By Malinda Markowitz, RN
It's time to get serious about protecting our schools, our basic healthcare services, and the public support so essential to assuring a civil society in California.
Attention Californians: We need to pass Proposition 30.
With the latest polls showing a real tightening on the measure, let's recall what is at stake, and take a harder look at who is financing the campaign against this vital measure.
By Richard Holober
Consumer Federation of California
Leading college student newspapers editorials are urging a NO vote on Proposition 33, a measure that threatens graduating students with massive auto insurance rate surcharges.
A sampling of student opinion:
Proposition 33 is another way for insurance companies to squeeze more money from drivers … This is especially bad for lower income people who don't have insurance yet or are inconsistent with their insurance … With this proposition, graduates will be forced to pay higher insurance, even if they're perfectly safe drivers.
By Lea-Ann Tratten
Halloween has passed but we still face a few more days of political scare tactics heading into Election Day. One such campaign zombie that deserves to be exposed is an argument against Proposition 37, the ballot measure that will require labeling of food products that contain genetically engineered organisms (GMOs). It's that old political horror flick standby - the trial lawyer bogeyman.
Before we confront the scare tactic, let's look at some facts. GMOs are increasingly found in our foodstuffs. Reasonable minds disagree about their relative benefits for the food industry when weighed against the potential of health risks. Whichever side you fall on, it would seem fundamentally unreasonable to hide information from consumers about the presence of GMOs in food.
By Dave Snyder
California Bicycle Coalition
Why would a bicycle advocacy group oppose Proposition 33, an automobile insurance initiative?
Because if Proposition 33 passes, those of us who have found a way to avoid car insurance costs would be punished by paying higher rates if we choose to own and insure a car again. That's precisely the wrong policy to enact when so many Californians are discovering that our streets are getting safer and that the bicycle is actually a practical and joyous way to get around. Some of us have found biking, walking, transit, and the occasional rental car to be so practical that we've sold our private cars. That's a huge economic benefit: the money we would otherwise spend on cars goes into our local economy, creates local jobs, and helps our own pocketbook.
By Richard Holober
Consumer Federation of California
The Yes on Proposition 33 campaign reported yesterday another contribution of $500,000 from George Joseph, billionaire owner of Mercury Insurance. This brings Mr. Joseph's total contributions to the Yes on Proposition 33 campaign to $16.9 million.
Joseph's contribution comes as the Yes on 33 campaign appears to be sputtering toward defeat. To wit:
By Patty Bellasalma
In today's tight economy, Proposition 33 will strain women's finances by raising automobile insurance rates, gouging those already living on the financial edge who can least afford it.
Women are busy with their families and their jobs so we don't always feel like we have the time to get engaged in politics or even take the time to vote. History has proven that when we don't show up and vote, we are negatively impacted. This is why we need to vote No on Proposition 33, which would raise auto insurance rates on good drivers.
By Dolores Huerta
Recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom
President, Dolores Huerta Foundation for Community Organizing
Proposition 33 would return us to an era when discrimination in insurance was commonplace. If billionaire George Joseph gets his way, millions of Californians would pay higher auto insurance premiums. Mr. Joseph owns Mercury Insurance. He has donated $16.4 million to Prop 33.
Back when insurance discrimination was legal in California, the industry redlined lower income minority communities. Auto insurance was mandatory, but good drivers in inner city neighborhoods who wanted coverage were priced out of the market. The excuse was that these drivers were not previously insured, and therefore they needed to pay more to get insured.
By Elizabeth Sholes
California Council of Churches IMPACT
California Council of Churches IMPACT did not like this insurance initiative two years ago when it was rejected by voters as Prop 17, and we dislike Prop 33 even more today.
California Council of Churches IMPACT represents 21 Protestant and Orthodox denominations and over 1.5 million church members throughout California. Church IMPACT's interdenominational board bases its recommendations on ballot measures on thorough research and prayerful discernment seeking the best advice on ballot measures that benefit the Common Good.
By David Dayen
Chris Hayes had the most thoughtful discussion of the National Popular Vote I've ever seen on cable television the other day. Every so often, it's worth pointing out that it's entirely unnatural to run a national political campaign through a handful of boroughs and counties in at most 9 out of the 50 states, which leads to highlighting a mish-mash of local issues as if they were the most vital and critical national issues.