Politics: No on prop 78, No on prop 79

The two proposals are intended to make prescription drugs more available to low-income people.

Who can be against that?

BUT, should those kinds of program be created by ballot box?

That just doesn't make sense to me.

And If I'm reading it right, on page 42-43 of the voter guide, it says that people already can get medications through Medi-Cal, Healthy Families, private insurance and soon through Medicare. Seems to me, we have various ways to get them discounted to some degrees already?

It is easy to demonize the drug companies. But since I work in molecular biology research (at a non-profit research institute), I know from first hand experience how slow progress can be. Thus, I don't begrudge a drug company their profits when finally one drug makes it big when so many others turn out to be dead ends.

In the lab, it is one thing to find a compound that can solve a problem in a test tube. Kill a bacteria in a test tube? Great! Now, can you give it to a person without killing the person or causing some other problem?

Package it into a pill ... how big should the dose be? How much gets absorbed once you take it? It takes time and money to figure that out.

How often do you take the pills? You need to figure out how long it lasts in your body before it breaks down and is useless? Trained scientists do these experiments and use all kinds of expensive equipment to make the analysis.

Now you have in your hand a candidate drug.

You have to fund trials to prove effectiveness and safety.

You have to figure out how to mass produce the drug once you determine it will actually work. That means building a factory or modifying an existing one to make the drug. And with manufacturing you have to have quality control tests to make sure what you think you are making is what you are really making.

Drugs don't mysteriously show up in the Walgreens with the morning dew. Each drug you have in your cabinet is the product of many many many human hours of labor.

I say again, I don't begrudge a drug company their profits when finally one drug makes it big when so many others turn out to be dead ends.

We already have programs in place to help low income people get medicines. If we need to improve those programs, let's do that. But to come up with new programs by ballot just doesn't make sense to me.

The Sacramento Bee urges a No vote on both Prop 78 and 79. Excerpt:

Proposition 78 is the pharmaceutical industry's approach... The program would allow families without drug insurance earning up to $58,050 a year to sign up for a drug card for cheaper drugs. If companies didn't voluntarily offer enough discounted drugs, however, the program would die. If the program were locked in place due to this initiative, the Legislature would be hard-pressed to make any necessary changes. For any "voluntary" approach to succeed, the Legislature would have to be in charge, not the drug companies through this initiative.
.......
Proposition 79 seeks to lower drug prices for a broader group of uninsured patients - families earning up to $77,000 - by requiring the state to negotiate on their behalf. Already the state negotiates drug prices for extremely low-income residents who quality for the state/federal Medi-Cal health program. Proposition 79 threatens to make it harder for those Medi-Cal patients to obtain certain drugs if the companies that make the drugs don't lower their prices for the uninsured.
.......
The real winners, most likely, would be lawyers. Proposition 79 would create a new civil action against drug companies that sell products at "an unconscionable price." Of course, unconscionable is not defined. It would be left to lawyers, the lawsuits and the courts to continually define what unconscionable means.

Endless lawsuits would only increase the costs for the drug companies and make the underlying problem even worse.

This blogger recommends a No on prop 78 and a No on prop 79.

UPDATE: The Los Angeles Times has come out against both prop 78 and prop 79!

Yes on Prop 74

The summary of Prop 74 is on pages 12 to 15 in my voter guide book.

It proposes two changes: (1) extends the probationary period for newly hired teachers from two years to five years (see chart on p. 12, most states set the number at three years) and (2) changes some of the rules for beginning the process of dismissing teachers who have tenure.

In my mind, there are two question: would this harm recruitment and retention of good teachers and help reduce the number of bad teachers?

I think the answer would be NO and MAYBE. Therefore, I recommend a Yes vote on Prop 74.

The LA Times, no friend of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, came out in support of Prop 74. Excerpt:

Everyone on campus - and some people off campus, such as involved parents - knows who the bad teachers are. These teachers stay on in part because many principals have neither the time nor the inclination to go through the complicated procedure necessary to fire a teacher, and in part because school districts prefer to avoid the costs of administrative law hearings to which all fired teachers are entitled.

The helpful part of Proposition 74 addresses a minor part of the problem. It would expand the probationary period for new teachers, who can be fired for any reason, to five years, at which point they would receive tenure. Current law sets probation at two years. That's not enough time.

Teachers unions argue that by reducing job security, a longer probation period would discourage people from entering the profession. We have more faith in teachers than that. Most prospective teachers are intent on succeeding at their work; they don't enter the profession because they know they can fall back on tenure protection if they fail.

UPDATE: Even the SF Chronicle has come out in favor of Prop 74!

