The Famous “Jackie Goldberg Ballot Recommendations for California Propositions”

A graduate of Morningside High School in Inglewood, California, Goldberg went on to graduate from the University of California, Berkeley where she was a member of SLATE and a major player in the Free Speech Movement while on campus. She also holds a master’s degree in education from the University of Chicago.

Goldberg was elected to the State Assembly in November 2000, representing the state’s 45th district. Sworn in in December 2000, she had previously served as a member of the Los Angeles City Council. Before being elected to the council, she served on, and was later president of, the Los Angeles School Board before which she had been a teacher in the Compton Unified School District.

She was re-elected in 2002 and 2004 but term limits prevented her from seeking a fourth term in November 2006.

Good day, Gentle Readers,

I have been receiving these for several years now. As always, I am impressed by and largely agree with Jackie’s analyses. ~Via

Hello Everyone,

Here are my ballot recommendations for Propositions 30 through 40. I will
send out information on Judges and on Local races and National races next week.


YES on Propositions 30, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40, and

NO on Propositions 31, 32, 33, 35.


Propositions 30, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40——-YES

Proposition 30: Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local
Public Safety Funding. Initiative constitutional Amendment.

This proposition would increase sales tax by ¼ percent for the next four
years, and would raise the personal income tax rates on upper-income
tax-payers for seven years (by 1% to 3% as income goes up from $500,000 for
a couple and $340,000 for an individual). The measure raises about $6
billion annually from now until 2016-17, and then smaller amounts for the
final three years. This measure is supported by all but the anti-tax folk
because if it fails, the Governor will hack $5.35 billion from K-12 schools
and community colleges, and $250 million each from UC and from CSU budgets.
Statewide City police grants would lose $20 million, and other departments
would receive substantial cuts.

This measure began as Proposal by the California Federation of Teachers.
They proposed the “millionaires” tax that is the personal income tax portion
of this measure. The Governor stepped in and negotiated an agreement with
CFT to take the Governor’s proposal for a sales tax increase, and add it to
the CFT proposal. In the meantime, civil rights attorney Molly Munger used
her own personal wealth to put Proposition 38 on the ballot.

If both Propositions 30 and 38 (see below for explanation of Prop. 38) were
to pass, the one with the most votes would go into effect. I personally
prefer Prop. 38 because the funds in that proposal go to K-12 schools and
preschools directly, and do not go through the Legislature in Sacramento.
But I am urging a YES vote on both of these tax measures.

Propositon 38: Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs.
Initiative Statute.

Proposition 38 increases personal income tax rates on annual earnings on a
scale from 4/10 of 1 % to 2.2% for individuals earning over $2.5 million for
twelve years. During the first 4 years, 60% of funds will go to K-12
schools, 30% to repaying state debt, and 10% to early childhood programs.
Thereafter 855 of revenues will go to K-12 schools, and 15% to early
childhood programs. Funds are provided on a per pupil basis for K-12
students, and sets aside some funding for students in lowest income
neighborhoods throughout the state. This measure raises about $10 billion
annually from the increased taxes.

Proponents of this measure say it is more money, for more years, and except
for the first four years, all of the money will go directly to schools and
early childhood programs. They argue that Governor’s proposal (Prop. 30) is
too little money for too little a period of time. They also argue that
because the funds from Prop. 30 are sent to the Legislature, there is no
guarantee how much will actually end up in education funding that reaches
schools and students. Proponents of Prop. 30 say that Prop. 38 does nothing
for UC and CSU, and the community colleges, which have been devastated by
cuts for each of the past six years. The Governor says also that funds are
needed for local law enforcement since many former state prisoners are being
sent to local county jails instead of keeping them in overcrowded state
prisons. Finally, those who support Prop. 38 say that by using 30% (about
$3 billion) each year for four years, that the State funds that would have
had to pay that $3 billion in debt payments would be freed up to spend on
the local law enforcement needs as well as for CSU, UC and the community

There may be arguments on both sides, but for my money, I will vote YES on
both Propositions #30 and #38. Either one is better than where we are now.

