- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"\/home\/graphics\/propositions.jpg\")
Propositions 30 and 38<\/strong><\/p>\nThe fate of public education in California will be determined tomorrow when voters choose from one of two propositions designed to temporarily inject money into a hemorrhaging educational budget. Proposition 38, backed by wealthy attorney Molly Munger would raise personal income taxes for the next 12 years on anyone making an annual salary over $7,346 dollars. The increase would be on a sliding scale where the lowest income earners pay an additional 0.4% of their current income while those making over $2.5 million pay 2.2%. Munger has masterminded and funded the proposition with $28 million dollars of her own money. Proposition 38 is expected to bring in about $10 billion dollars but the money can only be used for pre-school and K through 12 students, not for colleges or for salaries or pensions of school employees. Individual school districts will be held accountable for implementing improvement projects with the new money. <\/p>\n
Proposition 30, also intent on finding new revenue for the education budget, is backed by Governor Jerry Brown and the two main teachers\u2019 unions. It would increase sales tax by a quarter of a percent for all Californians, increasing the current sales tax of 7.25% to 7.5%. It would also raise taxes for the next seven years on only the very wealthiest individuals in the State who make more than $250,000 dollars a year. Married couples who make less than $500,000 dollars a year would not have to pay any additional taxes. Proposition 30 would also amend the state constitution to guarantee more police officers on city streets. With $6 billion dollars in new revenue, Prop 30 would use 89% of that money toward K through 12 education and 11% toward community colleges. <\/p>\n
While voters are free to vote for one or both measures, ultimately the Proposition with the most votes will win. Complicating matters however is the fact that if Prop 30 fails, or if 38 gets more votes than 30, Gov. Brown\u2019s \u201ctrigger cuts\u201d will go into effect whereby $6 billion dollars will automatically be cut from the state budget resulting in close to $5 billion dollars of lost revenue for schools.<\/p>\n
GUEST: David Goldberg, is a Board Member of the California Teachers Association, an elected officer of the CTA and has been a teacher for 14 years.<\/em> <\/p>\n
- Listen to this segment <\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul>
\nProposition 31<\/strong><\/p>\nProp 31 is an initiative which aims to fix budgetary and legislative problems in California by amending the State Constitution. The 9,000 word proposition covers nine different issues, and opponents are disagreeing with some but not all of its various proposals. <\/p>\n
Among the less controversial proposals in Prop 31 is increasing the State\u2019s Budget cycle from one to two years and allowing all state bills to be available for public viewing three days prior to the legislature\u2019s vote. But the initiative also mandates a so-called Pay-As-You-Go provision that lawmakers find funding sources for any projects costing more than $25 million before they are approved. <\/p>\n
Prop 31 also promotes \u201cCommunity Strategic Action Plans\u201d to address the struggle between local and State governments which would enable local governments to disregard State laws to implement local level concerns. Locally planned projects would be able to tap into a $200 million a year fund created by siphoning off California State sales tax revenue. Prop 31 would also allow local governments to determine how their community property taxes are spent, thereby changing the current system which permits Counties to allocate the money. <\/p>\n
GUESTS: James Mayer, Executive Director of California Forward and Lenny Goldberg Executive Director of the California Tax Reform Association <\/em><\/p>\n
- Listen to this segment <\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul>
\nProposition 32<\/strong><\/p>\nOne of the 11 propositions on the ballot this November is Prop. 32, also called the Stop Special Interest Money Now Act. If passed, this measure will effectively undermine the ability of labor unions to participate in politics and will prohibit union fundraising by disallowing the use of payroll deductions for political purposes, even though unions already give members the choice to opt out of political contributions. Proposition 32 exempts common business structures such as LLCs, real estate trusts, and partnerships, so it will have little effect on corporations and will continue to allow them to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections campaigns and Super PACs. <\/p>\n
GUEST: Brian Leubitz, political consultant and blogger at Calitics.com, currently works with the No on 32 campaign<\/em><\/p>\n
- Listen to this segment <\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul>
\nProposition 33<\/strong><\/p>\nProposition 33 is backed by George Joseph, the billionaire chairman of Mercury Insurance. The Yes on 33 ads funded by Joseph claim that if 33 passes, California drivers will save money every month by having the option to shop for insurance and will preserve discounted rates they get for having continuous insurance with the same company. <\/p>\n
