*******************************************************************
By Bob Pegram*
My analysis consisted of downloading 11 pdf files from the Secretary of
State's website. Contained within these pdf documents were a total of
285 pages. Documents can be viewed at:
(http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2005Special)
Where the proposition's characteristics were clear, the summary, pro
and con arguments, and rebuttals were reviewed. In addition, the text
of each proposition was scanned. On the more complex propositions, the
actual text of the each measure was reviewed in detail to clearly
define the true intent and likely results, if passed. Sometimes the stated
intent of a proposition and the likely results can vary significantly.
*******************************************************************
Initiatives Qualified for the November 8, 2005
Special Statewide Election Ballot
Summary Descriptions are taken directly from the California Secretary of State's website
*******************************************************************
Initiative Constitutional Amendment Proposition 73
Termination of Minor's Pregnancy. Waiting Period and Parental Notification. Initiative
Constitutional Amendment. 1067. (SA2004RF0030, Amdt. #1-S) [REVISED].
Proponents: Paul E. Laubacher and Barbara R. Laubacher (916) 381-5222
Amends California Constitution to bar abortion on unemancipated minor
until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent/legal guardian,
except in medical emergency or with parental waiver.
Permits judicial waiver of notice based on clear and convincing evidence of
minor's maturity or minor's best interests. Physician must report abortions
performed on minors and State shall compile statistics. Authorizes
monetary damages for violation. Minor must consent to abortion unless
mentally incapable or in medical emergency. Permits judicial relief if
minor's consent to abortion is coerced.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of
fiscal impact on state and local governments:
The net costs of this measure to Medi-Cal and other programs are unknown,
but are probably not significant in the context of the total expenditures for these
programs.
Analysis:
Parents are in charge of the medical care of their minor children.
Parental consent is even required for ear piercing. It only makes sense
that parents be notified before a minor gets an abortion. There are
still exceptions made for medical emergency, or a waiver by a judge
based on a minor's maturity or best interests. This appears to be a
major flaw in this proposed law. Any pro-abortion judge could
consistently rule that a minor is mature and/or that it is in the
minor's best interest to have the abortion.
Physicians would be required to report any abortions performed on
minors and the State would be required to compile statistics on the
abortions. This is a minor help because it would show which
doctors do a large number of abortions on minors.
There are apparently no criminal penalties for violating this law, if
passed by voters. There are only monetary damages for violation of the
parental consent. This another flaw in this law.
The minor is required to consent to the abortion unless she is
mentally incapable or in a medical emergency. How a medical emergency
could require an abortion is beyond this writer. Too often a physician
could say that the abortion is required for mental health reasons
because the pregnancy and birth would be stressful to the minor mother.
ALL pregnancies are stressful to some degree! That is their nature.
This is another major flaw in this proposition.
Judicial relief is also permitted if the minor's consent to abortion is
coerced (forced). This is the only part of the proposed law that would
protect the unborn baby. Parents more concerned with social
acceptability and convenience sometimes force their minor daughter to
have an abortion. The law would stop that practice when the girl knows
that judicial intervention is available.
The projected costs are unknown, but doing what is moral by protecting
life is more important than any costs. It is the job of government to
protect innocent life. In this case, the costs would be relatively
minor anyway.
Recommended Vote: YES on 73 (even with the flaws)
*******************************************************************
Initiative Statute Proposition 74
Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status.
Dismissal. Initiative Statute. 1088. (SA2005RF0019).
Proponent: Bonnie Garcia (760) 202-7714
Increases length of time required before a teacher may become a
permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five
complete consecutive school years; measure applies to teachers whose
probationary period commenced during or after the 2003-2004 fiscal
year.
Authorizes school boards to dismiss a permanent teaching employee who
receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of
fiscal impact on state and local governments:
Unknown impact on school district teacher salary costs as a result
of changes in teacher tenure and dismissal practices. Fiscal impacts
could vary significantly district by district.
Analysis:
What other job gives a worker semi-permanent (read: almost impossible
to fire) status after only 2 years on the job? What other jobs give a
worker this status after any amount of time on the job?!
