for big businesses that have been able to avoid paying certain taxes. In essence, these provisions restricts the ability of a business to use operating losses to lower taxes and end the ability of a multistate business to choose how to pay its taxes, and end the ability of a business to share tax credits within a unitary group. The closure of these loopholes were necessary and a long time in coming. By keeping these loopholes closed, it is estimated that the state will generate $1.3 billion a year. This money will help keep vital services operating at a time when California residents need them most. Vote Yes on Prop. 24.

Propositions 25 and 26
We have reported on too many businesses going under, or laying off employees, due to the budget impasse. For every day the budget was stalled — 100 days in 2010 — more and more critical programs in health care, child care and education were put in dire straits. These programs will continue to fizzle out year after year if passing the budget requires more than 66 percent approval. This is no way for our system to operate.

Though voters placed more Democrats than Republicans in the state Legislature, the majority party hasn’t been able to get much accomplished since there aren’t enough of them to garner the two-thirds vote. As a result, California remains in a constant political logjam. If Republicans were in the majority, they, too, would be feeling as frustrated as the Democrats and might be in favor of Proposition 25, which requires a simple majority vote (50 percent plus one) to pass the budget. Also, if passed, lawmakers would have to forfeit their pay for every day they are late in passing the budget. Prop. 25 allows the party in power to govern more efficiently, pass the budget on time, and provide some sort of relief to the congestion in Sacramento.

Proposition 26 also calls for a two-thirds majority vote on some fees and levies that address adverse impacts on society or the environment, instead of the simple majority vote that is currently in place. Companies like Chevron, Shell Oil and Phillip Morris support this. But we think passing Prop. 26 makes it more difficult to impose “pollution fees” on corporations that are liable to cause environmental harm. In an election season that is big on the word “accountability,” voting against Prop. 26 will hold mega-oil, -tobacco and -alcohol corporations financially responsible for any damage they may do, instead of the taxpayers. Vote Yes on Proposition 25 and No on Proposition and 26.