November 4, 2008 Ballot Recommendations: Part 1

By Editorial

On November 4, voters in the state of California will go to the polls not only to vote their choice for President, but also to vote on numerous statewide propositions that will impact the state’s economy. They will be selecting their representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives and the California State Legislature.  EGP makes the following ballot recommendations:

Prop 1A—High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act. Measure would provide for a bond issue of $9.95 billion to establish high-speed rail train service linking Southern California counties with the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley and San Francisco Bay Area. EGP strongly supports public transit, but in this case the payment of bond principal and interest from the state general fund already in the red, makes this a good idea at the wrong time.
Vote No

Prop 2—Standards for Confining Farm Animals.
Requires that calves, raised for veal, egg laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow them to lie down, stretch their limbs, stand up and fully extend their limbs and turn around. We find nothing wrong in a civilized society requiring all animals to be housed in a humane way.
Vote Yes

Prop 3—Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds to be repaid by the states general, to fund the construction expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals. We wouldn’t further encumber a state general fund already billions in the red. Sometimes there just isn’t enough money to do everything that the state should be doing.
Vote No

Prop 4—Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minors Pregnancy. We don’t believe that a majority of parents wouldn’t be supportive of their daughter’s welfare if she is pregnant, and we don’t believe a forty-eight hour wait to notify one adult in a minor’s life about an unintended pregnancy is unreasonable.
Vote Yes

Prop 5—Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Advocates $460,000,000 annually to improve treatment programs for persons convicted of drug offenses and other offenses. This proposition limits court authority to incarcerate offenders who commit certain drug crimes, break drug treatment rules or violate parole. It is our belief that with the state now under court order to expand and improve health services, incarcerated drug offenders are better treated in prison facilities. We are also not supportive of the fact that other offenses are also covered by this proposition. We are also opposed to another county, state authority with two secretaries and a 19-member board being created.
Vote No

Prop 6—Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Requires a minimum of $ 965,000,000 each year be allocated from state General Fund for police, sheriffs, district attorneys and adult and juvenile jail facilities. We do not approve of the state’s General Fund being further earmarked, this allows less discretion on how to use state funds.
Vote No

Prop 7—Renewable Energy Generation.
Requires all utilities to generate 20 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2010. Raises requirement by 40 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025. Imposes penalties for non-compliance, transfers some jurisdiction from state PUC to Energy Commission, fast tracks approval for renewable energy plants. And requires utilities to sign longer contracts, 20 year minimum, to procure renewable energy. We oppose this Proposition because it may hamstring renewable energy businesses and development. While its intentions may be admirable and desirable, the wording may actually hamper the intended goal.
Vote No

Prop 8—Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Why is this Proposition on the ballot? Government cannot legislate morality. We believe marriage should mean a man and a woman becoming wedded, but if gays believe they are morally entitled to legally wed, we don’t believe there is anything that will change their minds. The courts have already affirmed this right, so should we.
Vote No

While we would like to see more competition for our legislative offices, particularly given the lack of leadership so glaringly demonstrated at all -levels of our government. Eastern Group Publications, for the most part, however, grudgingly endorses the following for elected office:

US Congress
District 27—Brad Sherman
District 28—Howard Berman
District 29—Adam Schiff
District 30—Henry Waxman
District 31—Xavier Becerra
District 32—Hilda Solis
District 33—Dianne Watson
District 34—Lucille Roybal-Allard
District 35—Maxine Waters
District 36—Jane Harman
District 37—Laura Richardson
District 38—Grace Napolitano
District 39—Linda Sanchez
District 40—Christina Avalos
District 42—Ed Chau
District 43—Joe Baca

California State Senate
District 21—Carol Liu
District 23—Fran Pavley
District 25—Rod Wright
District 27—Alan Lowenthal
District 39—Christine Kehoe

California State Assembly
District 42—Mike Feuer
District 44—Anthony Portantino
District 45—Kevin DeLeon
District 46—John A. Perez
District 47—Karen Bass
District 49—Mike Eng
District 50—Hector De La Torre
District 53—Ted Lieu
District 54—Bonnie Lowenthal
District 55—Warren Furutani
District 56—Tony Mendoza
District 57—Ed Hernandez
District 58—Charles Calderon

Los Angeles County
Supervisor (2nd District) —Mark Ridley-Thomas
District Attorney—Steve Cooley

Print This Post Print This Post

October 16, 2008  Copyright © 2012 Eastern Group Publications, Inc.

Comments

7 Responses to “November 4, 2008 Ballot Recommendations: Part 1”

  1. Box Turtle Bulletin » Bilingual East-LA Newsgroup Encourages a “No” Vote on Proposition 8 on October 17th, 2008 12:16 am

    [...] while this may not be exactly the editorial I would have crafted, nonetheless I welcome EGP’s position: Prop 8—Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Why is this Proposition on the ballot? [...]