If we are ever serious about “fixing” the structural fiscal problems of this
state, we will need to change the 2/3 vote requirement to change and raise
taxes. What the right wing wants us all to believe is that California, Los
Angeles, etc. are all “broke.” California is a very, very, very rich state.
In Recession, our annual economy is about $1.2+ trillion (with a “T”). IF
WORLD. That means that there is plenty of money for schools, parks,
highways, beaches, healthcare, public universities and colleges, clean air
and water, and to rebuild our infrastructure. We just need the will to
change the 2/3 vote and then insist that a fair and equitable tax system is
established once again in the Golden State.

Proposition 34: Death Penalty. Inititiave Statute

This proposition ends the Death Penalty in California. It replaces it with
“Life without Possibility of Parole for the most serious crimes. Some
estimates are that taxpayers would save about $100 million annually by this

This is a “no-brianer” to me. End the Death Penalty now; vote YES on
Proposition 34.

Proposition 36: Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties.
Initiative Statute

This proposition revises the three strikes law to impose life sentence only
when new felony conviction is serious or violent. Authorizes judges to
resentence offenders currently serving life sentences if the third strike
conviction was not serious or violent and the judge determines that the
sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety. Maintains life
sentence penalty for felons with nonserious, non-vilent third strike if the
prior convictions included rape, murder, or child molestation. Saves at
least $90 million per year.

This measure does not go far enough, but it is essential to pass it anyway.
Many will not find a judge to release them because of the county in which
they were convicted. Nonetheless, hardly anyone who voted for Three Strikes
originally really knew that the effect would be to put people in prison for
life for take a slice of pizza, of for shoplifting some socks. This madness
can be rolled back with a vote of YES on Proposition 36.

Proposition 37: Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative

This measure requires the labeling of raw or processed food offered for
sale to consumers if the food is made from plants of animals with genetic
material changed in specified ways. Also prohibits the label “natural” on
the food or processed food or in ads about such food if it is made form
genetically altered plants or animals.

This is an imperfect measure to be sure. Exempted from Genetically
Engineered (GE) labeling are milk, cheese, and meat; also beer, wine,
liquor, and food sold at restaurants. Yet, when I go to the grocery market,
I do want to know how my food has been put together. So, some progressives
are “neutral” on this measure. My take is more information is better. The
measure does not ban GE food; just requires some of it to be labeled so the
public can make its own decisions. I say YES on Proposition 37.

Proposition 39: Tax treatment for Multistate Businessess. Clean Energy
and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.

This measure requires multistate businesses to calculate their California
income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California,
and repeals existing law giving multistate businesses an option to choose a
tax formula that reduces their California tax liability. The Legislative
Analyst estimates that this change will increase state revenues by at
minimum of $1 billion per year. The proposition then dedicates $550
million of that savings annually to fund projects that create energy
efficiency and clean energy jobs in California, for a period of five years.

This measure is being fought by some of the largest corporations in
California and the U.S. But it s a fair measure that says you cannot
“house” your corporation in a no- or low-tax state, but still make most of
your sales in California. Use our roads, highways, ports, infrastructure,
but do not feel the need to pay taxes on your enormous sales done here. WE
SAY “NO MORE” to such stuff. I urge a vote of YES on Proposition 39.

Proposition 40: Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referndum

A “YES” vote on this measure keeps the existing State Senate Districts
established under a new law which took redistricting away from the
Legislature and gave it to Panel. A “NO” vote would stop the existing
Senate Districts from being valid, and would require new district lines to
be drawn by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court.

This measure is brought by the Republicans in the state who are unhappy with
the Senate lines drawn according to the measure that these same Republicans
put on the prior ballot. Ironically, they wanted to take the line drawing
away from the Democratically controlled legislature, but then were shocked
and horrified by what the Citizens’ Panel came up will. I would say to the
GOP in California, “be careful what you wish for.” What is done is done. I
intend to vote YES on Proposition 40.


Propositions 31 and 33——NO

Proposition 31: State Budget. State and Local Government. Constitutional
Amendment and Statute.

