Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

The Ballot Initiative Process in California Doesn’t Have to be Junked: It Can Be Reformed
What if California Had a Normal Government by Which It Addressed the Budget Deficit?
Sierra Club California Thanks Governor, Attorney General, and Air Resources Board for Upholding Clean Air Rules—Says to Automakers: Don't Be "Climate Chickens"
The "Year of Health Reform" in California: Take Two--Lessons for the Next Attempt
Budget Confusion in California: How Big a Gap Do You Want It to Be?
Preschool Reform Package is Alive and Well in the California Legislature
Prop 98: A Cardboard Box for Your Troubles

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Bill Magavern's 2008 California Ballot Rx

By Sara S. Nichols

Well, they're here! The long-awaited Bill Magavern ballot recommendations. With so many people absentee voting, we get requests for these LONG before the election. Hold your horses, people!!! Unless you are leaving for Europe or a tour of duty, what is the friggin' hurry on voting? I still walk to the neighborhood precinct on voting day, but if I voted two or three or four weeks out I would often regret it. New info really crystalizes in the final weeks of a campaign.

So without further ado:

THE BILL MAGAVERN BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS, FEBRUARY 2008
PROPOSITIONS

91 – NO
Even its authors have disowned this one. Its effect would be to expand the circumstances under which all of the sales tax on gasoline – not the gas tax, but the sales tax – could be spent only on transportation, which would bind the hands of the governor and legislature during times of fiscal crisis.

92 – NO
91 and 92 share one of the worst features of ballot-box budgeting, because they both would carve out slices of the budget pie without doing anything to enlarge the pie. In this case, the cause is a worthy one – community colleges. But 92 wouldn’t raise any revenue, it would just direct existing revenues toward community colleges, meaning other programs, like health, K-12 education, parks, etc – would be cut. And capping community college fees is not as progressive as it may sound. A much more equitable policy would be to raise fees on those who can afford to pay and use the money to provide more financial aid for low-income students.

93 – YES
CA’s legislative term limits are just about the tightest in the country, and still would be even if 93 passes. The difference would be that a legislator could serve up to 12 years in one house, which would greatly increase the continuity and institutional memory in the Assembly. Currently, the lower house looks like a revolving door, as freshmen arrive in Sacramento already eyeing their next move, usually to the Senate. The situation means that fundraising –almost all of it from special interests – never stops.

To me, this measure is not about who happens to be in office now, but about what is the best policy for the long run. Allowing a legislator to make a 12-year career in one house would definitely improve the quality of deliberation in the Capitol – and I say that as someone who spends many of my working hours in that particular sausage factory.

94-97 – NO
I’m certainly not thrilled that so much of California’s ballot space and political advertising goes into gambling issues, when so many more important matters go neglected. In this expensive battle I side
with the labor and tribal interests who are trying to overturn 4 casinos’agreements with the state. These agreements do not protect the rights of casino employees.

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY – OBAMA

He opposed the Iraq war from the start, unlike his opponents. As a legislator, he’s managed to pass tough bills by working with unlikely allies. My informed source in Illinois politics has spoken highly of him for years. Obama’s theme of participatory democracy – government by and for the people, not the corporate lobbyists – could actually have a transformative effect. With Kucinich out of the race, and Edwards’ campaign faltering, Obama is the progressive choice – and also the one with the best chance of winning the White House.

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY – PAUL

His domestic platform is straight out of the 19th century, but he’s the only Reep candidate opposed to the war, so if you’re in the GOP this is your chance to send a message.

I’m Bill Magavern, and I approve of this message.

Sara S. Nichols is a dynamic public speaker who has appeared on Larry King, Jerry Springer, The Newshour with Jim Lehrer and talk radio. She lives in Sacramento and writes from time to time on politics on snicholsblog where this article first appeared. It is republished with her permission.

Bill Magavern is Sara Nichol’s husband.

Posted on January 27, 2008

Comments

I hope more Californians take the time to read proposition 94 through 97. We are being dooped in a big way. They will succeed in monopolizing Vegas style gambling in CA with these compacts. It states right in the text that if California allows any other vegas style gambling within a certain distance "Payments to the state will be drastically reduced". That's blackmail and I would say illegal. They also get an additional 10 years added to 2030 before they expire. They will open other businesses that do not pay state income or sales tax putting other businesses out of business as more people shop on the reservation because they can sell it cheaper. Regular businesses in the area may go out of business therefore no sales tax or income tax will go to the state. This is a bill of goods and if California voters accept this, we deserve what we get. READ THE TEXT CALIFORNIANS!!

Posted by: Morris1 at January 27, 2008 09:52 AM

If these are Bill Magavern's recommendations, why didn't he write/author the article? But I digress...

Same illogical basis for supporting Prop 93 is repeated here. One wonders if the support for 93 here and elsewhere on this website is actually trying to take care of ones own "side" or "team" (political party mates) or favorites (including Nunez and Perata) over any real logical application.

There is some good logic to serving 12 years in the legislature in one house, BUT...

"Bill" here opines:

"To me, this measure is not about who happens to be in office now, but about what is the best policy for the long run"

Sorry, but it IS-IS about who "happens to be in in office now", as the loophole within Prop 93 will allow them to "serve" MORE and ABOVE existing term limits AND beyound what even Prop 93 lays out!!!

Some 42 politicians/legislators are TERMED OUT unless Prop 93 passes, including the powerful Senate Pro Tem Perata and Assembly Speaker Nunez.

Evidence it IS about who "happens" to be in office now:

-Nunez asked all democratic politicians to chip in $50,000 each to support this campaign.

-Nunez senior staffer Gale Kauffman is currently the leader on the "Yes on 93" campaign.

-Term limit modifications (Prop 93)were PROMISED by Perata and Nunez to be on the ballot CONCURRENTLY with redistricting. The self-serving Prop 93 made it, the redistricting one benefitting California politics overall did not.

"Bill" also opines above:

"Currently, the lower house looks like a revolving door, as freshmen arrive in Sacramento already eyeing their next move, usually to the Senate. The situation means that fundraising –almost all of it from special interests – never stops."

Politicians/legislators can stop RIGHT NOW being at the beck & call of special interests by creating and passing the appropriate legislation. Campaign finance control, "gift" acceptance, etc. They HAVE the power to fix this BUT CHOOSE NOT TO.

Speaker Fabian Nunez enjoys spending campaign cash on himself with Louis Vutton clothes, trips to Europe, expensive French Wine, and the purchase of a $1.2 million home (new roots?) up in Sacramento while "representing" the poor inner city folks in LA...

Why would Nunez not want to keep the personal gravy train going and position himself for further political office via Prop 93? He already thought it through and here is the evidence-Prop 93!

Resubmit Prop 93 to apply to all SUBSEQUENTLY elected officials. Delete the LOOPHOLE this version has that is selfish in the extreme to those currently in office.

Vote NO-NO on Prop 93!

Posted by: Jay Gould at January 27, 2008 12:03 PM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker