A Flimsy Pretext: November 2004

Below is an exchange I had with my mom earlier in the week. It clarifies the reasons why I both felt Prop 72 was one of the most important propositions on the CA ballot Tuesday and why I voted for it.

Apparently, I didn't convince many other people.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Atwell
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 3:06 PM
To: Mom
Subject: RE: Vote progressive on CA ballot measures.

Chapter 2, Article 2122.2 (p. 156 of the Voter Information Guide):

"'Enrollee' means a person who works at least 100 hours per month for any individual employer and has worked for that employer for three months. The term includes sole proprietors or partners of a partnership, if they are actively engaged at least 100 hours per month in that business."

You can object that 100 hrs/month amounts to part-time work -- but set it around 40 hrs/week and it wouldn't affect companies like Wal-Mart that devise their policies precisely around evading such regulations. I would guess that at 25/hrs a week, it becomes prohibitively costly for a corporation to skirt the law by skimming away qualified workers' hours in order to disqualify them as "enrollees" and adding additional part-time workers.

To put it in laymen's term, the proposition will provide health care to employees of mid to large-sized companies that currently don't have it by basically redistributing wealth. It will redirect resources that would go to those with enough already to afford health coverage (eg. Wal-Mart shareholders, who ideally would be motivated to reign in the compensation of Wal-Mart executives, or accept a modest increase in their taxes) and give it to expanded company health plans and a very useful state program.

Note, however, the conservative movement in this country has successfully demonized the central thesis expressed here and many of its key terms.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Mom
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 2:23 PM
To: Tom Atwell
Subject: RE: Vote progressive on CA ballot measures.

I'm still not understanding how they don't provide healthcare benefits? Are they being asked to provide health benefits to part-time workers? If that is motivation behind this proposition I'm not sure I agree with it.

Can you explain to me, in layman's terms, exactly what this proposition is supposed to provide? I've read the pros and cons many times and I've yet to see the words part-time or full-time employee ANYWHERE. To me there is a huge difference and it bothers me that the proposition never uses those words.

Maybe I'm not reading it correctly.

Mom

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Atwell
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 1:04 PM
To: Mom
Subject: RE: Vote progressive on CA ballot measures.

> I'm not sure how Walmart's policy is so bad. There is considerable
> cost in providing health-care from an employer's POV. I'm sure
> Walmart's policy is 6 month because the turn-over is much higher in
> that industry than others.

It's bad when fitted in the context of an entire strategy to squeeze worker's wages. Anti-union activity is an obvious part of that. I imagine lack of adequate health-care coverage is a significant factor in the high-turnover -- in both the industry as a whole and Wal-Mart significantly. (Give me the afternoon off and I'll track down the study proving it.) It's not an accident that Wal-Mart has more part-time workers. It's simply cheaper for them. Wal-Mart might not be better off if the state exerted some pressure to better reward their ill-educated, unskilled workers. But the commonwealth would.

> What is the statistic for how many fulltime Walmart
> employees are on Medicaid or Medicare AND what is the statistic for
> how many Walmart employees are on Medicaid or Medicare?
>
> Another statistic that would be interesting would be, how many Walmart
> employees are covered through the medical coverage of their spouse?
>
> Do you really think employers should provide full-time benefits to
> part-time employees?

I think all these points are addressed in the statistics offered comparing Wal-Mart and Costco (45% vs. 96% coverage.) Wal-Mart has certainly innovated in bringing cheap crap from China to the US with mind-numbing efficiency -- and I guess it deserves to be rewarded for that. But it doesn't deserve to benefit because it's better at putting off their employees' welfare and/or shifting costs to states -- where these expenses take away from an already underfunded public pool.

> Having spent my entire adult life in a small business
> I have extreme compassion towards the small business
> owner and am loathe to enforce legislation that does not
> make fiscal sense - even if it means Walmart can hire part time
> workers and not pay their medical insurance.

Of course, Wal-Mart and McDonald's hardly qualify as small businesses. The provisions apply to employers with 200 of more employees beginning on 1/1/2006 and 50 to 199 beginning 1/1/2007. It still requires a 20% employee contribution. If CSI can insure its employees, why can't these companies?

My experience with the health care committee at UCI underlined the fact that some kind of state management is inevitable -- if you actually wish to accomplish universal health care. The UCI graduate plan should have been a slam dunk -- but it was a miserable bureaucracy because of the mismatch in administration between providers and insurers.