This measure would require a two-year state budget, vastly increase the
Governor’s power to cut items during a budget year, restricts budget
increases for education and all other matters to only be made if other
budget cuts offset the increases, or if new taxes are levied. It also
allows local governments to alter how laws governing state-funded programs
apply to them unless the Legislature or a state agency vetoes changes within
60 days. Shift $200 million annually from State to Local government so that
the latter can plan changes in State laws.

This initiative is seriously flawed. It is vague, and by some
interpretations, would permit local governments to exempt themselves from
clean air and clean water state regulations, and could even mean that
funding for education could all but never increase unless it was accompanied
by budget cuts elsewhere. There are some good ideas here. But the measure
is too vague, and has few safeguards to protect against abuses. It also
gives the Governor, who already has a line-item veto of items in the budget,
much more power to unilaterally cut spending during the fiscal year.

This measure has some progressive backing. But I think it needs to be
defeated because the vagueness of the language can produce either endless
litigation as to its meaning, or irreparable damage to education and
environmental laws in California. Vote NO on Proposition 31.

Proposition 33: Auto Insturance Companies. Prices Based on Driver’s
History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

This measure changes current law to allow insurance companies to set prices
based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any
insurance company. And, correspondingly, it allows insurance companies to
increase the cost of insurance to divers who have not maintained continuous
coverage. It treats drivers with lapses as continuously covered if the
lapse is due to military service, or loss of employment, or if the lapse is
less than 90 days.

The Auto Insurance companies are at it again. It is not enough that the
State requires all drivers to buy insurance or post a huge bond. The measure
is funded 99% by one insurance industry billionaire who wants to save
drivers money on their auto insurance. “When was the last time an insurance
company executive spent $8 million on a ballot initiative to save you
money?” Insurance companies want to reward the well off with lower rates,
while passing the cost of those reductions on to the poorest members of our
state. This is immoral, and it is currently illegal. Let’s keep it that
way. Vote NO on Proposition 33.

THE VERY, VERY UGLY—Proposition 32—-NO

Proposition 32: Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction.
Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.

This measure prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for
political purposes. This prohibition also applies to payroll deductions, if
any, by corporations or government contractors. It requires yearly written
permission by each member of a union in order to voluntarily contribute to
an employer-sponsored committee or union, but not by payroll deduction.
Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly
to candidates and candidate-controlled committees. Prohibit government
contractor contributions to elected officers or officer-controlled

our state. It is a hoax, and a lie, and it is sponsored by all the most
right-wing political funders, who would be exempt from this measure. While
reducing the voice of labor to a whisper, the measure EXEMPTS: real estate
developers, insurance companies, billionaire venture capitalists, hedge fund
managers, Wall Street investors, Business super-PACs, and independent
expenditure committees, from its prohibitions. The L.A. Times, and even the
Sacramento Bee oppose this deceptive measure. It is funded by the Koch
Brothers, ALEC corporations, and major right-wing donors from across the

Not only should one vote against this measure, we must each of us spend
time making sure none of our family members, friends, or colleagues are
taken in by this veiled attempt to restrict the only large groups opposed to
vulture capitalism left in the U.S.

VOTE “NO” on Proposition 32, and tell all your friends and neighbors what a
hoax it is.


This leaves only Proposition 35: Human Trafficking. Penalties.
Initiative Statute.

This measure has too many potential “unintended consequences.” Because the
definition of trafficking can really mean anyone involved with income from
prostitution, for example, the child of a prostitute who receives money for
college from his mother could actually be prosecuted for “trafficking.”

This measure is a great example of why legislation is usually better if it
had to go through several committees of the Legislature, and faced several
votes in both Houses before getting a signature from the Governor. I am
unalterably opposed to the trafficking that forces people to work for slave
wages, or kidnaps and steals girls and women, keeps them captive and forces
them into prostitution. But Proposition 35 has too broad a definition of
“trafficking,” and if the penalties are to be increased, take it to the
Legislature, and let the two Public Safety Committees hold hearings and
design a law that is not so overly broad and that actually deals
specifically with trafficking.

I will vote NO on Proposition 35.

This entry was posted in Election 2012, Frankly Political. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.