  2. Lisa on October 18th, 2008 12:24 am

    Your stance on Prop Seven is misguided. These utilities will NEVER go renewable unless there is a mandate to do so. The state legislature, who couldn’t even pass a budget, will never pass any serious renewable energy bills! See SB Four Elevent. Edison, who was fined One Hundred and Forty Six mil for falsifying safety data and forging customer satisfaction, Sempra, and PG and E have put together Thirty million to defeat Prop 7 because prop 7 protects the consumer with a three percent cap on how much the utilities can raise our rates. Forty Eight percent of LA county’s energy comes from coal and the coal lobby is the most powerful lobby in the US. Prop 7 will create 370,000 prevailing wage jobs that can’t be outsourced. Prop 7′s proponents are actual scientists 0 Novel Laureates in physics and chemistry and the former head of the LADWP, SMUD and the LA Port- David Freeman.

  3. Carolina on October 18th, 2008 12:43 am

    How exactly is it that proposition 7 is “hamstring renewable energy businesses and development”?! Can you also be more specific on how the wording may actually hamper the intended goal.

    Lets look closely at proposition 7

    Prop. 7 will require that by 2025 50% of all the electricity in the state comes from renewable sources like solar and wind.
    Prop. 7 does not raise taxes or issue any bonds and includes a consumer protection clause that ensures your bill will never go up more than 3% by 2025. Prop. 7 will also create 370,000 high wage construction jobs right here in California.
    Over 40% of global warming pollution comes from electricity generation and by voting Yes on Prop. 7 we can do something real about global warming by requiring the Big Utility Companies to use more clean renewable energy. So what exactly is so wrong about this? Wanting to make energy companies responsible for a cleaner California. They are the ones who are against this porposition the Big Utility Companies are spending $27 million to defeat Prop 7 because they don’t want to change their ways and are spreading a lot of misinformation.
    So please make sure you look at the proposition closely, and as for me I know I will be voting YES on 7 for a cleaner California for the generations to come.

  4. KB on October 18th, 2008 1:07 pm

    I must vehemently disagree with your stance on Prop. 8. The people of California were given a chance to voice their desires when they passed a marriage amendment back in 2000. At that time the majority said marriage would be defined as between one man and one woman. Now, all it takes is 4 judges, in all of California, and society changes. I want a healthy happy society, not one of instability. The CDC has been sounding the alarm on homosexual relationships lately! Instead of adult men being infected with AIDS/HIV, now boys as young as 13-14 are becoming infected. Why, because they think the homosexual lifestyle is healthy. Check out their reports. You’ll be as stunned as I was. If we allow Gay marriage, then the ones who will be hurt the most will be our children.

  5. Jason Stinnett on October 23rd, 2008 11:31 pm

    Marriage is a choice made by adults, which has nothing to do with the propensity of teenage boys contracting AIDS/HIV.

    More likely links may be the gutting of sex education by the Bush Administration over the last 8 years or perhaps a lack of parenting in the household.

    This is a moral issue for people of religion and there’s a premise this country was founded on called “Separation of Church and State.” Religious premises should not dictate our nation’s or our state’s laws.

    Furthermore, it’s foolish to wield this CDC study to corroborate an issue it has nothing to do with. It’s like showing up to play basketball with a baseball bat. It makes no sense.

  6. Denise Jefferson on October 28th, 2008 4:24 pm

    I REALLY agree with one jason! Homosexuality has nothing to do with AIDS/HIV. This a problem that undergoes with two irresponsible adults regardless of their sexuality. I do believe however that we should vote no on PROP 8 it is outrageous. We have a tradition to uphold, and our government amazingly enough, is holding up the traditional man and woman marraige for so long, why stop now?!

  7. Ken Lei on November 4th, 2008 2:20 am

    My friend witnessed a security guard vandalizing a No on Prop 8 poster on Pasadena Art Center campus. He couldn’t get his camera out on time to video tape the action but did take a picture of the poster (http://i428.photobucket.com/albums/qq8/kennethlei/Noonprop8Vandalized.jpg). He reported the incident to the head of the security on campus. Sadly they did not take it seriously, even it was committed by a security guard. Note that the security guard appears to be strongly opposed to male same sex marriage but gets turned on by the idea of a lesbian couple. I despise these perverted people who claim that they are morally righteous beings!!

Comments are intended to further discussion on the article topic. EGPNews reserves the right to not publish, edit or remove comments that contain vulgarities, foul language, personal attacks, racists, sexist, homophobic or other offensive terminology or that contain solicitations, spam, or that threaten harm of any sort. EGPNews will not approve comments that call for or applaud the death, injury or illness of any person, regardless of their public status. Questions regarding this policy should be e-mailed to service@egpnews.com.





 characters available

Copyright © 2014 Eastern Group Publications, Inc. · Log in