At least the length of time before this status is granted increases to
5 years if this proposition passes. If a teacher has two unsatisfactory
performance evaluations he/she can be fired. That is certainly
reasonable. There is no need for an additional 90 days. Children
deserve the best teachers available. Keeping an unsatisfactory teacher when
others who are more capable want to teach is unfair to the children -
and unfair to parents who expect their children to be properly equipped
academically.
From the arguments in favor of Proposition 74:
There was a case several years ago where a teacher "called her
students derogatory names, swore at them, showed R-rated
movies, and even sent a 4th grade student to her car to retrieve
a butcher knife." The district had to spend over $100,000 and
pay the teacher $25,000 to quit. "Another district spent eight years
and more than $300,000 to dismiss an unfit teacher."
Recommended Vote: YES on 74
*******************************************************************
Initiative Statute Proposition 75
Public Employee Union Dues. Required Employee Consent for
Political Contributions. Initiative Statute. 1084. (SA2005RF0009).
Proponent: Lewis K. Uhler (916) 786-9400
Prohibits public employee labor organizations from using dues or fees
for political contributions unless the employee provides prior consent
each year on a specified written form. Prohibition does not apply to
dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care
insurance, or other purposes directly benefiting the public employee.
Requires labor organizations to maintain and submit to the Fair
Political Practices Commission records concerning individual employees'
and organizations' political contributions; those records are not
subject to public disclosure.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of
Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments:
Probably minor state and local government implementation costs,
potentially offset in part by revenues from fines and/or fees.
Analysis:
Currently unions can (and do) use a portion of each member's dues for
political purposes. The political contributions the union makes are
often for candidates, propositions, and legislation many individual
union members do not agree with. This proposition would require state
employee unions to get written permission from each union member every
year before being able to make these contributions. There would a
standard form.
This is certainly a reasonable change to the law. No worker should be
required to pay money that will be used in a way the worker disagrees
with. You can be sure that the public employee unions are already
spending union dues to defeat this very proposition - spending that
will be a violation of the proposition when/if it passes. Much money is
already being spent to defeat this proposition and keep union members
from having control of their own political contributions.
For example (from the arguments against proposition 75): Despite
opposition from more than 4,000 prison guards, their union increased
dues by $18 million [$18,000,000] over two years to pay for political
campaigns and to give to politicians." "WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE
MEMBERSHIP, the teachers union recently increased dues by $50 million
[$50,000,000] over three years in order to fund political campaigns."
This isn't right.
Recommended Vote: YES on 75
*******************************************************************
Initiative Constitutional Amendment Proposition 76
School Funding. State Spending. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
1131. (SA2005RF0067, Amdt.#1-NS).
Proponents: William Hauck and Allan Zaremberg (916) 444-6670
Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98),
permitting suspension of minimum funding, but terminating repayment
requirement, and eliminating authority to reduce funding when state
revenues decrease.
Excludes above-minimum appropriations from schools'
funding base. Limits state spending to prior year total plus revenue
growth. Shifts excess revenues from schools/tax relief to budget
reserve, specified construction, debt repayment. Requires Governor to
reduce state appropriations, under specified circumstances, including
employee compensation, state contracts. Continues prior year
appropriations if new state budget delayed. Prohibits state special
funds borrowing. Requires payment of local government mandates.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of
Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments:
Spending limit could constrain state expenditures over time.
Other provisions would have major impacts on state budget decision
making, which could lead to varying outcomes regarding the level of
state spending and on the composition of that spending among
education, transportation, and other state programs. Provisions allowing
Governor to reduce appropriations could result in lower state spending
in certain years when the state was facing unresolved budget shortfalls.
Analysis:
The purpose of this proposition is to stabilize spending in general, to
prohibit transferring of special funds to the state general fund, and
to protect school districts, cities, counties, etc. from manipulation of
their funding by the state. It also gives the governor some power to
keep spending increases from bankrupting California.
This proposition makes a large number of changes in funding rules
in many areas of the state budget. For example it prohibits loaning of
transportation funds [road construction] to the general fund. This
would result in more stable funding for transportation.
*It would prohibit borrowing from any special fund to the general fund,
resulting in the special fund revenues being spent on what they were
designated for, whether roads, schools, or other purposes. It would
result in more stable funding for schools, for example.
