Live from the Nuke Free Zone

It’s election time again, and we’ve got a bunch of turkies of
propositions to vote on this season. Although a bit busy to provide more
than capsule reviews this year, Tang is once again here to tell you how to vote.

Prop 73 — Require pregnant girls to get parents’ permission
to have an abortion.

Too many problems with this idea to mention, but I’ll start
and end with ‘what if the parents were the ones who raped her?’
Tang recommends ‘no’, strongly.

Prop 74 — Expand teachers’ probation from two years to five years
and allow immediate firing of unsatisfactory teachers without a 90-day
probation.

I think five years is way too long for a probationary period.
Also, we have enough trouble finding good teachers, we don’t need
extra pressure on them. Tang recommends ‘no’.

Prop 75 — Allow union members to waive portion of dues used for
political purposes

Don’t expect any corresponding law allowing business customers
and employees to waive and keep the portion of business profits used
for political purposes or reimbursing business owners for their
private donations. This is really an attack on the Democratic Party’s
union funding base, since unions are about the only wealthy entities
donating to the Democratic Party anymore. Union leaders are elected
representatives who are supposed to have their members’ best interests
in mind, and if you don’t like the way they’re using members’ money,
elect a board which won’t donate to politics. Tang recommends ‘no’.

Prop 76 — Constitutional limit on state spending

While it’s admirable to want to keep spending down, hard spending
limits are stupid. Sometimes you need to run a deficit due to unforeseen
circumstances or to promote growth. Tang recommends ‘no’.

Prop 77 — Redistricting by judicial panel instead of legislature

It sounds like a good idea, but the implementation is complex — 6
short paragraphs replaced by 27, a few of which are as long as the original
6. The fact that the current state constitution already prohibits
gerrymandering in much the same terms as the proposition leaves no compelling
reason for this proposition. Tang recommends ‘no’.

Prop 78 — Prescription drug discounts

Drugs sold through the program are supposed to be at the lowest price
for the drug in the state, wholesale or retail. However, companies don’t
have to sell to the state if they don’t want to, and the state is
encouraged to make deals keeping some drugs out of the program to get
lower prices on others. Tang recommends ‘no’.

Prop 79 - Prescription drug discounts

An alternate prescription plan which covers more people and requires
companies sell at no more than they sell to MediCal. Manufacturer
participation still seems to be just as voluntary, though, so it’s another
thing that probably won’t work. This bill establishes
in law that “This division shall be known, and may be cited, as the
Cheaper Prescription Drugs For California Act or Cal Rx Plus.” Laws
written by marketing? Tang recommends ‘no’.

Prop 80 — Electricity Regulation

“Blackout Prevention Act”!? grr… at least the marketing BS is
only half of the title. This repeals the laws establishing the powerless
independent commission that couldn’t do anything other than sit by and
watch while the state was bamboozled, and gives the public utilities
commission power to set rates and terms of service. It also forbids
“direct transactions for retail electrical service”, forcing consumers
to go through a middleman utility, and requires 20% of the state’s power
be renewable by 2010. There’s a big new section at the end that is
mostly positive ideas of what the government ought to do in regards to
electrical service and doesn’t seem to have anything objectionable.
All said, it beats the alternative. Tang recommends ‘yes’.

We also here in Sonoma County have Measure M which will prohibit genetically modified organisms from the county for ten years, with a Board of Supervisors option to renew. I don’t like the idea of discouraging scientific research or economic competitiveness, but I’ve also got the standard worries about the power of patent-holding businesses and environmental contamination. For example, one of the most popular genetic modifications is to make crops resistant to herbicide so farmers can spray herbicide everywhere and not have to weed. That’s not good for the environment. The local paper pointed out that this law would prohibit future medical treatments based on genetically modified organisms. It’s the sunset clause which makes this measure palatable in my opinion. Tang is on the fence, leaning towards ‘yes’.