ENDORSEMENTS: State ballot measures - Page 3

|
(8)

Vote no on Prop 16. Not just because it's an example of a big business single-handedly trying to alter the state constitution for its own economic benefit by pouring millions of dollars into a deceptive advertising campaign. Not just because a two-thirds majority vote requirement is anti-democratic. Not just because there were reports that the signature gatherers who got people to sign on in support of placing Prop. 16 on the ballot were telling people that its purpose was to limit PG&E expansion or encourage solar power. Not just because Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and a half dozen members of the Legislature sent a letter rebuking PG&E CEO Peter Darbee for disrespecting the democratic process by going straight to the ballot to undermine legislation it initially supported that enabled the creation of CCA programs. Not just because PG&E is using $35 million of ratepayer dollars (that's the check you wrote them for your electricity bill!) to put out slick TV ads for this campaign when it should have been repairing the pipelines under those manholes that keep exploding and messing up your morning commute. Not even just because with CCA, you already have the right to vote whether or not you want to be part of it, a choice PG&E will never give you. And not just because PG&E keeps trying to raise rates, which is much more difficult for municipal energy agencies to do.

If for no other reason, vote no because Prop. 16 flies in the face of everything environmentalists stand for. It's a measure that will thwart progress on fighting climate change, brought to you by the company that practically invented green-washing. PG&E is a huge nuclear power player; it purchases coal from mountaintop-removal coal mines in West Virginia that are completely devastating biodiverse landscapes in Southern Appalachia and screwing over poor people by tainting their drinking water; and it's in the process of building fossil fuel-fired power plants in poor communities of color in California. The CCA programs at least represent a glimmer of hope for an alternative model; Prop. 16 kills off that possibility with one fell swoop motivated by pure greed. For the love of justice, democracy, and the planet, vote no on Prop 16.

 

PROPOSITION 17

CAR INSURANCE SCHEME

NO, NO, NO!

Mercury Insurance sponsored this measure and is campaigning for it with tens of millions of dollars, betting it can fool voters and make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits by doing so. And if the company is right, insurance rates will skyrocket for new drivers and those who haven't had continuous insurance coverage, which experts say will increase the number of uninsured drivers on the roadways and end up increasing insurance rates for everyone.

Mercury and its founder George Joseph have been truly malevolent players in California, exploiting their customers to make billions of dollars in profits, attacking California's landmark insurance reform measure Prop. 103 with lawsuits and corrupting campaign contributions over more than 20 years, and flouting insurance regulators in such brazen fashion that even Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, a conservative Republican, recently chastised the company for its "lengthy history of serious misconduct" (see "Buying power," March 17).

Now, however, the company is hoping its promise to cut the insurance premiums of drivers who have maintained continuous coverage by "as much as $250 per year" will buy their votes and that they'll overlook the myriad negative impacts of increasing everyone else's premiums by $1,000 per year or more, based on Mercury's own estimates.

Comments

The progressives keep losing at the election box and yet they still claim to be the voice of the people? That is some top shelf tail chasing logic.

Why do progressives think we are all so stupid? And why do they think telling us all we are stupid will make us vote for them?

Posted by glen matlock on May. 06, 2010 @ 11:07 pm

I think everybody gives that impression to the other side Glen... at least to some degree. Personally I think Americans in particular need to start being less sensitive about being disagreed with. Being wrong doesn't mean you're necessarily stupid, just that the process you followed was incorrect.

So let's get over the dared being questioned, an investigate the claims at hand.

Posted by Daws on May. 16, 2010 @ 2:43 am

All true believers think the rest of us are stupid and duped.

Born again Christians think we are all manipulated morons, instead of big business duping us, it's secular humanists with the born againers. There isn't a reason for all of us voting against our supposed best interests as both sides claim, its that we are all idiots without the benefit of their genius.

The yes on prop 14 stance proves that progressives like much of the way things are going, by not liking the last redistricting plan the progressives prove they like the way things are going in that area too. The progressives like the present system in California where they can keep left wing democrats in power, it bothers them that moderates of either party could win.

So this prop 15 position is really just part of their trying to get over, the people at the Guardian who write this shit up are not stupid, they just think we all are. They also support Carol Midgen who sued over campaign financing laws, so its doesn't bother them when its their side getting over.

Posted by glen matlock on May. 16, 2010 @ 9:33 am

What "Yes on prop 14" stance? They're advising No. Guessing you mean 15? If so, that has nothing to do with redistricting so I have no idea why you bring it up.

Prop 15 is about where you want your campaign funding to come from. You want candidates that need to appeal to special interests for money, or are able to do without it and act as they please, beholden only to the votes of the people? As it should be.

Posted by Daws on May. 26, 2010 @ 8:25 pm

You have to wonder. Does Fox News' website get this many trolls?

Posted by etherealite on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 10:31 pm

Well, maybe if you'd read a book every now and then, or perhaps take in information some other way, you wouldn't run around leaving messages on message boards that demonstrate beyond any remote question that you're a complete blithering imbecile. Dorh.

Posted by Lucy Lucknow on May. 27, 2010 @ 10:36 pm

Thanks.

Not agreeing with a progressive makes a person stupid.

Posted by glen matlock on Jun. 05, 2010 @ 7:54 am

--
This election is all about Props 16 & 17. I'm making the effort to get to the polls just so I can vote "NO" on both of these steaming piles! PG&E & Mercury Insurance can both F.O.A.D!
--
Prop 17 is a cash grab.
This is a blatant attempt to get more money from drivers who have any gap in their insurance coverage at all. Mercury's treatment of their policy-holders outside of California makes that interpretation hard to deny. Prop 17 would overturn key parts of Prop 103, which has prevented such gouging by insurers operating in the state since 1988.
--
Prop 16 is basically illegal.
per AB 117 (9): "All electrical corporations shall cooperate fully with any community choice aggregators that investigate, pursue, or implement community choice aggregation programs,".
Spending $44.2M in a bid make CCA more difficult to implement isn't cooperation.
--

Posted by InnerSunsetter on Jun. 05, 2010 @ 2:52 am