As I see it, far from being another onerous state bureaucracy, the state's alternative plan should actually help reduce health care costs by giving the state greater leverage in dealing with insurance companies and providers. If this doesn't help control health care costs, nothing will. It could also help organize and streamline paperwork -- one of the reforms Bush touts (about the only one, other than spuriously blaming malpractice suits).

What are the weaknesses of the proposition? The main argument seems to be that California will lose jobs as small companies rush to Nevada and Idaho to exploit unskilled workers there. I'm confident that there are more advantages to doing business in California than a grossly underpaid labor force.

> As a sidenote, Fujie's medical benefits dropped considerable following
> the strike. Her union is broke now.

The grocers' union was in deep shit either way -- largely as a result of Wal-Mart (at least that was management's line.) They could have caved and not went out on strike -- but that would have insured that the next generation of laborers had significantly lower wages and benefits. The strikers suffered, but they helped avoid significant losses in wages and benefits. Instead, Fujie and the rest ended up with moderate losses. Fujie's union would have been stronger with a law like this in effect.

> Unions are good, but don't let them suck you in with false information

I think most this information comes from the New York Times. The rest I'm just pulling out of my ass. :)

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Mom
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 12:08 PM
To: Tom Atwell
Subject: RE: Vote progressive on CA ballot measures.

Our policy is 3 months employment to receive benefits and part-time employees are never eligible to receive medical benefits. ([Parttime being defined as under 30 under per week.) I'm not sure how Walmart's policy is so bad. There is considerable cost in providing health-care from an employer's POV. I'm sure Walmart's policy is 6 month because the turn-over is much higher in that industry than others.

My guess is many work at Walmart because of the flexibility of the hours and the fact part time employement is so readily available. One Walmart employee who was 'confused' about his eligibility, which I can tell you from personal experience, means that he neglected to turn in his enrollment application (Happens here all the time) to HR does not mandate a state law.

What is the statistic for how many fulltime Walmart employees are on Medicaid or Medicare AND what is the statistic for how many Walmart employees are on Medicaid or Medicare?

Another statistic that would be interesting would be, how many Walmart employees are covered through the medical coverage of their spouse?

Do you really think employers should provide full-time benefits to part-time employees?

The BIG argument against Walmart is that it is non-union. That is what gripes most people, especially the unions. The real question is should Walmart be forced to unionize? I don't know how to answer that but that IS the real question, not whether or not Walmart should be forced to provide medical coverage to part-time workers.

Having spent my entire adult life in a small business I have extreme compassion towards the small business owner and am loathe to enforce legislation that does not make fiscal sense - even if it means Walmart can hire part time workers and not pay their medical insurance.

Just on the facts you have provided I find the Pro-Proposition arguments to be misleading and false.

I would have thought from what I've been hearing that Walmart doesn't pay medical coverage on any of their employees. It turns out Walmart does what most businesses do, they just have a lot more part-timers than most businesses.

Unions are good, but don't let them suck you in with false information. I think the supermarket strike is an excellent example of the Union not working for the good of their members.

As a sidenote, Fujie's medical benefits dropped considerable following the strike. Her union is broke now.

Mom

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Atwell
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:51 AM
To: Mom
Subject: RE: Vote progressive on CA ballot measures.

> I've yet to read anywhere whether or not the reason Walmart employees
> aren't covered is whether they are full-time or not.

From the article:

"At Wal-Mart, which has no union employees, many who work full time must wait six months to become eligible. Part-time workers are not eligible for at least two years. Because of turnover, some employees never work long enough to become eligible."

Also:

"The company says it spent about $1.3 billion of its $256 billion in revenue last year on employee health care to insure about 537,000 people, or about 45 percent of its work force. Wal-Mart says that 23 percent of its employees are not eligible for coverage, but that it covers 58 percent of those who are.

That compares with an insured rate of 96 percent of eligible full-time or part-time employees of Costco Wholesale, the discount retailer that is Wal-Mart's closest competitor nationwide. Costco employees - most of whom are not represented by a union - become eligible for health insurance after three months working full time, or six months part time."