But, opponents of the proposition say it would actually penalize drivers who have had a lapse in coverage greater than 18 months, actually resulting in greater insurance rates for many Californians. Additionally, prop 33 is seemingly an updated version of a similar proposition, Prop 17, which failed in 2010. <\/p>\n
If passed, this year\u2019s auto insurance ballot measure will undo some effects of Proposition 103 which passed in 1988 and has saved California drivers $62 billion. Prop 103 regulates and prevents insurance companies from offering discriminatory pricing premiums for car insurance based on the driver’s previous coverage and credit history. <\/p>\n
GUEST: Jamie Court, President of Consumer Watchdog<\/em><\/p>\n
- Listen to this segment <\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul>
\nProposition 34<\/strong><\/p>\nCalifornia may become the 18th state in the nation to ban the death penalty if voters support Proposition 34 tomorrow. Passage of Prop 34 would ensure a life sentence without the possibility of parole not only for those who are awaiting sentencing but also for those people who are currently on death row. Those found guilty of murder would be put to work by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and a portion of their wages would be allocated for victims\u2019 funds. Prop 34 would also establish a $100 million dollar fund for police to expand their investigations into rape and homicide cases.<\/p>\n
Supporters feel that apart from the moral concerns of state sanctioned executions, there are major financial costs associated with carrying out a death sentence. A 2011 study indicates that California has spent approximately $4 billion to execute 13 people since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978. With Prop 34 California would save millions of dollars by reducing the number of legal and other staff who work solely on death penalty cases. <\/p>\n
GUEST: Natasha Minsker is death penalty policy director of the ACLU of Northern California and campaign manager for the Yes on 34 campaign<\/em><\/p>\n
- Listen to this segment <\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul>
\nProposition 35<\/strong> <\/p>\nOne of the more emotionally charged propositions on the ballot this November is Prop 35 which deals with human trafficking. Proposition 35 formally called \u2018The Californians Against Sexual Exploitation\u2019 or CASE Act. Multimillionaire Chris Kelly, who lost a race for California State Attorney General in 2010 and is also Facebook\u2019s former chief privacy officer is backing the proposition with over a million dollars of his own money. <\/p>\n
California already has a law on the books called the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to make trafficking illegal as well as help promote the rights of victims. But Proposition 35, rather than building upon the current law to aid victims of trafficking, instead seeks to broaden the definition of trafficking by labeling more people as traffickers and increases the length and severity of sentences for sex trafficking over other types of trafficking. Some opponents feel that the Proposition unfairly targets sex workers. Additionally, many groups and individuals who work in the anti-human trafficking community are either against Prop 35 or have decided not to take a formal position on it. <\/p>\n
GUEST: John Vanek, Anti-Human Trafficking Consultant, Lieutenant (Ret.) who managed the San Jose Police Department Human Trafficking Task Force from 2006-2011 as part of the South Bay Coalition to End Human Trafficking, member of the United States Department of Justice, OVC \/ BJA Anti-Trafficking Task Force Planning Committee, and sits on the National Advisory Boards of the Laboratory to Combat Human Trafficking\/Colorado Project. He is a contributor to a No On Prop 35 blog<\/a>. <\/em><\/p>\n
- Listen to this segment <\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul>
\nProposition 36<\/strong><\/p>\nWe turn next to Proposition 36, the three strike reform initiative which Civil rights groups, as well as Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck and several District Attorneys have all hailed as a way to temper an overly harsh law that is costing taxpayers millions of dollars. <\/p>\n
The original Three Strikes Law defines a strike as a felony conviction and stipulates that a person found guilty of a third felony, regardless of the nature of that felony, must be sentenced to between 25-years-to-life. Critics of the law found that the Three Strikes Law led to an uneven distribution of justice, as murderers sometimes received more lenient sentences than a person convicted of petty theft. While there is little evidence to conclude that the Three Strikes Law leads to any noticeable decrease in crime statistics, there is proof that it is adding to California’s prison overcrowding problems. <\/p>\n
In 2004 efforts were made to reform the three strikes law with a new initiative called Proposition 66. Before the election, a deceptive, aggressive media campaign led by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ensured the ballot\u2019s failure. The measure was rejected by 52.7% of the voters. <\/p>\n
