An active, relatively radical Oakland elementary school teacher, Stephen Neat, put the following together. I'd as soon trust him as anyone
Joanna
---------------------------------------------
Proposition 24: Yes
This is a no-brainer. In the early autumns of 2008 and 2009, in the midst of a heated budget battle, our elected representatives in Sacramento reached a sweetheart deal with the corporations that pay for their campaigns. Three tax loopholes were created that will cost this state at least $1.3 billion annually when they go into effect next year. These tax breaks will benefit only the largest corporations and are granted unconditionally. No jobs created. No jobs saved. Just a hand-out. The No on 24 campaign is making job loss claims that academic studies (Fisher 2010) call “outlandish.” In fact, Prop 24 would save up to 25,000 jobs in the public sector. The same corporations that are spending money on the No on 24 campaign made a total of $65 billion in profits last year. Times are tough for some, not so tough for others. The fact that students across California are being crammed 40+ deep into classrooms and having their school year cut to save a few bucks while the same old greedy people rake in the green is disgusting. If all you do in this election is fill in one bubble on your absentee ballot, make it YES on Proposition 24. While 24 wouldn’t raise enough money to solve all of our funding problems, it would send a clear message to lawmakers in Sacramento: the people think corporations should pay their fare share to maintain the society upon which they profit.
School Board District 4: Ben Visnick
Just this previous spring the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) Board of Directors (school board) voted unanimously to impose a contract on Oakland public school teachers and other members of the Oakland Education Association (OEA). This virtually unprecedented move was a slap in the face to the men and women who work hard with the students of Oakland every day. It is important to note that the imposed contract did not save a penny more than the expired contract that would have remained in effect as long as the OUSD and OEA continued to negotiate. In addition, according to how labor negotiations work, the employer only imposes when they are through bargaining. For the school board to come back and claim that now they want to bargain again doesn’t make sense. The only reason that I have heard school board members give for their imposition vote is that “we need to start bargaining fresh with a clean slate.” That is a ridiculous statement. You don’t start with a clean slate by smacking someone over the head with it. It is also interesting that a group of Oakland teachers and I were told by one school board member that the idea of imposition was strongly advocated for by Superintendent Tony Smith. This does jibe well with some of the confused statements school board members made after their vote. One school board member even asked, “What did we just do?” What did we just do? So according to the actual words of school board members, Tony Smith asked for imposition and the school board went along with it, even though some of them didn’t fully understand the significance of their actions. If this account of what happened isn’t true I would love to be publicly corrected. In addition, school board members continue to push for corporate-funded reforms like test score pay (even though all the research shows that “merit pay” does not even improve student test scores, much less actual student learning) and more charter schools (even though only one-fifth of charter schools outperform traditional public schools). The only clean slate we need to start with is a brand new OUSD school board. I urge every parent, teacher, and community member who wants to bring real reform and real democracy to Oakland Public Schools to vote for Ben Visnick for school board District 4. In addition, if you live in Districts 1, 3, 5, or 7, and want to work with Oakland teachers and parents for better Oakland Public Schools, think about a run next time.
Oakland Measure L: No
I am an officer of the Oakland Education Association, and the OEA has officially voted to take NO POSITION on Measure L. The opinions below are my own and are not part of an official statement of the OEA. My opinion is this: why would we vote to give more money to OUSD through another parcel tax when there has been little oversight over Measure E/G funds and a significant amount of it has been misspent (example: staff development for principals)? Why would we vote for a per-parcel tax which means that working class homeowners in the Fruitvale or West Oakland pay the same amount as the Port of Oakland and Wells Fargo? Why would I ask the wonderful, generous people of Oakland to continue being a co-dependent enabler of a District that spends tens of millions of dollars on non-mandatory contracts for Si Swun Math, Action Learning Systems Inc., Edusoft, BayCES, Cambridge Education Group, etc., etc., etc.? Are these contracts useless? That’s a question that more people should be asking and it’s a question to which I don’t necessarily know the answer. I will say this: that money would be better spent keeping teachers in Oakland and keeping kindergarten class sizes at 20 students. Until OUSD makes a commitment to spend money on what the voters expected: the classrooms, I’m not even comfortable saying “no position” on Measure L. Some OEA members will be upset with me for saying this publicly, because if Measure L fails that would mean, in theory, that less money would be available for our next contract. However, what is meant by the phrase “effective teachers” in the parcel tax language? I still haven’t heard an answer. If “effective” means high test scores, that’s another reason not to vote for Measure L. If those blankets have smallpox on them, I say we throw ‘em back in the fort and just be cold.