* Currently kindergarten to junior college funding is almost
45 percent of the entire state general fund spending! Smoothing
out the spending would make balancing the budget a more
attainable goal for the state and make budgeting by each district
more effective, since the funding couldn't be reduced by the state
after the fact. A change in the state funding after preparation of the
school district budget makes the budget much less useful, if not
worthless. The proposition helps stabilize school funding.
This proposition also requires the state to repay counties, cities, and
special districts for new/expanded programs imposed on these various
governments by the state. There is currently no required repayment
deadline or schedule for repayment to education agencies and a fifteen
year time limit for repayment to non-education agencies. This
proposition would shorten the fifteen year requirement to five years
for the non-education agencies and sets a fifteen year time limit for
repayment to education [schools]. Five years or less across the board
would be better. The schools seem to be getting less than equal
treatment, unfortunately. But this is step in the right direction.
This proposition also limits state spending on education to the prior
year total spending plus the average revenue growth over the last three
years. Prior year appropriations are continued if/when the new state
budget delayed.
From the Analysis By The Legislative Analyst:
"...As a result, the new spending limit ... would grow more slowly than
actual reserves when the economy is accelerating, and grow faster than
actual revenues when the economy is in recession."
"If it [the state] were able to set aside sufficient funds, the main
impact of the spending limit would be to smooth out spending over
time..." "However, if the state were not able to accumulate large
reserves, the limit would likely result in less spending over time."
*In other words, when spending has been out of control, this proposition
automatically forces a reduction in spending - something we would want
anyway.
* "... year-to-year changes in the minimum guarantee would be less
volatile than in the past - absent a suspension or a reduction by the
Governor."
Recommended Vote: YES on 76
Additional Information:
Although this proposition affects many more areas than just education,
the article below uses education funding by the state to typify that of
many state agencies, districts, departments, etc. It is a lesson in how
rhetoric can mask the actual adequacy of funding.
Tom McClintock, somebody people from the entire political spectrum
agree is an expert on the state budget, analyzed the current school funding
and what it could do if spent more carefully. Read the article at his website at:
http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/article_detail.asp?PID=292
*******************************************************************
Initiative Constitutional Amendment Proposition 77
Reapportionment. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
1072. (SA2004RF0037, Amdt. #1-NS).
Proponents: Edward J. (Ted) Costa, Dr. Arthur Laffer, Major General
Sidney S. Novaresi (USAF) Ret., Jimmie Johnson (916) 482-6175
Amends state Constitution's process for redistricting California's
Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts.
Requires three-member panel of retired judges, selected by legislative
leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and again
after each national census. Panel must consider legislative, public
proposals/comments and hold public hearings. Redistricting plan becomes
effective immediately when adopted by judges' panel and filed with
Secretary of State. If voters subsequently reject redistricting plan,
process repeats. Specifies time for judicial review of adopted
redistricting plan; if plan fails to conform to requirements, court may
order new plan.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director
of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments:
This measure would have the following major fiscal impact: One-time
state redistricting costs, probably totaling a few million dollars.
Comparable savings for each redistricting effort after 2010 (once
every ten years).
Analysis:
Currently, every ten years, after each U.S. Census, the California
state legislature redraws the boundaries of both state and federal
legislative districts (House of Representatives, State Senate, State
Assembly, and State Board of Equalization). This process was
intended to even out the population in each district so that some
semblance of equality in size and shape of each district is maintained.
In other words, each House of Representatives district should have
at approximately the same number of residents, each State Senate
district should have approximately the same population, and each
State Assembly district should have approximately the same
population, etc.
(The fact that illegal immigrants and other legal non-citizens are
included in the count and used to draw districts makes the vote of each
citizen in those districts with more non-citizens more valuable. The
total population in a district with many non-citizens may be equal, but
there are fewer voters - making each vote count more than a vote in a
district with few non-citizens. This proposition does not address this
inequality, but it is something to consider in the future.)
Unfortunately, the state legislature has used its power to redraw
districts as an opportunity to draw them in such a way that not one
incumbent state legislator from either party lost his/her seat in the
last election (November 2004). The Democrats and Republicans made
back-room deals that made every seat "safe." The districts were drawn
so that there were a majority of Democrats in the districts already
represented by Democrats and majority of Republicans in the district
already represented by Republicans. Not one challenger won the election
in any state district and "not one district, including House of
Representatives, changed parties." This eliminates any reason for
legislators to answer to the voters since they will get re-elected
whether they do what is best for voters or not.
