The Peace and Freedom Party recommends...
We do not take a position on Prop 13.Proposition 13 would make several changes in how property is assessed for property taxation after work is done to protect against earthquake damage. While it would save on taxes for some homeowners, it would also keep taxes low for some corporations that really should be paying more. This mixed bag is more tinkering with the old Prop 13. It will mostly benefit the large corporations that are already the beneficiaries of the unfairness of California’s tax system, but will also benefit working class homeowners who need to retrofit for earthquakes. It may help to avoid rent increases, especially in rent-controlled cities.
Vote NO on Prop 14. Save your right to have a political party. Click here to find how you can fight this dangerous proposition.
Vote YES on Prop 15.The California Fair Elections Act is a limited start on public financing of campaigns. It will apply only to the Secretary of State election, but it also abolishes the present ban on public financing of campaigns that applies to all levels except chartered cities. We support this measure because it is a move toward public financing, which Peace and Freedom has always supported, albeit with a certain reluctance because this specific proposal is very unfair to small parties. Click here to learn more.
Vote NO on Prop 16. It imposes new two-thirds voter approval requirement for local public electricity providers. PG&E shows how scared it is of local public power, because it is spending tons of money gouged from its customers to make it effectively impossible to have new municipal power projects. Click here to learn more.
Vote NO on Prop 17. This measure allows auto insurance companies to base their prices in part on a driver’s history of insurance coverage. For anybody who has gone more than 90 days without insurance, no matter the reason (maybe they didn’t have a car, so didn’t need it), rates go through the roof. A single big insurance corporation, Mercury Insurance, provided all the money to put this on the ballot. They did not do this for public benefit, but in order to jack up their profits. Using previous insurance coverage as a reason for higher rates was outlawed by Proposition 103 in 1988. Proposition 17 would reverse this, and allow insurance companies to charge higher rates to those who were unable to pay for insurance coverage at some time in the last 5 years. In other words, it would raise the rates on poorer people, while giving discounts to the rich who have no trouble keeping up their insurance payments. It may sound wonderfully fair to an insurance corporation, but not to us. Vote NO on 17!
Last revised May 18, 2010