Candidates for office
Brown has extensive experience in government, including a very successful prior term as governor, and pledges no tax increases without approval of the voters. Opponent Whitman, a very wealthy person completely inexperienced in politics, intends to prevent increased taxes on the incomes of very wealthy people.
Lieutenant Governor: Newsom
Newsom, as Mayor of San Francisco, created a universal health care system for all residents of that city. He led the city through difficult economic times with balanced budgets.
Secretary of State: Bowen
Bowen audited electoral systems. She found and corrected a number of problems that compromised ballot integrity. She insists on fair elections.
Chiang’s skillful management enabled the state to maintain credit and to continue paying for essential services despite great financial stress in recent years.
Lockyer managed state pension funds wisely and well, avoiding severe losses during severe economic conditions.
Attorney General: Allen
Allen favors legalization of marijuana and ending the death penalty.
Insurance Commissioner: Padilla
Padilla considers good health care more important than insurance.
Member, Board of Equalization, 1st District: Borg
“Tax the corporations.” – Borg
U.S. Senator: Boxer
Boxer voted for health care reform, the HIRE act reducing costs of employment for small businesses, and for financial regulation reform. Opponent Fiorina, a very wealthy person, laid off thousands of less well-paid workers at Hewlett-Packard. The fortunes of Lucent and HP were erratic and troubled with losses during Fiorina’s executive tenure in those companies.
U.S. Representative, 6th District: Woolsey
Woolsey voted for health care reform, the HIRE act reducing costs of employment for small businesses, and for financial regulation reform.
Member, State Assembly: Huffman
Huffman is a Democrat, and so he is preferable to a Republican. The Tea Party has captured control of Republican Party. A Republican victory would make more likely the banishment of the theory of evolution from public schools, extensive deregulation of businesses, reduction of income taxes for very wealthy people, acceleration of the shift of income to very wealthy people, repeal of universal health care, unrestrained deficit spending, and the return of economic policies that brought about the current economic depression.
Judicial, Supreme Court and Appellate Court: Yes on all
Judicial, Superior Court, Office # 2: Broderick
Either candidate would be a good choice. Broderick balances the theory and practice of justice better.
19 - Legalize Marijuana: Yes
Repeal prohibition by voting “yes” on 19. The illegality of marijuana creates economic opportunities for criminal organizations that endanger lives and property and contend for political control of parts of Mexico. Governments have better use for the money they expend on police and prisons to enforce prohibition of marijuana.
20 – Redistricting Commission: Yes
Removes all redistricting decisions from the legislature to an independent commission. The legislature isn’t competent.
21 – Car tax to fund state parks: Yes
A law that taxes a specific activity to fund another completely unrelated specific activity impairs flexible decisions in government. However, in this case, it’s a good activity to tax and it’s a good activity to fund, the proposition is simple in construction, and the legislature is incompetent. Under the circumstances, this is a good law.
22 – Blocks state from commandeering local funds: No
Under this law, the state couldn’t use gasoline taxes to repay previously issued transportation bonds. In addition, this law voids any conflicting law passed between October 20, 2009 and November 2, 2010, which is very uncertain. A good law would assure repayment of previously issued bonds and would repeal only specified laws. Proposition 22 has much merit but fatal flaws.
23 – Suspend implementation of AB32 air pollution mitigation pending decline of unemployment: No
This law would suspend climate change mitigation laws until the rate of unemployment declines to less than 5.5%, which could be many years. The premise is that air pollution controls cause unemployment, an assertion for which there is no evidence. This law would enrich a few individuals by replacing privately carried costs of pollution control with the generally higher costs of pollution remediation, including public health costs, which the public would then have to bear. So it reduces private costs by increasing public costs.This law would defeat implementation of cap-and-trade controls on greenhouse gases and further delay response to global warming.
24 – Repeal certain business income tax law changes of 2008 and 2009: No
The tax law changes were reasonable and fair.
25 – Majority vote to pass state budget: Yes
2/3 (current law) is too high a bar for the legislature to meet. Simple majority probably sets the bar a little too low. 55% might get closer to perfection, but 50% is better than what we have.
26 – 2/3 majority for fees: No
2/3 is too high. This law would void existing unspecified laws, with uncertain effects.
27 – Redistricting by Legislature: No
This law would dissolve the independent commission and make redistricting a legislative task, thereby reintroducing gerrymandering just in time for the results of the 2010 census.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Torlakson
We have two good candidates from which to choose.
Petaluma Joint Union High School District: Walking Bear, Kauk, Baddeley
These three candidates have or have had children in the Petaluma public schools. Good education depends on decisions by local people with active interest in the children.
County Supervisor, 2nd District: Torliatt
Torliatt is sympathetic to bicyclists and immigrants. Opponent Rabbitt would sacrifice other objectives for the comfort of drivers of private automobiles.
City of Petaluma, Mayor: Mayne
Opponent Glass merely wants to widen Highway 101, sacrificing other objectives for the comfort of drivers of private automobiles.
City of Petaluma, City Council: Bunker, Albertson, Davies
Bunker and Albertson are the only candidates who don’t appear enthralled by the comfort of drivers of private automobiles and the compulsion to widen Highway 101. Davies is the only candidate who explicitly calls for extending and improving bicycle lanes and walking paths.
N – County of Sonoma – Change “Personnel” to “Human Resources”: No
This is a nearly trivial measure to change the civil servant “Director of Personnel” into the appointed “Director of Human Resources”. This would buttress the aristocracy of the appointed department heads. People should not be labeled with the demeaning and exploitative term “Human Resources”. There is no clear value in passing this measure.
T – City of Petaluma – Extend expiry of Urban Growth Boundary to 2025: Yes
The UGB makes Petaluma a better place by concentrating urbanization for economy and preservation of open space. Measure T is unopposed in the ballot handbook.
U – City of Petaluma – Reduce wastewater service rates: No
This law would shift sewer costs to the general fund without a corresponding revenue source.
W – Sonoma County Transport Authority - $10 Car Fee: Yes
This is the first transportation legislation yet seen that doesn’t spend money on new roads or widening of Highway 101. Measure W would spend the revenue on maintenance of existing roads, transit service expansion, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and Safe Routes to Schools. This is excellent transportation law.