"The legislators have made some districts very oddly shaped", rather
than being drawn approximately square, round or following natural
geographical boundaries. "Why should a district be two separate areas
with only a small strip of land connecting them?" A district shouldn't
be shaped like a barbell! All parts of any district, instead, should be
in close proximity to the rest of the district unless geographic
features dictate otherwise.
This proposition sets up a 3 judge panel to do this re-districting
process (re-drawing the legislative boundaries), rather than having the
legislature do it. Unfortunately, these judges are appointed by the
same legislators who caused the problem in the first place. Still, it is a
small step in the direction of preventing the fox (the legislature)
from continuing to be the guard of the hen-house (our votes). Since the
judges are not elected by voters, they have less motivation to
manipulate the shape of the districts to help themselves stay in power.
"In addition, the voters must approve the redistricting plan in an
election before its takes effect."
This proposition requires that:
* population differences between districts can not be more than 1 percent,
* Senate districts must be made up of two adjacent Assembly districts, and
* Board of Equalization districts must be made up of 10 adjacent Senate districts.
* Redistricting plans may be submitted to the 3 judge panel by any member of the public or Legislator. All plans must be challengeable. Judges are required to restrict any ex parte (unchallengeable/ private) communications.
* All meetings of the panel must be public.
* The 3 judge panel is prohibited from considering political affiliation of voters as well.
* Judges must be former federal or state judges.
* Judges must not have ever held elected partisan public office or political party office. This prevents former legislators from being appointed.
* Judges must not have received income from any of the following during the last year: the legislature or committee thereof, U.S. Congress or committee thereof, a political party, a partisan candidate or committee controlled by such a candidate.
* No more than 12 of the 24 total judges nominated to be on the committee may be of one party and both major parties must be equally represented among the nominees.
* A judge on the committee must pledge in writing that he/she will not run for election to State Senate, State Assembly, House of Representatives, or Board of Equalization within 5 years from the date of appointment [this should be 5 years from serving
on the committee, not from appointment], nor will he/she accept state public employment, public office, with the exception of judicial employment, judicial office, or a teaching position.
* The judges shall be nominated by the Judicial Council, the Speaker of the Assembly, the Minority Leader of the Assembly, the President pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Senate. Each nominates 3 judges who must not be of the same
political party as the legislator making the nomination.
* Each legislator who nominates may also exercise a single peremptory challenge.
* The Clerk of the Assembly draws, by lot, the names of 3 nominees. One of the three must be from each of the two largest political parties. If this requirement isn't met, the drawing is repeated. The wording doesn't make it clear if there are drawings
for all 3 again, or just for the last one. It appears to be all 3.
Recommended Vote: YES on 77
*******************************************************************
Initiative Statute Proposition 78
Prescription Drugs. Discounts. Initiative Statute.1129. (SA2005RF0065).
Proponent: Ashlee N. Brown (916) 442-7757
Establishes discount prescription drug program, overseen by the
Department of Health Services.
Enables certain low - and moderate - income California residents
to purchase prescription drugs at reduced prices. Imposes $15
application fee, renewable annually. Requires Department's
prompt determination of residents' eligibility, based on
listed qualifications. Authorizes Department to contract with
pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at agreed-upon discounts
negotiated in advance, and to negotiate rebate agreements with
drug manufacturers.
Permits outreach programs to increase public awareness. Creates state
fund for deposit of rebate payments from drug manufacturers. Allows
program to be terminated under specified conditions.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of
fiscal impact on state and local governments:
One-time and ongoing state costs, potentially in the millions to
low tens of millions of dollars annually, for administration and
outreach activities to implement the new drug discount program.
A significant share of these costs would probably be borne by the
state General Fund. A largely one-time state cost, potentially in the
low tens of millions of dollars, to cover the funding gap between
the time when drug rebates are collected by the state and when
the state pays funds to pharmacies for drug discounts provided to
consumers. Any such costs not covered through advance rebate
payments from drug manufacturers would be borne by the state
General Fund.
Unknown savings on state and county health program costs due
to the availability of drug discounts.
Analysis:
The last paragraph of this proposition has a time bomb. Unlike
other propositions, it specifically allows the terms of the proposition
to be changed by a 2/3 vote of the state legislature!