Governor: Jerry Brown
This is a tough one. I personally often vote for the Green Party candidate for governor, particularly when the Democratic candidate is “Ten-Shades-of” Grey Davis. But this election is so crucial. Brown’s opponent is a hypocritical, corporate-funded demagogue whose TV commercials come across more like a recruitment video for a cult than a summary of a platform of policies. Whitman is threatening to turn the state of California into California, Inc. We let the corporations run the world and look where it’s got us. I don’t understand why when someone becomes a billionaire doing one thing (and often not a very nice thing), they are suddenly an expert on everything. Meg Whitman claims she will cut the state’s budget in half without cutting education (which takes up a significant proportion of the budget). When her opponents point out that this is impossible, she threatens to sue them. Meg Whitman fires the undocumented immigrant she employed for years when she decides to run for governor, telling her that “you don’t even know me.” When this woman speaks out to call attention to the plight, Whitman chides the Brown campaign for using her, as if her former employee is not a grown woman who can make her own decisions. The OEA has had its differences with Jerry Brown in the past, but Meg Whitman is the Barry Goldwater of California 2010. She must be stopped.
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tom Torlakson
For a democrat, Tom Torlakson actually seems like a decent guy. Unlike OUSD Superintendent Tony Smith or US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, he was actually a classroom teacher (what a concept!), and he has worked to put forward real education reform in California. He authored the Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) with the support of the California Teachers Association (CTA). This law has brought significant new funding and resources—rather than sanctions and back-door privatization—to lower-performing schools. He has also done important work around pre-school and after-school programs.
Proposition 25: Yes
This measure is more of a powerful statement than a solution. It would end the requirement that there be a two-thirds majority to pass a budget in CA. However, it would not end the two-thirds requirement to find new sources of revenue. Therefore it is debatable what this measure will achieve apart from taking the first step towards a time when democracy will finally rule in California. Will it ever be true that the same simple majority vote in the legislature that is needed to cut taxes is the same majority vote needed to approve new sources of revenue, as well as a new budget? The passage of Prop 25 could send a message that—outside of such unusual measures as impeachment—two-thirds requirements are a bad idea when it comes to democracy.
Oakland Mayor: (1) Don Macleay (2) Rebecca Kaplan (3) Jean Quan (anyone but Don Perata)
Using ranked choice voting (see Note 1 below), we can finally vote our conscience without having any misgivings about handing over the race to the Meg Whitmans of this world. I am giving Don Macleay my first-choice vote. Macleay is a longtime Oakland resident with the best interests of Oakland at heart. He is a small business owner, an environmentalist, and a former shop steward. He has been the most thoughtful and open candidate as regards responding to the community at the grassroots level, even posting on the Oakland parents’ online listserve. Rebecca Kaplan has been a largely consistent progressive voice in Oakland, but she has been known to favor political expediency over staying true to her values (she opposed public election funding in one vote for example). Jean Quan has the best chance of keeping Don Perata out of the mayor’s office. I agree with many of her campaign statements and some of her policy decisions over the past few years (libraries, affordable housing, youth programs). She will get my 3rd choice vote, despite differences she has had with the teachers of Oakland in the past. If she had come out and publicly admit that some of the statements she made and actions she took during the 1996 Oakland teachers’ strike were wrong, she might have even got my first choice vote.
State Assembly District 16: Sandre Swanson
Sandre Swanson has been a strong advocate for Oakland and Oakland public schools. Since he was elected to the California State Assembly in 2006, he has consistently called attention to the sorry state of Oakland Public Schools and has pushed for the return of democratic control (including still-withheld fiscal control) to OUSD. His consistency as an ally of working people and public services (a.k.a. civilization) shouldn’t be such a rarity in the Democratic Party. If it wasn’t, then perhaps the Dems wouldn’t be about to get their butts kicked after four years in power.
Propositions 23 & 26: No
Just as one has to admire cockroaches for their tenacity and for their ability to take advantage of any vulnerability or opportunity in our kitchens, one has to admire oil companies for their insect-like determination to profit off of any situation that is hurting the rest of us. People are anxious about the economy. Okay, say the oil companies, how can we take advantage of this to boost are already obscene profits? Let’s put lots of money behind some propositions that will weaken California’s laws on greenhouse gases and on punishing polluters. California has some of the strongest environmental regulations in the nation, and oil companies (among others) would love to use the anxiety of the people over the economy to weaken these laws. Don’t let them. Tell your neighbors, tell those you worship with, tell your friends. A vote for Props 23 & 26 is a vote for dirty oil.
Propositions 20 & 27: No on 20, Yes on 27
In 2008, Proposition 11 passed in a very close vote. This removed the redistricting process from the purview of the state legislature and put it in the hands of an unelected, unaccountable commission. Some argued that having the legislature in charge of redistricting just entrenched the party in power. However, it’s hard to see how putting redistricting in the hands of a commission appointed by that very same state legislature changes anything. Speaking as a teacher who has lived under 10 years of state administration and trusteeship, I would rather have decisions in the hands of those I’ve elected than in the hands of those they have appointed. Proposition 20 would expand the powers of the commission. I say vote no on 20. Proposition 27 would repeal the original Proposition 11 and I will vote yes on 27. This whole circus, however, exposes the silliness of the proposition system. (see Note 2 below)
State Board of Equilization: Sherill Borg
“The marginal tax rate for businesses is 9.5% for corporate state income tax. But the effective tax rate for large corporations is much less in practice. For example Chevron, based in California, paid no state income taxes in California in 2008—instead sending its taxes—both federal and state—to foreign governments where rates are cheaper. How’d they do it? It’s complicated—sort of—but basically they structure their business so that they take a loss in the U.S. and earn profits abroad. By moving ownership of profitable assets to overseas subsidiaries while incurring expenses in the U.S. Chevron can avoid being taxed here where tax rates are relatively high.” This is from Borg’s website. She gets my vote just for breaking it down even better than Stewart or Colbert.