Yes on Prop 76

Since the SF Chronicle said, IF THERE is one thing as reckless as ballot-box budgeting, it's ballot-box energy policy, the next proposition I read was Prop 76 which further regulates the state budget. The "analysis of the legislative analyst" runs from p. 22 to 29. Complex, eh?

My instant reaction is to vote NO. Why should the public have to determine budget priorities and limits? That is what the elected officials are for.

However, Tom McClintock, one of the more sensible and straight-shooting politicians in California on budget matters, has come out in support for Prop 76. My guess is that he believes Prop 76 is better than the status quo.

One of the criticism of Prop 76 is the power it gives to the Governor, the SF Chronicle complains:

Schwarzenegger is right in saying that legislators are not making the tough decisions to balance the budget. But the solution is not to put the state budget on a new course of autopilot while shifting power to the governor's office. It's to elect legislators -- and a governor -- who have the fortitude to set priorities and to find a way to fund them.

The governor is constrained by elections and recall. If she or he misuses the powers granted by Prop 76 then the voters could apply for a recall or vote her or him out in the next election cycle.

Is Prop 76 the final answer to California's budget woes?

No.

But in this case, we can't allow the quest for the best solution hinder our willingness to support a flawed measure that is better than the status quo. I was originally leaning NO on Prop 76 but I now recommend a YES vote on Prop 76.

UPDATE: I finally plowed through more carefully the 8-page summary of the measure to see under what circumstances would the governor be handed "extra powers" over the budget. If I'm reading it right, the circumstances are quite constrained. (1) If the budget is late, then the Governor is to set spending levels at the previous year's levels until a new budget is passed. (2) If the governor declares a "fiscal emergency."

The "fiscal emergency" can't be declared on the governor's whim but only under two circumstances: (1) general fund revenues fall 1.5% below estimates or (2) the state reserve would be reduced by half.

Once the emergency is declared, the legislature and the governor have 30 (late budget) or 45 (on-time budget) days to come up with a plan to address the shortfalls. Only after that fails would the governor have powers to reduce spending.

No on Prop 80

Prop 80 attempts to write some new rules for California's electrical utilities. I have some libertarian instincts and the idea of regulating the electrical utilities via ballot initiative strikes me as dubious. My gut reaction is to vote NO on Prop 80. It is nice to know that even a lefty paper like the SF Chronicle agrees. Quote:

IF THERE is one thing as reckless as ballot-box budgeting, it's ballot-box energy policy.
.......
It would take a two-thirds vote of the California Legislature to make even minor changes in Prop. 80. As we have seen too often during budget negotiations, a supermajority requirement is an invitation to gridlock in the Capitol.

The rarely united California Public Utilities Commission was unanimous in recommending an emphatic "no" vote on Proposition 80.

This measure does not belong on the ballot. We urge its defeat.

Yes on Prop 75

Prop 75 requires that public employee unions get permission from union members before they take money from their paychecks for usage in political expenses. The LA Times said this about the measure:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that union members cannot be forced to finance political activity, and Proposition 75 merely requires that public employee unions get written consent from their members before their dues and fees are used for political purposes. Currently, union members must request specifically that their dues not be spent on politics, and there is some question about how realistic a choice this is in some unions. Shifting the burden to the union to gain the consent of a member - as Washington, Utah and other states now require - does not seem onerous, and may even encourage greater accountability on the part of union leadership.

Therefore, this blogger joins the Los Angeles Times in recommending a YES vote on Prop 75.

Yes on Prop 77

Prop 77 is the redistricting plan. Right now, the districts are incumbent safe and are examples of gerrymandering. This plan will put it into the hand of an independent group. Sounds like an improvement to me. I'm recommending a YES vote on Prop 77. The Sacramento Bee said this of prop 77:

Proposition 77, the governor's redistricting plan, aims to end the conflicts inherent when lawmakers map their own political districts. Because of this gerrymandering, members of Congress tend to keep their jobs for life; legislators keep them as long as term limits allow.

Schwarzenegger's initiative proposes to separate politicians from the maps, which is why party bosses such as Rep. John Doolittle, R-Rocklin, and Rep. Howard Berman, a San Fernando Valley Democrat, are raising big bucks to kill it.

UPDATE: SF Chronicle, LA Times and Sacramento Bee all agree in their support of Prop 77.

Yes on Prop 73

Prop 73 is the parental notification of abortion by minors. There is a judicial bypass for circumstances where it may be problematic for parents to be notified.

Abortion remains one of the most contentious social issues of our day. What troubles me is that the pro-choice side seems to see no moral difficulty in abortion. They may say, we want abortions to be legal and safe but rare. But anytime any measure is raised that might make abortion even a little bit more difficult they object. Prop 73 provides one more opportunity for re-consideration of abortion. This blogger recommends a YES vote on Prop 73.