In other words, the drug companies could pay enough contributions
to the political campaigns of legislators to get whatever changes
they want in this law!
Several years ago this writer became ill and had to visit a doctor.
Because I paid cash, the charge was half of what the doctor usually
charged for the same procedures. Why? Because there was no insurance
paperwork for the doctor's staff to deal with, no phone calls to and
from an insurance company, no delay in payment, no disagreement with
any insurance company on whether the procedure was necessary, etc., etc.,
etc. PAPERWORK AND RED TAPE MAKES MEDICAL CARE AND MEDICINES
(PHARMACEUTICALS) MORE EXPENSIVE!
This proposition, if passed would create more red tape, paperwork, etc.
Since some people would be paying less, who would make up the
difference? The rest of us!
Who pushed for this proposition?
The big drug companies. Why would they push for this law (paid $50
million - $50,000,000) unless they benefit?!
If insurance company paperwork is bad, government paperwork is worse.
When there is a disagreement with an insurance company, there are legal
procedures that, while cumbersome, at least give the patient, doctor,
pharmacist, legal recourse. Have you ever tried to fight the government?
A bureaucrat has almost no reason to cooperate when there is a
disagreement or mis-processed paperwork. There is less likely to be
any practical legal recourse.
This proposition starts a discount prescription drug program run by the
state Department of Health Services. How many people will try to
understate their income so they can purchase prescription drugs at
reduced prices. With the required prompt decision on a patient's
eligibility, how many investigators will have to be hired by the state
and paid for by taxpayers to investigate fraud after the fact?
When the state contracts with pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at
agreed-upon discounts that means more paperwork. Negotiating rebate
agreements with drug manufacturers sounds good until the cost of
bureaucracy that will be created is considered. The summary above
describes. "...the funding gap between the time when drug rebates are
collected by the state and when the state pays funds to pharmacies for
drug discounts provided to consumers." I thought the discounts were
supposed to be negotiated ahead of time! This says the state will pay
the drug companies to provide the discounts, further increasing state
costs. Do you think Drug companies have enough political clout
(contributions to candidates, etc.) to prevent any reduction in their
profits? This voter does.
To repeat: The big drug companies pushed for this proposition!
Why would they push for this law (paid $50 million - $50,000,000)
unless they benefit?!
Outreach programs (to increase public awareness) would further
increase tax monies spent on this program. Remember, California's fiscal
condition is already shaky. We shouldn't be adding ANY more programs
until the State of California budget is balanced and we pay off our
state debts.
This would create a state fund for deposit of rebate payments from drug
manufacturers. What do you think the likelihood is that this money will
be used to offset the costs of the program? More likely, it will go
into the general fund and be spent on still more programs passed by the
legislature. This misdirection of funds could possibly be prevented if
proposition 76 is passed. However, this proposition 78 is still a
financial disaster.
Costs are estimated by the Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance
to be "potentially in the millions to low tens of millions of dollars
annually. Any such costs not covered through advance rebate payments
from drug manufacturers would be borne by the state General Fund." Do
you really think that government programs cost as little as they were
estimated to cost when proposed? This figure is probably grossly low -
and the general fund will be raided for more money.
There is disagreement about whether the proposition allows the program
to be terminated under specified conditions, specifically too few
participating drug manufacturers. Since drug companies are not required
to provide discounts, why set up another bureaucracy with no guarantees
of any benefit to the taxpayer?
If the program can not be terminated, a bureaucracy would be set up and
then do nothing if the drug companies won't voluntarily participate. If the
program can be terminated, the drug companies are still not required to
participate. Neither option is a good choice. Voting NO is a good choice.
The last paragraph of this proposition has a time bomb. Unlike other
propositions, it specifically allows the terms of the proposition to be
changed by a 2/3 vote of the state legislature!
In other words, the drug companies could pay enough contributions
to the political campaigns of legislators to get whatever changes
they want in this law!
Recommended Vote: NO! on 78
*******************************************************************
Initiative Statute Proposition 79
Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates.
Initiative Statute. 1106. (SA2005RF0037).
Proponent: Anthony Wright (916) 442-2308
Provides for prescription drug discounts to Californians who qualify
based on income-related standards, to be funded through rebates from
participating drug manufacturers negotiated by California Department of
Health Services.