If passed, Prop 36 would impose life sentences only if a third felony conviction was “serious or violent” and would allow 3,000 non-violent offenders currently serving life in prison to petition the court for re-sentencing. Proponents are estimating that the State could potentially save up to $200 million dollars a year if the Proposition were to pass. <\/p>\n
GUESTS: Sue Reams is an activist whose son is incarcerated under CA’s 3 Strikes law for 25 years to LIFE for being 30 feet away from a $20 drug sale. Sue is also a member of Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes (FACTS)<\/em><\/p>\n
- Listen to this segment <\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul>
\nProposition 37<\/strong><\/p>\nCalifornians will decide tomorrow if their state will become the first in the country to require the labeling of foods using genetically modified organisms. Prop 37 or the Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling Initiative would mandate that grocers identify products as either \u201cGenetically Engineered,\u201d \u201cPartially Produced with Genetic Engineering,\u201d or \u201cMay be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering,\u201d based on how much genetic tinkering took place during the food’s production. In addition, Prop 37 would prohibit the use of the word \u201cnatural\u201d in the advertising and labeling of genetically modified foods.<\/p>\n
A new poll conducted by the University of Southern California and the LA Times has found that Proposition 37, has slipped a whopping 17 points since the last poll in September. The proposition continues to lead but only by 2 percentage points. <\/p>\n
The dramatic shift in opinion is likely due to the barrage of dollars spent by vested corporate interests to defeat Prop 37. Chief among them are Monsanto corporation, the leading commercial force behind the creation, promotion, and widespread use of pesticides and genetically modified seeds in farming, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association which represents the world’s largest processed food producers and distributors such as Coca Cola, Pepsi Co, and Nestle. Together, they have spent $41 million in advertising and other campaigning, claiming that Proposition 37 is “anti-science,” and would lead to huge increases in food prices and the banning of safe foods. <\/p>\n
Surveys have shown that measures to ensure the labeling of GMO products enjoy overwhelming public support nationwide, in some cases with up to 90% approval from respondents.<\/p>\n
GUEST: Vandana Shiva, founder of Navadanya, author of nearly two dozen books, including Democratizing Biology: Reinventing Biology from a Feminist, Ecological. Her forthcoming book out next year is entitled Making Peace With the Earth: Beyond Land Wars And Food Wars. <\/em><\/p>\n
- Listen to this segment <\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul>
\nProposition 39<\/strong><\/p>\nA ballot measure that has garnered little attention, but could potentially offset California\u2019s carbon foot print and bring in millions of dollars into the state, is proposition 39. The proposition, backed by billionaire environmentalist, Tom Steyer, is a response to legislation signed by former governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger that gave out-of-state corporations an incentive for not creating facilities in California and not hiring California workers.<\/p>\n
Under the current law which was established in 2009, corporations can choose from two different tax options. One option is a tax based on the amount of sales made in the state, which is standard practice around the country. The other option uses a company\u2019s sales, number of employees and facilities present in the state to determine the amount of tax. Companies, given these two options always opt for the one that allows them to pay the least taxes. Rather than allowing companies to choose which tax structure is more beneficial to them, Prop 39 would evenly tax companies based solely on their in-state sales and is projected to raise $1 billion. <\/p>\n
Of the billion dollars expected to be made in tax revenues, half will go into the general fund for things like education, and the other half into fueling the state\u2019s green economy. If passed, the proposition is expected to provide $550 million in increased revenue towards clean energy jobs and energy efficiency in California.<\/p>\n
GUEST: California State Senator Kevin de Le\u00f3n represents Los Angeles County\u2019s 22nd Senatorial district which includes the Cities of Los Angeles, Alhambra, Maywood, San Marino, South Pasadena, Vernon and parts of unincorporated Los Angeles County. He’s also the co-chair of the Yes on 39 Campaign<\/em><\/p>\n
- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to this segment <\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to this segment <\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to this segment <\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to this segment <\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to this segment <\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to this segment <\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to this segment <\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to the entire program<\/a><\/li><\/ul>
- Listen to this segment <\/a><\/li><\/ul>