Sep 24 2008
The Strategy Center’s “No on the Six” Campaign
In November California voters will be asked to consider twelve statewide propositions. Initiatives on the ballot range from amendments to the state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage to increasing penalties and spending for prison and policing. You may recall our examination of Proposition 6 or the Runner initiative, and last Friday, a look at Prop 8, the same-sex marriage ban. Ahead of the elections, the Labor Community Strategy Center has started a “Take the Initiative,†campaign singling out numerous propositions and one local measure as detrimental to working class people, communities of color, immigrants, youth, and women. The campaign is calling for a “No” vote on six initiatives including Proposition 1A, 4, 6, 8, and 9, and Measure R, local to Los Angeles County. Among their criticisms of the various initiatives is that Measure R is a racist sales tax proposed by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Proposition 4 is an infringement on a woman’s right to choose, and Proposition 6 helps proliferate a police state. All the propositions on this November’s ballot need more than 50 percent of the vote to become law in California.
GUEST: Lisa Adler, organizer with the Labor Community Strategy Center, and the No on the Six Campaign. For more information, visit www.thestrategycenter.org.
2 Responses to “The Strategy Center’s “No on the Six” Campaign”
The high-speed train (one of the upcoming ballot measures) would not be environmentally-expedient?
The demo film at http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ clearly shows the train being powered by wind.
However, I agree with the guest that it’s unfair for tax payers to fund something that only well-to-do people would be able to afford. (And I’m sure the construction process would be fraught with corruption and outrageous overspending.) Yet, isn’t it the “have-nots” who are and will continue to be the first to suffer from global warming (e.g., Hurricane Katrina, which affected people who didn’t drive and was caused by people that did)?
The way I see it, this tax increase would change the indulgences of the “well-to-do” to something that’ll at least be somewhat helpful for the environment, which affects everyone.
Aren’t there worse things to spend tax money on (e.g., nuclear weapons, subsidizing oil, subsidizing nuclear power, bailing out banks and paying exorbitant CEO salaries)?
I doubt that I would take this train myself. I use mass transit extensively, but I also try to live frugally. But it does seem to me like it help the environment at least somewhat.
Awsome post and straight to the point. I am not sure if this is really the best place to ask but do you guys have any ideea where to get some professional writers? Thanks 🙂