|
Contributors
Carol Platt Liebau - Columnist
Carol
Platt Liebau is editorial director and a senior member of tOR and CRO editorial
boards. She is an attorney, political analyst and commentator
based in San Marino, CA, and has appeared on the Fox News
Channel, MSNBC, CNN, Orange County News Channel, Cox Cable
and a variety of radio programs throughout the United States.
A graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School,
Carol Platt Liebau also served as the first female managing
editor of the Harvard Law Review. Her web log can be found
at CarolLiebau.blogspot.com
[go to Liebau index]
 A Time For Choosing
Vote Bush, and a
Few Other Suggestions...
[Carol
Platt Liebau] 11/1/04
As
Election 2004 enters its final hours, one thing is clear it’s
not always easy to be a Californian. Unlike voters in
the “sexy” states of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Wisconsin and even New Mexico, we have seen few presidential
election ads and received no visits either from the President
or from his challenger. In a word, we’re easy. There’s
no need to woo us, because California is an Electoral College “sure
thing.”
Doubtless
this fact is far more demoralizing for Republicans than Democrats,
as our mountain of electoral votes will most likely benefit
Kerry, rather than Bush. Even so, there are at least
two good reasons for Republicans and conservatives to get out
and vote: (1) The President does need
us, and badly; (2) Many important state issues, as well as
a Senate race, will be resolved. (Thanks to gerrymandering,
incumbent turnover in the U.S. House of Representatives, the
State Assembly and Senate is so rare that it hardly merits
discussion. Even so, it’s certainly worth reminding those
living in Congressional district 26 to vote for David Dreier).
Let’s
start at the top. Granted, given our Electoral College
system, no California Republican’s vote is likely to contribute
to President Bush’s ultimate victory. But every Bush
vote will help to do one thing: Increase the President’s
share of the popular vote, thus subduing political opposition. For the
past four years, the President has been hobbled, to some extent,
by his failure to win the popular vote. Let’s make it
easier for him this time. Remember: Vote Bush if we
can’t help him win the election, at least we can still help
him win a mandate!
Moving
to state business, columns in this space over the past year
or so (including Unconvincing,
And Certainly Not Inevitable, Hey,
Big Spender!, and Going “Mainstream” By
the Numbers) have explained why Barbara Boxer isn’t just
a lackluster Senator she’s the greatest embarrassment to
come out of California since the Chia pet. Her latest
ad, pledging to safeguard abortion rights even if Roe v.
Wade is overturned, is
vintage Boxer combining utter ignorance of the constitutional
and legislative process with hyperemotionalism and a large
dose of disingenuousness (abortion rights are enshrined in
California’s state constitution, and couldn’t be surrendered
without a vote of the people, whatever the Supreme Court does). Despite
his frankly lackluster campaign and his appalling decision
to repay himself for his own campaign donations without honoring
his oft-stated promise to buy all necessary ad time, Bill
Jones would, at least, end California’s Boxerian
nightmare.
Key
ballot propositions are as follows:
Prop.
1A: YES. Locks
in current allocations of property taxes, sales taxes
and vehicle license feels, and prevents local government
money from being taken by the state legislature.
Prop.
60: YES. Protects
constitutional protection for the current primary election
process.
Prop.
62: NO! General
election ballots would contain the names of only the
top two vote-getting candidates in the primary, regardless
of party (as in Louisiana). Theoretically, in a
Democrat-dominated state like California, we could end
up having to choose between a Barbara Boxer and a Gray
Davis. Perish the thought.
Prop.
63: NO. Marketed
as a way to fund mental health services, money derived
from this 1% tax on incomes in excess of $1 million could
be shifted to other uses, and will only drive high income
taxpayers from the state.
Prop.
64: YES. Ruin
John Edwards’ day this proposition will help reform
frivolous lawsuits, and requires that a plaintiff must
demonstrate some actual harm in order to sue for unfair
business practices. Passing this one will give
a break to small businesses, which have been preyed on
and extorted by unscrupulous trial lawyers.
Prop.
65: NO. This
would require voter approval of any legislation providing
for reductions in various taxes. Rather than requiring
a vote of the people to raise taxes, this
would require a vote in order to lower them.
Prop.
66: NO. This
would make the highly successful “three strikes” law
more lenient, thereby allowing more criminals to go free. What
proponents of watering down “three strikes” won’t tell
you is that judges already have discretion, in cases
of minor felonies, to prevent them from being counted
as one of a criminal’s “strikes.”
Prop.
67: NO. This
would add a 3% surcharge on telephone use in California. What
next are they going to start taxing air?
Prop.
69: YES. A
10% increase in traffic citations and other criminal
fines would fund a DNA database that could help prove
the innocence of those wrongly convicted.
Prop.
70: NO! This
would exempt Indian tribes from paying any state taxes
if the state permitted any non-tribal casino-type gambling,
and would require the Governor to offer the tribes 99-year
gambling compacts with no limits on the number of machines
or type of games.
Prop.
71: NO. Marketed
as “stem cell research,” this proposition would indeed
provide funds for embryonic stem cell research, but would
also create a $3 billion unaccountable government bureaucracy
that could conduct cloning and other research. Couldn’t
this be done more efficiently through private donations?
Prop.
72: NO! This
is a referendum on John Burton’s out-of-control legislation
decreeing that businesses with more than 200 employees
pay 80% of health care premiums for employees and
their families; businesses with 50-199 employees
would be responsible for 80% of employees’ premiums. Though
it sounds good in theory, it’s tantamount to mandating
a $6803 raise for employees of large companies, and a
$2482 raise for those at mid-sized companies. When
profits disappear at the behest of state government,
either (a) companies go out of business; or (b) they
leave the state; or (c) they raise their prices (an owner
of a McDonald’s franchise has estimated that to pay for
this bill alone would require a 40% price increase).
The
end of the long and winding road to Election 2004 is in sight. Don’t
forget to convert an undecided and then take him/her to the
polls. CRO
Columnist
Carol Platt Liebau is a political analyst, commentator and CaliforniaRepublic.org editorial
director based in San Marino, CA. Ms. Liebau also served
as the first female managing editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Her web log can be found at CarolLiebau.blogspot.com
copyright
2004
§
|
