Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/11663
4A – Daily News – Monday, June 7, 2010 Opinion Order of the day — three yes and two no D NEWSAILY RED BLUFF TEHAMACOUNTY T H E V O I C E O F T E H A M A C O U N T Y S I N C E 1 8 8 5 Greg Stevens, Publisher gstevens@redbluffdailynews.com Chip Thompson, Editor editor@redbluffdailynews.com Editorial policy The Daily News opinion is expressed in the editorial. The opinions expressed in columns, letters and cartoons are those of the authors and artists. Letter policy The Daily News welcomes let- ters from its readers on timely topics of public interest. All let- ters must be signed and pro- vide the writer’s home street address and home phone num- ber. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and cannot exceed two double-spaced pages or 500 words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section of those submit- ted will be considered for publi- cation. Letters will be edited. Letters are published at the discretion of the editor. Mission Statement We believe that a strong com- munity newspaper is essential to a strong community, creating citizens who are better informed and more involved. The Daily News will be the indispensible guide to life and living in Tehama County. We will be the premier provider of local news, information and advertising through our daily newspaper, online edition and other print and Internet vehi- cles. The Daily News will reflect and support the unique identities of Tehama County and its cities; record the history of its com- munities and their people and make a positive difference in the quality of life for the resi- dents and businesses of Tehama County. How to reach us Main office: 527-2151 Classified: 527-2151 Circulation: 527-2151 News tips: 527-2153 Sports: 527-2153 Obituaries: 527-2151 Photo: 527-2153 On the Web www.redbluffdailynews.com Fax Newsroom: 527-9251 Classified: 527-5774 Retail Adv.: 527-5774 Legal Adv.: 527-5774 Business Office: 527-3719 Address 545 Diamond Ave. Red Bluff, CA 96080, or P.O. Box 220 Red Bluff, CA 96080 For what it is worth here are my recommendations for voting on the five California state propo- sitions on June 8 ballot and my reasoning. Whether you agree or not please make sure to vote as a responsible American. Proposition 13 provides that construction to seismically retrofit existing buildings will not trigger reassessment of property tax value, regardless of the type of building. It will set a statewide standard for the types of seismic retrofit improvements exempt from reassessment and limits the exemption from reassessment to specific components of construc- tion or reconstruction that qualify as seismic retrofit improvements, as defined by the Legislature. Vote YES on Prop 13 because it will promote the safety of exist- ing buildings in California by exempting the value of specific measures to improve earthquake resistance from property taxes. Although state government badly needs additional revenues, in my opinion it should not be accom- plished by increasing the taxes on building safety improvements. Proposition 14 encourages increased participation in elec- tions for congressional, legislative, and statewide offices by changing the procedure by which candi- dates are selected in primary elec- tions. It gives voters increased options in the primary by allowing all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference and provides that candidates may choose not to have a political party preference indicated on the prima- ry ballot. In addition it provides that only the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary will appear on the general election ballot regard- less of party preference. It does not change primary elections for President, party committee offices and nonpartisan offices. Vote YES on Prop 14 because it limits partisan politics and the power of the two-party system by allowing voters to select who they believe are the most qualified can- didates regardless of their party affiliations. While there is some concern that this proposition would allow parties to improperly affect the outcome of the other party’s candidates in my opinion the likelihood of such manipula- tion is small relative to the ability for all to select the best available candidates for the general elec- tion. Proposition 15 repeals the ban on public funding of political campaigns. In its place it creates a voluntary system for candidates to qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to limitations on spending and private contribu- tions. Candidates would have to qualify before receiving the grant and candidates who demonstrate sufficient public support would receive the same amount. Participating candidates would be prohibited from raising or spending money beyond the grant and there would be strict enforcement and accountability with pub- lished reports open to the public. Funding for the new system would come from voluntary contributions and a bien- nial fee on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lob- byist employers. Vote YES on Prop 15 because it helps to ensure that candidates for public office compete on a level playing field based upon their abilities to serve the elec- torate rather than the amount of money they can raise to finance campaign advertising. While I would prefer that this would be a mandatory means of controlling campaign spending, at least it will help less wealthy candidates mount campaigns by collecting fees from lobbyists. Vote NO on Prop 16 for the reasons I discussed last week. Proposition 17 permits insur- ance companies to offer discounts to drivers that continuously main- tain auto insurance coverage. It Richard Mazzucchi Positive Point also allows insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to dri- vers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage and establishes that lapses in coverage due to non- payment of premiums may prevent a driver from qualifying for the discount. Vote NO on Prop 17 because it will discour- age drivers without insurance coverage from purchasing insur- ance due to higher rates than would otherwise apply. While I do believe that those who continuously maintain insurance should be rewarded this proposi- tion does so at the expense of dri- vers that haven’t been able to do so and will thereby discourage them from obtaining coverage. It seems to me that the net result of this proposition would be to increase insurance premiums overall by reducing the number of insured motorists on our roads and highways. Richard Mazzucchi can be reached at living-green@att.net. Your officials STATE ASSEMBLYMAN — Jim Nielsen (R), State Capitol Bldg., Room 4164 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento 94249; (916) 319- 2002; Fax (916) 319-2102 STATE SENATOR — Sam Aanestad (R), State Capitol Bldg., Room 2054, Sacramento, CA 95814. (916) 651-4004; Fax (916) 445-7750 GOVERNOR — Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), State Capitol Bldg., Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 445-2841; Fax (916) 558- 3160; E-mail: governor@gover- nor.ca.gov. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE — Wally Herger (R), 2635 Forest Ave. Ste. 100, Chico, CA 95928; 893- 8363. U.S. SENATORS — Dianne Feinstein (D), One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 393-0707. Fax (415) 393-0710. Barbara Boxer (D), 1700 Mont- gomery St., Suite 240, San Fran- cisco, CA 94111; (415) 403-0100. Fax (202) 224-0454. Patriot potluck; Meg; 3 strikes; AZ law Commentary If you are among the hundreds of folks that have attended and shared contact information with Tehama County Tea Party Patriots, you may have gotten a call or email about a special get-together tomor- row, Tuesday. With the election ending, and a bit of a lull before whatever is next, the idea of a casu- al evening of food and camaraderie seemed natural. The Patriots will be grilling chicken while most other folks will bring their favorite dishes. Seating and chicken is lim- ited so please, please RSVP to 515-2138 or 529-2143, or email barb@reddingteaparty.com (if you haven't already). Our candidate coordinator, Bill Kingsford, deserves a final "attaboy" for months of steadfast and effective organizing to bring the many wonderful people to speak to the Tea Party Patriots. All candidates are to be saluted, even if running unopposed, for their time and willingness to accept all ques- tions. One disconcerting loose end was the consternation communi- cated to me by Mr. Charlie Schaupp because I dismissed the controversy over Jim Nielsen’s per diem payments as the province of political opponents and recent par- tisan newspaper articles. Schaupp was quite adamant that I should know, and agree with him, that the controversy has been out there for "years," according to him, and that Nielsen is quite unfit for holding office over the issue. Well, I’ll just have to live with my conscience for continuing to support Nielsen and oppose Schaupp, and continuing to dismiss the charges as partisan complaints by Schaupp and the Redding and Chico papers until proven illegal or unethical by a neutral agency. Barbara and I, and other folks from Red Bluff, joined hundreds of people (not "dozens" as some media reported) that turned out to see Republican gubernatorial can- didate Meg Whitman at her Red- ding airport stop. She’s no Ronald Reagan but she has good business sense, accomplishments and a low- key style that conveys competence and common sense. She’ll never star in movies, but she never mar- ried into the Kennedy clan, either. California’s future depends on vot- ers choosing a center-right candi- date like Meg over a hard left ideo- logue like Jerry Brown. Any readers that saw a sign by the usual gadfly in front of the Post Office, that misappropriated the name "Tea Party" to suggest sup- port for various candidates, should know that it falsely conveyed endorsements that never existed. The individual, upon hearing that it was a trademark infringement and completely inaccurate, said he would delete such statements from his signs. I must reiterate to readers that Prop 14 and Prop 16 should both be voted against, as I have previ- ously explained, due to the hidden agendas contained therein. For the record, I am inclined to support our incumbent District Attorney, Greg Cohen, and Sheriff Clay Parker. When a columnist gets to his 3rd made-up argument against the Tea Party, I would suggest readers remember such questionable veracity when he writes about other subjects. Strike 1: claiming that when the local Tea Party called themselves "Patriots," it meant they believed others are unpa- triotic; Strike 2: writing about, and never retract- ing, the false reports of racial epithets and spitting at Congressional Black Caucus members in March by Tea Party pro- testers; Strike 3: fabricating a completely fallacious argument that the Tea Party might be engaging in "anti-government demogagary (sic)" in sup- porting Prop 16 (Tea Party has no position). Honestly, when someone harbors such vituperation for a movement that they’ll make up, or convey made up, propaganda and arguments … well, consider the source in the future. Now, about the fallacious argu- ments and factual errors over the Arizona law targeting illegal immigration, that appeared on this page. All opposition to the law accepts, intentionally or not, that the immigration laws should sim- ply not be enforced. If opponents don’t like the laws on the books, they should try to change them, not encourage violation by illegal immigrants. Federal law requires legal immigrants to carry their "papers," or documentation, at all times (like a driver must possess a valid dri- Don Polson The way I see it ver’s license when behind the wheel). Those documents must be presented to federal law enforce- ment at any time upon request, without any suspicion or cause by the officer. Therefore, the Arizona law, which requires a legitimate, lawful contact for an observed or reported infraction, is less oner- ous than federal law. Moreover, the con- tention that a legal immigrant is subject to a $500 fine by Arizona for simply not having the documents on their person is erroneous. Section 13-509 of the law, describing the penalty for "criminal trespass … (FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1070)" includes the fine. Immedi- ately after is: "F. This section does not apply to a person who main- tains authorization from the federal government to remain in the Unit- ed States." The FACT SHEET: "17. Speci- fies that the trespassing statute does not apply to a person who main- tains authorization from the federal government to remain in the U.S." Again, from 13-509: "G. Any record (establishing legal status) … is admissible in any court …" to prove exemption from the statute. That’s just plain reasonable … and legal. Don Polson can be reached by e-mail at donplsn@yahoo.com.