Finally,

"Countering Wal-Mart's television ad, a California group supporting Proposition 72 has begun publicizing the case of a former Wal-Mart employee, Marco Guillen, who says he twice missed the company's annual enrollment deadline for health insurance. The first time, he said, was because he was confused about his eligibility. The second time, he said, was because he was in a coma after being in a car accident. His medical bills were about $1 million, he said, and were paid by the state's Medi-Cal version of Medicaid."

As much as I love stem-cell research, short-term it's therapy for Wal-Mart executives (and the like).

Philosophically, I've no problem with giving money to the state -- especially when it serves social interest -- because the state is a better equalizer. (It even has a Board.) Should Medi-Cal or Wal-Mart have paid Marco Guillen's $1 million bill? I'm pretty sure the state would have done much more good with that money than Wal-Mart will.

And if McDonald's has to raise its prices to insure its employees (to use the example that I heard an opponent of 72 use on the radio the other day), we're all better off.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Mom
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:15 AM
To: Tom Atwell
Subject: RE: Vote progressive on CA ballot measures.

I find this a badly written proposition. And I've yet to read anywhere whether or not the reason Walmart employees aren't covered is whether they are full-time or not. My guess is Walmart makes a concerted effort to only employ part-time workers for the express purpose of avoiding full-time benefit payouts - sleezy yes, maybe, BUT if this is the case I don't find that wrong and not really understanding how a law is going to charge that.

I always find statements like "The state must provide health-care to Walmart employees" to be misleading. I read all the propositions carefully over the weekend and I must admit am just about as confused on some of them even after reading all the pros and cons. I'm following a tried and trued adage that if I don't understand exactly what I'm voting for, I vote no because I'd rather not vote a bad law in based on a badly written proposition.

I'm opposed basically on principal alone anything that turns management over to the state just because I find them to be very bad managers in most all things involving other people's money.

I've decided I'm somewhat conservative when it comes to giving money to the government. I am voting for stem cell research and I am voting to allow local governments to retain control of their money (another VERY confusing proposition).

I'm voting no on 70 because I don't understand it and even though it means agreeing with Arnold I can't work up too much sympathy either way to anyone in the gaming industry. Seems like plenty of money for everyone there and am loathe to vote yes on anything the Indians drew up themselves which gives them free-rein for the next 99 years.

I'm voting yes on 66. (3 strikes revision.) But that's just the bleeding heart liberal in me.

The only vote I'm absolutely clear about it turns out is a vote for Kerry.

Mom

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Atwell
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 10:10 AM
To: John; Ben; Mom
Subject: RE: Vote progressive on CA ballot measures.

Thanks for passing this along, John.

I see your splitting with the progressive slate on 72. I'm sure this article from today's New York Times doesn't address all its implications. But it's an interesting real world example of some of the somewhat hidden costs for taxpayers of inadequate corporate health care:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/01/business/01health.html?th

"A survey by Georgia officials found that more than 10,000 children of Wal-Mart employees were in the state's health program for children at an annual cost of nearly $10 million to taxpayers. A North Carolina hospital found that 31 percent of 1,900 patients who described themselves as Wal-Mart employees were on Medicaid, while an additional 16 percent had no insurance at all.

"And backers of a measure that will be on California's ballot tomorrow, which would force big employers like Wal-Mart to either provide affordable health insurance to their workers or pay into a state insurance pool, say Wal-Mart employees without company insurance are costing California's state health care programs an estimated $32 million a year."

I'm voting yes because I just happen to really like higher taxes. :)

Complete article below.

Tom Atwell

States Are Battling Against Wal-Mart Over Health Care

November 1, 2004
By REED ABELSON

In the national debate over what to do about the growing
number of working people with little or no health
insurance, no other company may be taking more heat than
the country's largest employer, Wal-Mart Stores.

The company, despite its popularity with consumers, has
grown accustomed to being accused of crushing Main Street merchants with its sprawling stores and low prices and of driving down wages for workers across the retail industry. And more than a million former and current female Wal-Mart employees are part of a sex discrimination lawsuit that the company is fighting.

Now, Wal-Mart finds itself under attack for what critics
see as its miserly approach to employee health care, which
they say is forcing too many of its workers and their
families into state insurance programs or making them rely
on charity care by hospitals.

Wal-Mart vigorously defends its health care policies,
saying it offers affordable coverage for all employees.