Rebates must be deposited in State Treasury fund, used only to
reimburse pharmacies for discounts and to offset administration
costs. At least 95% of rebates must go to fund discounts. Prohibits new
Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing the Medicaid best
price to this program, except for drugs without therapeutic equivalent.
Establishes oversight board. Makes prescription drug profiteering, as
defined, unlawful.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of
Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments:
One-time and ongoing state costs, potentially in the millions to low
tens of millions of dollars annually, for administration and outreach
activities for a new drug discount program.
A significant share of these costs would probably be borne by the
state General Fund. A largely one-time state cost, potentially in the
low tens of millions of dollars, to cover the funding gap between the
time when drug rebates are collected by the state and when the
state pays funds to pharmacies for drug discounts provided to
consumers.
Any such costs not covered through advance rebate payments from
drug makers would be borne by the state General Fund. Unknown
costs and savings as a result of provisions linking drug prices for the
new drug discount program to Medi-Cal prices, including the potential
effect on the state's receipt of supplemental rebates; unknown savings
on state and county health program costs due to the availability of drug
discounts; and unknown costs and offsetting revenues from the
anti-profiteering provisions.
Analysis:
Like proposition 78, drug company participation in the program, if
passed, would be voluntary. Also like, proposition 78, there are
maximum income levels above which a taxpayer would not be eligible
to get the discounts.
To encourage drug companies to participate, recipients are restricted
from using products from non-participating drug companies. That means
a participant can not get products preferred by his/her physician even if
no comparable products are available. This would make the proposition,
if passed, vulnerable to court challenges. It would also require prior
federal approval of these restrictions.
The income maximum would make an estimated half or more of the
California population eligible for this program. The federal government
has never approved any such program with a maximum income above
twice the federal poverty line.
This proposition would also prohibit the state from entering into any
new contracts with non-participating drug companies. With the
participating drug companies losing substantial profits under this
measure, they could then proportionately increase their prices to their
best customers. This would greatly reduce Medicaid rebates from the
federal government.
There would be a large state government overhead (taxpayer expense)
in administering this program. There would be continued contact with small
businesses and unions. There are over 1 million small businesses in
California and well as many unions. There would be a nine-member
Prescription Advisory Board. There would be endless investigations of
profit levels of drug companies. All of this is in addition to the likely
lawsuits due to restriction of companies a recipient can use.
The definition is excessive profits by drug companies is an
"unconscionable price" or demanding ³price or terms that lead to
any unjust or unreasonable profit.: How vague is that! It could mean
anything any bureaucrat or judge decides at any time after the fact.
That is an engraved invitation to endless lawsuits by lawyers claiming
excessive profits.
The prices paid by non-participants would be likely to increase to
partially offset the deep discounts and reduction in money available
for research.
Many of the comments in the analysis of proposition 78 apply here too:
Several years ago this writer became ill and had to visit a doctor.
Because I paid cash, the charge was half of what the doctor usually
charged for the same procedures. Why? Because there was no insurance
paperwork for the doctor's staff to deal with, no phone calls to and
from an insurance company, no delay in payment, no disagreement with
any insurance company on whether the procedure was necessary, etc., etc.,
etc. PAPERWORK AND RED TAPE MAKES MEDICAL CARE AND MEDICINES
(PHARMACEUTICALS) MORE EXPENSIVE!
This proposition, if passed would create more red tape, paperwork, etc.
Not only would there be insurance company paperwork, but, if this
passes, there will also be government paperwork. As bad as insurance
red tape is, government red tape is much worse. When there is a
disagreement with an insurance company, there are legal procedures
that, while cumbersome, at least give the patient, doctor, pharmacist, legal
recourse. Have you ever tried to fight the government? A bureaucrat has
almost no reason to cooperate when there is a disagreement or
mis-processed paperwork. There is less likely to be any practical legal
recourse.
This proposition starts a discount prescription drug program run by the
state. How many people will try to understate their income so they can
purchase prescription drugs at reduced prices. How many investigators
will have to be hired by the state and paid for by taxpayers to
investigate fraud after the fact? Fraud could be attempted by both
recipients and drug companies.