Proposition 21: Yes
This is a hard one for me. I am getting pretty sick of companies like Chevron paying 0% and millionaires paying less than 10% on capital gains while we pay 20% on the mediocre salary that we bust our ass for. This is a flat vehicle license fee of $18 which would fund a trust fund to maintain state parks. So it would affect those who have too many cars more than it would affect the rest of us. However, we wouldn’t have to Magiver stuff like this together if we had a progressive tax structure where the people who made the most money from society contributed the most to maintain it.
Proposition 22: No
More lazy American democracy. This Proposition is designed to stop state government from dipping into local money when they can’t raise enough to keep the state running. Fair enough, but here’s a better idea: if you want money for your town, neighborhood, city, or county, elect people who will find the revenue sources to get that money. If they take campaign donations from corporations and the rich and then refuse to force them to pay their share to maintain civilization, then don’t vote for them any more. It’s called democracy people. Let’s start today.
Proposition 19: Yes
Fact: between 1999 and 2009, 570,000 California residents were arrested for misdemeanor marijuana possession. Fact: enforcing marijuana prohibition in CA costs our state $1.87 billion per year. Fact: there is no evidence that marijuana prohibition has resulted in a drop in use. Fact: African Americans are arrested for pot possession at higher rates than whites even though studies show marijuana use is more widespread among white youth than black youth. Fact: marijuana is less harmful to health than alcohol or cigarettes. Marijuana prohibition makes no sense and Prop 19 would end it.
Oakland Measure X: No
Here we go with another parcel tax. Million-dollar homeowners in the hills would pay the same rate as a homeowner in West Oakland. What would they be paying for? More police officers. But if you call the police from a West Oakland phone number will you be served as fast as if you call from a phone number in Montclair? And what if three teens are walking the dog through the fog on Skyline Dr.? Are they going to be treated the same by all these new police officers as three kids walking home on 98th? Will more police on the streets solve anything? No. No on X
Alameda County Measure F: No
Another increase on the vehicle license fee, this time to pay for road maintenance, public transit, and pedestrian and bicycle routes. No thanks. How about Chevron paying a 1% CA tax on its income (Chevron is based in CA, but pays no taxes here) to maintain the roads that we the taxpayers maintain and from which Chevron profits. Prop 21 is the last vehicle license fee increase I’m voting for before corporations pay their fair share.
Note 1: Rank-Choice Voting, Beyond Tweedledum & Tweedledee
Finally, rank-choice voting comes to Oakland. Here’s how it works. If your first choice doesn’t get close to enough votes to win, your 2nd-ranked vote counts as if it was your only vote. If neither your 1st- or 2nd- choice vote comes into play, then your 3rd-choice vote becomes your vote that counts. This could allow people to vote without fear that they are handing a public office to a corporate shill or a reactionary demagogue. For example, I get to vote for my personal choice for Oakland mayor, Don Macleay, even though he will likely have a hard time mounting a strong challenge. If he doesn’t do well, then my vote reverts to my 2nd and then my 3rd choices. Republican and Democratic Party machines don’t really appreciate ranked-choice voting because it encourages independent thinking and discourages people from voting a straight party ticket. However, after what Republicans and Democrats have brought us these past 30 years (a boom-and-bust economic cycle, the collapse of public education in California, the shredding of the social safety net, expensive foreign military adventures, etc.), I don’t know how they still feel qualified to speak on anything. It’s about time they started taking orders from we the people.
Note 2: Propositions, putting the lazy American in democracy
Speaking of we the people, we need to start doing our job as active participants in democracy. Enough of these propositions. Even when we get a good one passed (Prop 98 that guarantees minimum school funding for example), the politicians just ignore it when it suits them (as they ignored Prop 98 when passing this year’s 100-day-late budget).
This is how democracy works right now:
1) Corporations decide which two candidates we should vote for.
2) We vote for the one with the better ads, or the better speaker, or the prettier one
3) They do what the corporations paid them to do
4) If we get mad at them or find them out, the people that run the show have another one ready. Have you ever seen a shark’s mouth? They got another tooth ready right behind the one you just knocked out.
This is how democracy is supposed to work:
1) We elect them.
2) A. They do what we want. OR B. They stab us in the back.
3) If A, we re-elect them. OR If B, we vote them out.
Propositions are just a lazy short cut. We’re not willing to put in the work to make democracy work, so we just try and make things happen on a single-issue basis by passing a proposition every now and again. Of course there are more important factors that are stifling democracy. Campaign finance reform would be a big step in the right direction, but now that’s going to take a constitutional amendment (thanks Supreme Court). Propositions solve nothing, however, and they allow powerful and monied interests from out of state to influence this democracy that is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people.