The company says it has no way of knowing how many of its employees, whom it calls associates, or their families are insured under state programs. The larger issue of whether companies can and should absorb the soaring cost of health care is a national issue, said Susan Chambers, the executive vice president who oversees benefits at Wal-Mart. "You can't solve it for the 1.2 million associates if you can't solve it for the country.''

A survey by Georgia officials found that more than 10,000 children of Wal-Mart employees were in the state's health program for children at an annual cost of nearly $10 million to taxpayers. A North Carolina hospital found that 31 percent of 1,900 patients who described themselves as Wal-Mart employees were on Medicaid, while an additional 16 percent had no insurance at all.

And backers of a measure that will be on California's
ballot tomorrow, which would force big employers like
Wal-Mart to either provide affordable health insurance to
their workers or pay into a state insurance pool, say
Wal-Mart employees without company insurance are costing California's state health care programs an estimated $32 million a year.

Meanwhile, in Washington State, where the insurance commissioner is pushing the legislature to adopt a law similar to the one on the California ballot, companies that struggle to compete with Wal-Mart while insuring most of their own workers have become openly critical.

"Socially, we're engaged in a race to the bottom," said
Craig Cole, the chief executive of Brown & Cole Stores, a supermarket chain that employs about 2,000 workers in Washington and adjoining states and pays for insurance coverage for about 95 percent of its employees. "Do we want to allow competition based on exploitation of the work force?" he asked.

Wal-Mart, which disputes the California figures and says it cannot verify the Georgia and North Carolina data, says its employees are largely insured. It cites internal surveys indicating that 90 percent of its employees have insurance - many through means other than Wal-Mart's coverage because they are senior citizens on Medicare, students covered by their parents' policies or employees with second jobs or working spouses.

"We are doing everything we can to take care of our
associates and not shift costs," Ms. Chambers said.

The company has gone on its own offensive, saying last week that it was spending $500,000 to defeat the California measure, Proposition 72. The measure is opposed by many other businesses, particularly restaurants and retailers, and by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who asserts that it would impede the state's economic recovery and lead to a loss of jobs.

Wal-Mart has also been running a television ad nationally
that features a Wal-Mart worker whose company health
insurance covered his toddler son's treatments for life-threatening liver disease. "Without Wal-Mart,'' the father says, "I don't know that he would have made it."

But critics say the reality for too many Wal-Mart workers
and their families is no insurance - either because they
are unable to meet the company's eligibility requirements
or because they cannot afford monthly premiums as high as
$264 a month for family coverage on an $8-an-hour cashier's wage. Wal-Mart says its employees make $10 an hour on average.

Countering Wal-Mart's television ad, a California group supporting Proposition 72 has begun publicizing the case of a former Wal-Mart employee, Marco Guillen, who says he twice missed the company's annual enrollment deadline for health insurance. The first time, he said, was because he was confused about his eligibility. The second time, he said, was because he was in a coma after being in a car accident. His medical bills were about $1 million, he said, and were paid by the state's Medi-Cal version of Medicaid.

Wal-Mart declined to discuss the specifics of the case,
saying that doing so would violate Mr. Guillen's rights
under the federal laws governing patient privacy.

The company says it spent about $1.3 billion of its $256 billion in revenue last year on employee health care to insure about 537,000 people, or about 45 percent of its work force. Wal-Mart says that 23 percent of its employees are not eligible for coverage, but that it covers 58 percent of those who are.

That compares with an insured rate of 96 percent of
eligible full-time or part-time employees of Costco
Wholesale, the discount retailer that is Wal-Mart's closest competitor nationwide. Costco employees - most of whom are not represented by a union - become eligible for health insurance after three months working full time, or six months part time.

At Wal-Mart, which has no union employees, many who work
full time must wait six months to become eligible.
Part-time workers are not eligible for at least two years. Because of turnover, some employees never work long enough to become eligible.

If there is any place where Wal-Mart's labor costs find support, it is Wall Street, where Costco has taken a drubbing from analysts who say its labor costs are too high. Costco's pretax profit margin is only 2.7 percent of revenue, less than half Wal-Mart's margin of 5.5 percent.

Wal-Mart now asks employees to pay 33 percent of the
company's cost of providing insurance, but says it plans to reduce that to 30 percent. So far, Costco has resisted pressure to increase employees' share of health care premiums beyond a planned target of 8 percent in 2007, reasoning that too many of their workers would be forced to drop coverage.