When the state contracts with pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at
agreed-upon discounts that means more paperwork. Negotiating rebate
agreements with drug manufacturers sounds good until the cost of the
bureaucracy that will be created is considered. There is a funding gap
between the time when the state pays funds to pharmacies for drug
discounts provided to consumers and when drug rebates are collected by
the state. This will be more money out of taxpayers' pockets. The state
will pay the pharmacists to provide the discounts, further increasing
state costs. Do you think drug companies have enough political clout
(contributions to candidates, etc.) to prevent any reduction in their
profits? This voter does.
Costs are estimated by the Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance
to be "in the low tens of millions of dollars annually. A significant
share of these costs would probably be borne by the state General
Fund."
Do you really think that government programs cost as little as they
were estimated to cost when proposed? This figure is probably grossly
low - and the general fund will be raided for more money.
Remember, California's fiscal condition is already shaky. We shouldn't
be adding ANY more programs until the State of California budget is
balanced and we pay off our state debts. This type of program failed in
Maine due to a large number of lawsuits.
Recommended Vote: NO! on 79
*******************************************************************
Initiative Statute Proposition 80
Electric Service Providers. Regulation. Initiative Statute.
1114. (SA2005RF0053 Amdt. #1-NS).
Proponents: Robert Finkelstein and Michel Peter Florio (415) 929-8876
Subjects electric service providers, as defined, to control and
regulation by California Public Utilities Commission.
Imposes restrictions on electricity customers' ability to switch from private
utilities to other electric providers. Provides that registration by electric
service providers with Commission constitutes providers' consent to
regulation.
Requires all retail electric sellers, instead of just private utilities, to
increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each
year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010,
instead of current requirement of 2017.
Imposes duties on Commission, Legislature and electrical providers.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of
fiscal impact on state and local governments:
Annual state costs of up to $4 million for regulatory activities of the California
Public Utilities Commission. These costs would be fully offset by fee revenues.
Unknown impact on state and local costs and revenues, as the measure's
impact on retail electricity rates is uncertain.
Analysis:
Proposition 80 is an extremely complex measure with a number of adverse
effects.
First, it limits consumer choice - both for individuals and for institutions
such as hospitals, community colleges, the University of California and
California State University systems, local school districts, and city and
county governments. All of these institutions currently contract with
energy providers who give them the best price. They would be prevented
from doing so if this proposition passes. The same would be true for
individuals and businesses.
Secondly, because initiatives (propositions) can not be changed by
the legislature, this energy policy would be set in stone if it passes. This
would prevent the legislature or the Public Utilities Commission from
making necessary changes to energy policy when market conditions change.
We saw the results of poor government policy when we had the energy
crisis in California. The supporters of this measure will try to convince
you that the energy crisis was due to energy deregulation. In truth, the
exact opposite is true. Utility companies were not allowed by government
to sign long term energy contracts which would have guaranteed stable
energy prices through any market fluctuations. Instead, when the price of
energy went sky high, the utility companies had to pay the higher prices,
but couldn't adequately increase costs to consumers to pay these extra
costs. They nearly went bankrupt - all due to poor energy policy (the
so-called energy de-regulation bill) which wasn't changed in time to prevent
the fiasco.
This measure, if passed, would make changing energy policy not just
difficult, but impossible - a condition even worse than that during the
energy crisis. Initiatives can be changed only by another vote of the people
at the next election - something that can not occur quickly.
The proper way to address energy concerns and policy is through public
hearings. The Public Utilities Commission is set up for this exact purpose.
The legislature should stay out of the way and measures such as this
proposition should be defeated.
Recommended Vote: NO! on 80
*******************************************************************
(*) Citizens For A Better America ® with the acronym and website of CFABA.ORG appreciates the work done on the analysis and recommendations of the California ballot measures for the November 8, 2005 election by Bob
Pegram.
Bob was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives and was endorsed by CFABA.ORG for the March 2, 2000 primary election. While he did not make it past the primary he continues to be a great
activist. We met during that election and he has been a faithful member of CFABA.ORG with a minimum commitment of five dollars a month, sixty dollars a year, since then.
I agree with Bob's recommendations, and appreciate the hard work he has done researching the facts behind these issues. As a California voter I will be following his recommendations as I vote and encourage you to do the same," said Robert Colaco the
Volunteer National Chairman and Founder of Citizens For A Better America ®.
Site Directory 
Vote
For