28th District: 100.0% ( 257 of 257 ) precincts reporting as of Nov 4, 2004 at 2:15 pm
* Howard L. Berman Democrat 103,093 71.2David R. Hernandez, Jr. Republican 33,801 23.3
Howard Berman, in office for decades, had no problem getting reelected again. As a Third Party candidate, I was again relatively successful, with my best raw vote total ever. Except for the Great Gubernator, California remains in the grip of the Socialists (i.e. Democrats), though there was much gnashing of teeth in Hollywood over the national election.
This preserves the right of Third Parties to appear on the ballot in the general election. The vile Prop 62 is an attempt to destroy Third Parties. Indeed, according to 62, the only candidates in a race in the general election might be two Democrats or two Republicans. If 60 gets more votes, it trumps 62. Yes on 60!
Bonds or taxes for various matters that either the government shouldn't be doing at all or that are in trouble (like Emergency rooms) because of mandated benefits. The State is already far enough in debt and has far too many taxes. But the interest groups, do-gooders, and socialists always want more money. Gubernator Arnold came out for 71. Nobody is perfect. No on 61, 63, 67, 71!
A simple idea: Sell of surplus State property to pay off bonds. Good idea. Yes on 60a!
Billed as another "open primary" law. An "open primary" was voted in a while back, which means everyone can vote in any primary, but then thrown out by the courts. But this Proposition is less an open primary law than it is a way of shutting minor parties out of general elections. It is thus a fraud perpetrated by the Republicans and Democrats. Gubernator Arnold seems to have gotten confused and has endorsed this. But we should know better. No on 62!
As it is, lawyers can sue businesses for trivial violations of State regulations that have been shown to harm no one and for which there are no real plaintiffs. Most small businesses settle out of court rather than risk legal expenses and larger damages. So it is an extortion racket. Stop it. Yes on 64!
The State runs out of money and so takes it from local taxes. Stop them. Yes on 65!
The Three Strikes Law has been putting people away for doing things like stealing a slice of pizza, which gets raised to felony status simply because of similar prior petty theft. A lot of the felonies are also non-violent drug crimes, which should not be crimes at all, let alone felonies. This is cruel and unusual punishment. Supporters defend the practice by saying that even stealing a slice of pizza reveals that one is a "career criminal." Perhaps, but it is a basic principle of justice that the punishment fit the crime, or that the punishment be proportional to the crime. Proposition 66 suppossedly requires that all of the three Three Strikes felonies be serious or violent. That was the original idea. However, Proposition 66 is not what it seems. It specifies what crimes will not be regarded as "serious or violent," and this includes residential burglery, arson, gang crimes, and other crimes that most people would regard as violent and serious indeed. A law like this is needed, but Proposition 66 is not it. No on 66!
Proposition 68 is pushed by race tracks and card clubs trying to gain privileges and avoid taxes. Proposition 70 is pushed by Indian casinos trying to gain privileges and avoid taxes. Don't fall for it. Gubernator Arnold has gotten this one right. No on 68 & 70!
The Libertarian Party objects to Proposition 69 as an invasion of privacy. However, all it says is that criminal suspects should give a DNA sample as well as their fingerprints when booked. A lot of crimes get solved this way. I would entertain the argument that fingerprinting is an invasion of privacy, but until it is rejected, DNA samples follow the same principle. Yes on 69!
The socialists have been trying to impose health care costs on businesses. A "No" vote reverses a State mandate that businesses must provide health insurance. No on 72!
Another school bond act. These have been passing regularly lately, but it never seems like enough is enough. Don't worry, whether this measure passes or not, they are going to ask for more in the next election. All the stuff about "accountability" and audits leads to one question: Previous measures were also supposed to contains such safeguards, but mostly we don't hear about the results of the audits and oversight. What I have heard sounds like typical bureaucratic waste, bungling, and corruption. We get no hint of such, of course, from the television ads run by the California Education Association (the CEA, subsidiary of the National Education Associaton, NEA, subsidiary of the Democratic Party). We never will. The ads will certainly never mention either what public education has become, with few exceptions: Anti-American and anti-capitalist propoganda.