"From the very beginning of time, the founders here felt
you have to pay a living wage and provide benefits," said Richard Galanti, the chief financial officer of Costco, which is based in Issaquah, Wash.

Wal-Mart finds itself up against a national tradition of providing health insurance to workers that took root during World War II, when wages were frozen and many companies offered health benefits in lieu of higher pay. After the war, unions at many big manufacturers also demanded generous benefits, and workers of all stripes throughout corporate America came to expect health insurance as a right of employment.

But in recent years, as global competition has become more intense, as organized labor has lost some of its clout and as medical costs have spiraled upward, employers have become increasingly unwilling to shoulder the cost of coverage. In 1987, only a quarter of the people working for large companies did not have insurance. By 2001, that figure had increased to about a third, according to a recent study by the Commonwealth Fund, a New York nonprofit group dedicated to health care research. Industry experts assume the percentage of working uninsured has continued to grow.

Other data indicate that of the 45 million people without health insurance in this country, nearly 70 percent are working full time or are the dependents of full-time workers.

Wal-Mart's rise to become the nation's biggest employer and largest retailer also speaks to a larger shift in the economy in the last generation, as a growing proportion of jobs shifted to service industries. Wal-Mart has succeeded because tens of millions of shoppers around the country flock to its stores for its sharply discounted prices. That business model, which is being widely imitated, depends on low-cost labor.

But government officials in various states, as well as some other employers, say Wal-Mart should nevertheless share more of the financial burden of its workers' health care.

"The Wal-Mart executives chose to remove the responsibility from themselves," said Mike Kreidler, the insurance commissioner for Washington State, who is pushing for a law requiring employers to provide insurance coverage either directly or indirectly.

Although Wal-Mart officials flatly deny it, some Wal-Mart employees say they are encouraged to turn to public health care assistance. When Wal-Mart hired Samantha Caizza, a single mother of three, as a cashier at its Chehalis, Wash., store last November, she says she was told by a personnel manager "to get ahold of the state" for coverage for her children.

Unlike many Wal-Mart workers, Ms. Caizza was willing to
talk to a reporter about her experience because she was
fired in June - for reasons she said had to do with union organizing activities. Wal-Mart said it could not comment on her case.

The company hands out instructions to its employees to help them to apply to social service agencies, which Wal-Mart says is simply part of the service they provide employees who need to have their income verified for any number of reasons.

Many employees say they simply cannot afford the health
plans being offered. Ms. Caizza, for example, worked about
32 hours a week, making $8 an hour. Full-time employees
make about $1,200 a month on those wages, meaning the $133
to $264 they are asked to pay for family coverage may not
be within their reach. And even the cheapest plans come
with a hefty out-of-pocket price for employees, where they
may be on the hook for as much as $13,000 in medical costs
for their families.

"While I was working there, I couldn't afford it for my children," said Beverly Winston, another former employee, who says she turned to state-subsidized coverage for her children while working at Wal-Mart in Renton, Wash., in the late 1990's. Ms. Winston is among the group of women around the nation now suing the company for sex discrimination.

"We work very hard for that to be affordable," said Ms. Chambers, the Wal-Mart executive, who said she thought the prices for the least expensive plans were "a very reasonable opening-price point.''

With the number of uninsured people in Washington climbing
- now slightly more than a half-million people, or 9.4
percent of the population by one estimate - the state is grappling with the rising costs of caring for them. "The problem is getting much worse," said Mr. Kreidler, who says the cost of caring for the uninsured in Washington now approaches $400 million a year.

Asking the hospitals to keep paying the rising cost of the uninsured is not a solution, Mr. Kreidler said.

But Wal-Mart says it is not reasonable to ask companies
like it to solve the problems of the uninsured and the escalating cost of medical care. It needs to be "part of a national debate," Ms. Chambers said.

NY Times

---------------------------------

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

-----Original Message-----
From: John
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 5:22 PM
To: Ben; Mom; Tom Atwell
Subject: FW: Vote progressive on CA ballot measures.

