Jackie Goldberg is a former Assemblywoman, LA City Councilperson and School Board member. She is on the FACTS Education Fund Board, which sponsors, FACTS, Fair Chance Project and California Families Against Solitary Confinement. I am sending these as an fyi for those who might be in the dark and seeking an informed view. Hi Everyone, Here are the recommendations for Office 61 and Office 87. Both my sources concur, so I agree too! Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 61: Jacqueline H. Lewis - hands down the best in all the races this year. The only candidate rated Exceptionally Well Qualified by the County Bar this year. Endorsed by all the Dem groups and the Times. Office No. 87: Andrew M. Stein - a criminal defense attorney who seems to be the more progressive of two candidates who are both minimally qualified. There are two contradictory ways to look at the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals retention. A Judge friend of mine suggests one idea below. The second idea comes from an older African American woman I met in the 1960s and is also listed below. YOUR CHOICE! JUDGES VIEW: Supreme Court and Court of Appeal retention election. I believe that the independence of the judiciary is about judges not having to base their concerns on retention elections. Even though there may be justices with whom I have philosophical differences, I vote yes unless there is some ethical concern. I am voting yes on all of them this election. (SAID MY FRIEND, THE JUDGE) 1960S VIEW OF FRIEND: If you like what is going on in the Courts, then vote YES on all of these. But if you are unhappy with the Courts, such as the case where they decided that Teacher Tenure harms low income children of color. This African American woman leader told me to vote NO on all these judicial retention to show general displeasure with lack of justice in the judicial system. I, personally, probably follow my friends advice. (JG) OTHER CRITICAL ITEMS: Los Angeles County Proposition P: YES--This is a $23 per parcel tax to pay for beaches, prevention programs for young people, etc. STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: TOM TORLAKSON--IN THE RACE OF HIS LIFE AGAINST A SCHOOL PRIVATIZER. 3rd DISTRICT, L.A. COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SHEILA KUEHL--she can literally change lives when elected! STATE CONTROLLER: BETTY YEE--another critical race and the Republican is very well funded! Los Angeles County Assessor: Jeffrey Prang SD 26 Sandra Fluke—This is the young woman who took on the House Republicans when they had only MEN to speak at the one hearing on keeping Birth Control OUT Obamacare. She also was attacked by Rush Limbaugh. For reasons I do not understand, the “boys” seem to like her opponent, but he is getting big money from all the wrong places, in my opinion. So I have actually ENDORSED Sandra Fluke, and hope those of you who are in her district will give her your vote. Statewide Ballot Measures Proposition 1: Water Bond: YES-- $7.5 billion will pay for necessary water infrastructure improvements, such as creating additional water storage, cleaning up groundwater, expanding water recycling, improving watersheds and various other projects. However, the money is not yet tied to specific projects. The bond was deliberately left vague so that projects would go through a public competitive grant process. Proposition 2: Rainy Day Fund NO-- I think it makes sense to spend money when you have it, especially on schools and public services. The legislature can always decide not to spend all the money available without tying the hands of the legislature by artificially limiting spending. This is one of those things conservatives love to do. It REQUIRES money to be put away for debt reduction. In itself, it is not a bad idea to pay down debt, or to put money aside for the next down cycle. But when it is REQUIRED, it means no matter what condition schools are in, or healthcare, or human services. Schools do not yet receive per student, per year, what we were spending when I left the legislature in 2006! Proposition 45 : Health Rates YES-- expands insurance commissioner’s authority over health insurance rates. The ads on tv are paid for by the insurance companies that don’t like what a liberal commissioner like Dave Jones will do to keep rates down. The health insurers are spending over $37 Million to run deceptive and false TV and radio commercials to mislead voters about Proposition 45. Dont believe what they are trying to sell. (See below, which describes the LIES these guys are telling. Just ask yourself the question, When was the last time health insurance companies spent $37 million in ads to HELP YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE US? (From Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones): Dear Friends, There is no independent commission which can regulate excessive health insurance rate hikes. Rates have gone up 185% in the last decade. Right now, no one in California has the authority to regulate excessive health insurance rate hikes. We need Prop 45 to fix that hole in healthcare reform. The health insurers ads dont identify by name the independent commission they say has the authority to regulate health insurance rates. Thats because one does not exist. And if the health insurers are implying that the independent commission is Covered California, its simply not true. Covered California does not have the authority to regulate excessive health insurance rates. Covered California is not independently elected or directly accountable to the voters. Covered Californias board is appointed by politicians who accept donations from insurance companies. The insurance commissioner, however, is elected directly and independently by the voters. Contrary to what the ads suggest, I do not accept special interest contributions from insurance companies, their boards, their employees or insurance agents or brokers. There is no power grab because no one in California has the authority to reject excessive health insurance rates. The only power being taken away is that of the health insurers to inflict excessive health insurance rates on Californians. 35 other states have given their insurance commissioner the authority to reject excessive health insurance rates. And those states are getting better health insurance rates. But not California. Its time to stand up to the power, money and influence of the health insurers. Just as the voters did in 1988 when we enacted Proposition 103 to give the Insurance Commissioner the authority to regulate auto, home, and casualty insurance rates, saving consumers over $100 Billion since then. We need your help. The consumer coalition supporting Proposition 45 simply does not have the $37 Million the health insurers have to buy TV and radio time up and down the state. However, with your help, we can share our message...grassroots style. Forward today the Yes on 45 videos to friends, neighbors, colleagues and family, post them on social media. Help us combat the $37 Million of health insurance false advertising, by forwarding this email and the links below: California Nurses Say YES to Prop 45 Dave Jones: Yes on Prop 45 Take a moment to make a contribution to help us get the word out about the false advertising of the insurers. Join Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and the California Democratic Party - Vote YES on Prop 45 and help spread the word! Sincerely, DAVE JONES , Insurance Commissioner Proposition 46: Malpractice and Testing – YES--increases the cap on pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases. Another proposition with very misleading ads. It is basically consumer advocates against the medical malpractice insurance companies. (If the number had been raised by the factor of inflation, it would be $1+ million) Proposition 47: Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, Criminal Penalties YES -- stop wasting prison space on low-level nonviolent crimes. Prop 47 will not only focus prison spending on violent and serious offenses but will also spend money for alternatives for non-serious, nonviolent crime. The money saved will be used to support programs in K-12 schools, victim services, and mental health and drug treatment. Prop 47 changes low-level nonviolent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. Proposition 48: Gaming Referendum YES -- Gaming compacts with good jobs. Even if you do not like gambling, or Indian Gaming, these pacts were negotiated by all in good faith, and should be supported. __._,_.___
Posted on: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 19:54:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015