The State already has lost any respectable rating for its Bonds, and the solution proposed by Arnold and the Legislature to fix the State budget crisis is more borrowing. Too much has already been borrowed. The educrats had their way for a number of years, now its time to cut them off and cut down their bloated empire. No on 55!
The Libertarian Party of California says;
Vote NO on PROPOSITION 55 -- $12.3 Billion Education BondIn addition to all the standard problems with school bonds, this huge proposed increase in debt comes at a time when California already has an terrible budget crisis. The money to pay back the $12.3 Billion will have to come out of the state's General Fund, which may require higher taxes. More than a quarter of the bond money is earmarked for the Los Angeles Unified School District, even though only 12% of the state's students go there, and even though LAUSD is a hell-hole of waste, corruption, and mismanagement. Furthermore, local school districts must provide 40% matching funds, which means they'll be floating their own local school bond measures to add to the taxpayers' burden.
One of the biggest scams in recent California electoral history. The television ads play up making legislators "responsible" to pass a budget in time or lose their pay. The tip-off, however, is when the ads say that failing to pass his measure might result in cuts to education and health care. How is that? Why would "responsible" legislators, passing the budget on time, need to end up making budget cuts? Well, in the universe of the people behind this measure (the Democrats, public employee unions, teachers' unions), "responsible" legislators raise taxes to pay for ever expanding pay and benefits for public employees, not to mention more worthless public programs and agencies whose employees contribute to the Democratic Party. How does Prop 56 help these thieves raise taxes? It lowers to 55% the majority needed to pass a budget. This will end "gridlock." Indeed. It will also continue the process of turning California into Cuba, which is what the leading ideologues of leftist California politics want. Go ahead. I'll be getting some of those taxes, since I'm a public employee. But all you people not at the public trough, good luck. But if you want an economy left in California, vote No on 56!
The Libertarian Party of California says;
Vote NO on PROPOSITION 56 -- State budget and tax "Reform" packageThe core of Prop 56 is that it wipes out the requirement for a 2/3 vote of the state Legislature to raise taxes and pass budgets. Everything else is fluff and window-dressing. This terrible proposal will make it far easier for the Legislature to stick it to taxpayers instead of cutting spending.
I don't actually have a recommendation for these measures. Prop 57 mainly rolls over the debt that Gray Doofus contracted illegally to cover his illegal budget deficits. All right. But there are three ways to handle the budget: (1) cuts, (2), taxes, (3) borrowing. What is needed are cuts. Arnold, sensibly, has refused to consider new taxes. That is what leaves us with the borrowing. If Prop 57 doesn't pass, it may be that Arnold will consider taxes after all. It almost might be worth it to defeat the thing and see what he does. Prop 58, in turn, is supposed to prevent budget problems in the future. Perhaps. There was already a law requiring a balanced budget. Since there wasn't enough of a majority to pass taxes, real budget cuts couldn't even be considered, with the Democrats in charge, and borrowing requiring a vote of the people, Gray and the Dems just decided to ignore and evade the law, so they could keep (and increase!) their budget. So what is some new law going to mean to them? Not much. Or we might just think, "It can't hurt." Give Arnold 57 as well as 58? I don't know.
The Libertarian Party of California says;
Vote NO on PROPOSITION 57 -- $15 Billion BondThe Legislature and former Governor Davis previously approved $12.9 Billion in borrowing to paper over past deficits. That's illegal under the California Constitution and is being challenged in court. This bond measure converts that past excess (plus a bit more to cover Davis' final months in office) into a legal debt and spreads it out over future years. But what California really needs is some serious budget slashing; this just puts off the day of reckoning.
Vote NO on PROPOSITION 58 -- Balanced Budget requirement
This is a watered-down version of a proposal to forbid the kind of gimmicks and operating budget deficits which led to the Prop 57 bond. Unfortunately Prop 58 is riddled with loopholes, as libertarian tax fighter Richard Rider describes in the Voter Pamphlet argument against the measure. There's nothing in Prop 58 which prevents the Legislature from using the same accounting tricks and fake forecasts and short-term borrowing methods to spend, spend, spend. And there's no authority in Prop 58 for the Governor to make mid-year spending reductions to keep the budget in balance.