I voting
59 - YES
64 - NO
66 - YES
69 - NO
71 - YES
72 - NO

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Schurman, MoveOn.org [mailto:moveon-help@list.moveon.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 3:19 PM
To: John
Subject: Vote progressive on CA ballot measures.
On key ballot propositions,
we urge the following votes:
59: YES. Sunshine, Not Secrecy.
64: NO. Keep Your Right to Sue.
66: YES. Fix "Three Strikes" Law.
69: NO. DNA Databasing.
71: YES. Stem Cell Research.
72: YES. Workplace Health Insurance.
Dear MoveOn member in California,
As you prepare to vote, we'd like to highlight a few key questions that will be on the ballot. Your "YES" vote will be critical to passing these important progressive measures: * YES on Prop. 72: Keep Workplace Health Insurance
Proposition 72 simply re-affirms California's law requiring large and medium-sized businesses with 50 or more employees to pay for health insurance for working people. It does not affect "mom and pop" shops, neighborhood restaurants, or other such small businesses -- despite the scare tactics being used by big businesses who are trying to defeat it. With more and more Californians losing their insurance, Prop. 72 makes sure working families can see their own doctor, instead of having to depend on public services for health care. Prop. 72 is supported by doctors and nurses associations including the California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, American Cancer Society, and American Lung Association, and by small businesses and community, labor, church, consumer and seniors groups. Groups endorsing Prop. 72 include: Consumer's Union, ACLU of Southern California, League of Women Voters of California, AARP, California ACORN, Rock the Vote, and many more. It's opposed by big businesses like Wal-Mart and McDonalds who want taxpayers to pay for their workers' health care. We urge you to vote "YES" on Prop. 72. For more information on Proposition 72, see: http://www.YesOnProp72.com/ * YES on Prop. 59: Sunshine, Not Secrecy, in Government
Known as the California Sunshine Amendment, Proposition 59 would re-affirm California's strong new law requiring full public disclosure of the workings of our government. Over the years, California's sunshine laws have been eroded by special interests and secretive judges and government officials. Prop. 59 would create a new civil right in California: a constitutional right to see what our government is doing. It would expand the disclosures required of all public agencies, officials, and courts, and narrow their ability to keep secrets from us, the public. It would require the government to prove a legitimate need for secrecy before it denies us any public information, and at the same time, it would protect our constitutional right to privacy for private information. Prop. 59 passed unanimously in the Legislature. It's endorsed by the League of Women Voters, labor unions including AFSCME and the California Labor Federation, the California Newspaper Publishers Association, League of California Cities, AARP, Sierra Club, Progressive Jewish Alliance, and many other organizations. We urge you to vote "YES" on Prop. 59. For more information on Proposition 59, see: http://www.prop59.org/ * YES on Prop. 66: Fix California's Three Strikes Law
Voters in 1994 didn't envision 25-years-to-life prison sentences for stealing a videotape or a loaf of bread, but that's what happens too often under California's "Three Strikes And You're Out" law. Locking up non-violent offenders for life has led to gross injustices, and it's costing California taxpayers millions. Proposition 66 would restore the "Three Strikes" law's original intent -- dangerous felons would automatically get 25-to-life in prison for a violent third strike, while non-violent criminals would get normal sentences. It also toughens penalties for child abusers. Prop. 66 has its flaws -- arson or burglary when no one's home wouldn't count as a violent "third strike" -- but these are outweighed by the necessity of restoring justice to California's criminal sentencing system.
Prop. 66 is opposed by prosecutors, but it's supported by the Democratic and Green parties, by civil liberties, human rights, labor, church, and community groups, and by the editorial boards of California's four biggest newspapers. Groups supporting Prop. 66 include ACLU of Southern California, Democratic Women's Forum, Instituto Laboral de la Raza, Progressive Democratic Club, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, and the National Black Police Association. We encourage you to vote "YES" vote on Prop. 66. For more information on Proposition 66, see: http://www.yes66.org/ * YES on Prop. 71: Stem Cell Research in California
Proposition 71 would establish a legal right to conduct stem cell research in California, authorize $6 billion of state funding, and establish an institute to provide grants and loans to researchers. Scientists agree that stem cells hold the potential to cure agonizing diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, and common killers like diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. Prop. 71 is a bold effort to make California a world leader in the field, and to fight back against President Bush and his friends in Washington who have tried to cut off federal funding for this important research. Although Prop. 71 directs a lot of public money toward private research firms, it could lead to tremendous health and economic benefits for all Californians, and ultimately the world. Prop. 71 is endorsed by 28 Nobel Prize winners, and by California NOW (National Organization for Women), Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, California NAACP, California Medical Association, AIDS Research Alliance, Rock the Vote, and many more organizations. Brad Pitt and Governor Schwarzenegger support it too. We recommend a "YES" vote on Prop. 71. For more information on Proposition 71, see: http://www.yeson71.com/ Finally, here are two bad measures that need your "NO" vote to stop them:

* NO on Prop. 64: Keep Your Right to Sue Polluters and Crooked Companies
Big businesses are trying to gut California's Unfair Business Competition Law, the best corporate enforcement law in the nation. The law allows citizens to sue polluters and crooked companies that scam consumers; it's been used to bust companies that contaminated drinking water with chemicals, put up tobacco billboards near schools, and ripped off minorities with higher auto loan rates. Prop. 64 would take that right to sue away from citizens -- and that's why big business is bankrolling it. While it's true that a few greedy lawyers have abused the law by threatening unwarranted lawsuits, that's a small problem that's being wildly inflated in scare ads paid for by those big businesses.
Prop 64 is backed by $13 million from the likes of Phillip Morris, Exxon, and General Motors. It's opposed by environmental, labor, consumer, civil rights, and seniors groups, including the American Lung Association, Sierra Club, Consumers Union, AARP, and California Nurses Association, and by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. We urge you to vote "NO" on Prop. 64. For more information on Proposition 64, see: http://www.noonprop64.org/ * NO on Prop. 69: Don't Put Innocent People into a DNA Database

Prop. 69 wrongly equates arrest with guilt.
California law already requires a DNA database for convicted felons. But Proposition 69 would go overboard, by having the state collect DNA from anyone *arrested* for a felony -- not convicted, not proven guilty, just accused and arrested. Thousands of people mistakenly accused -- possibly including any of us -- would be tracked for life in a massive state criminal database, even if no crime was committed. DNA reveals intimate details about a person and his or her family -- including one's ethnic background, and any predisposition for diseases such as Alzheimer's, heart disease, and cancer. Innocent people don't belong in such an invasive government database.
Prop. 69 is opposed by California's Democratic, Green, and Libertarian parties, by the ACLU, AFL-CIO, League of Women Voters, Children's Defense Fund, Progressive Jewish Alliance, National Black Police Association, and more than 30 newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News, San Diego Union Tribune and Orange County Register. We urge you to vote "NO" on Prop. 69. For more information on Proposition 69, see: http://www.protectmydna.com/ We've attached links to editorials supporting these positions below. Thanks for your commitment to ensuring a bright future for California and America.
- Carrie, Joan, Lee, Marika, Noah, Peter, and Wes
The MoveOn.org Team
October 28th, 2004
P.S.: Here are a few key editorials supporting these positions: Yes on Prop. 72: Save Affordable Health Insurance San Francisco Bay Guardian, October 13, 2004
http://www.sfbg.com/39/02/news_endorsements.html
Super-Sized Deception From Fast-Food Giants Los Angeles Times, October 24, 2004 COMMENTARY By Eric Schlosser, author of "Fast Food Nation"
Yes on Prop 72
Yes on Prop. 59: A More Open Government Serves the State Sacramento Bee, September 16, 2004
Sacramento Bee
Yes on Prop 66: Vote for Three Strikes Reform Los Angeles Times, October 5, 2004
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-endthree5oct05,1,7646051.story
Yes on Prop. 71: Yes to Stem-Cell Research Los Angeles Times, October 3, 2004
LA Times
No on Proposition 64: It's a Shakedown of Public Protections Sacramento Bee, September 17, 2004
http://www.electionwatchdog.org/nw/nw000121.php
No on 69: A Risk-Filled Use of DNA Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2004
LA Times

Subscription Management:
This is a message from MoveOn.org. To remove yourself ( John ) from this list, please visit our subscription management page at: http://moveon.org/s?i=4885-3097489-3B.Tlq1.R42y9jUgO68fCQ

A Flimsy Pretext

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Random Google : internet map

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

Sunday, November 14, 2004

Fixed Sidebar/Banner

Friday, November 12, 2004

Why give birth control away for free when you can to the same for children?

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Prop 72

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

Eurobad '74

Previous Posts

Links

Archives