We're just ordinary people...

And we get the chance to shape history and the future!
Yes, as dorky as that sounds, I do believe in the process of voting and the engagement of people, particularly people of color and other marginalized groups, in the democratic process.

With Super Tuesday just HOURS away, I present to you my Voter's Guide to the Presidential Primaries (for the residents of Los Angeles):

Propositions:
Proposition 91 (aka the one about transportation funding)
Yes: http//www.yeson91.net
No: none available (see above)
Haven't heard about this one? Haven't see any ads on late-night television? That's because the supporters pulled their support for this one. It says that it would prohibit gasoline tax money from being left in the general fund (instead of being put in the Transportation Investment Fund). Prop 1A back in November provides the protection for our gas tax, so Prop 91 really isn't needed anymore. If you look at the "pro" argument in your ballot guide, you'll actually see that the proponents are telling you to vote NO.
Tina says vote NO on Proposition 91 because she doesn't like to be redundant.

Proposition 92 (aka the one about community colleges)
Yes: http://www.prop92yes.com
No: http//www.noprop92.org
The proposition basically says that California community colleges will have an independent governing body (a little like the UCs), limit student fees to $15 per unit/semester and future increases, and provides a formula for community college budget appropriation from the legislature. Simply put, it would guarantee a certain amount of money for community colleges from the state and thus would allow student fees to remain steady and provide some amount of independence for the community college system.
Supporters say that it will lower student fees (currently it costs $20 per unit/semester), while establishing a way for community colleges to have stable funding in the future. Opponents argue that this proposition would lock in a spending mandate for the state, without a way to pay for it without cutting into other programs.
Community college funding, like other public higher education funding, comes from the state's General Fund. Now that's in the same pool as other programs like healthcare, prisons, and K-12 education funding. Public higher education programs generally see the ax during hard financial times for the state, being bumped further down on the funding totem pole, so it's understandable that the powers-that-be of the community colleges would want to protect itself. While I agree that public education needs to be prioritized by the state and its elected leaders, I don't know if this is the best way to go about it, especially without the consideration of the other higher ed institutions in the state, like the CSUs and the UCs who will be impacted by this change. My vote for this one is a little hesitant, but ultimately...
Tina says vote NO on Proposition 92 because it doesn't seem like the best solution to the funding problem.

Proposition 93 (aka the one about term limits)
Yes: http://www.termlimitsreform.com
No: http://www.stopthepoliticians.com
Term limits. Political junkies care. Elected officials care. I get the feeling that everyone else... doesn't care very much. However, term limits has a lot to do with how we are governed. This mildly confusing proposition would basically change the maximum number of years allowed in office (at the state legislative level) from 14 years to 12 years. It also changes how one can spend their time in the State Legislature. Right now if you were a career politician you are limited to six years (three 2-year terms) in the Assembly and eight years (two 4-year terms) in the Senate. The proposition would change this so you could spend your entire 12 years in either house (so six 2-year terms in the Assembly or three 4-year terms in the State Senate).
The contentious part of this Proposition is the "transition" clause. It says that in order to allow for the transition of this law, current elected officials could spend a consecutive 12-years in their current house of legislature, regardless of service in either house.
Proponents say that this change would make our government more effective, by balancing new legislators (with their new ideas and new energy) with experienced legislators who have had the time to learn the system, become savvy to California politics, and implement large-term projects. Opponents say that the proposition is written to scam the voters and is actually a trick to lengthen the time politicians could stay in office (that "transition" part of the proposition). The opponents identified 42 incumbent politicians who would benefit from this transition piece.
Tina says vote YES on Proposition 93 because politicians are going to find a way to stay in politics, so let's at least make it so they are doing something while they're playing the game.

Propositions 94-97 (aka the one about Indian gaming)
Yes: http://www.yesforcalifornia.com
No: http//www.nounfairdeals.com
The ever-so contentious gaming propositions. Why is that anytime Indian gaming is talked about it becomes a very furious, very public battle? Native Americans get characterized as both too poor and too greedy in the same breath, simultaneously being cheated by and cheating the government. The four propositions are lumped together because each is the same compact with four different gaming tribes. The propositions would basically allow each tribe to add 5,500 slot machines at their respective casinos, would omit some projects done by the tribes from the purview of the California Environmental Quality Act (and put it under the Tribal Environmental Impact Report), and have the tribes pay $42,500,000 to the state plus a percentage from those slot machines.
Proponents say that it will generate much needed revenue for the state (read: we're broke and we need money!), create jobs, and shares money with other tribes that don't have gaming across the state. Opponents say that these propositions will rapidly expand gambling in the state, would allow tribal casinos to skirt environmental laws, wouldn't protect casino workers, and ultimately could be manipulated so that these large tribes don't really pay their full share to the state.
Again, a hard set of propositions to make a firm decision on. It makes me a little queasy that they won't fall under CEQA. However, given that tribal communities are sovereign nations, they SHOULDN'T have to fall under CEQA. I could honestly care less whether or not these casinos expand (despite the argument that Asian Americans have a gambling problem and expanding casinos would cause more problems for Asian Americans). I also wonder what guarantees are in place so that smaller tribes are also benefiting from the expansion. Given all of these questions...
Tina says NO on Propositions 94-97 because there's a hierarchy within tribes too and that shit just ain't fair.

Measure S (aka the one about the phone tax)
Yes: http://www.propsfacts.com
No: http://noonprops.com
Ahh, Measure S. I should fully disclose at this point that I have worked on this campaign, so while I will attempt to be fair and balanced in my analysis of this measure, I have been on the "yes" side for the last four weeks. The measure basically would change an existing telephone tax on a couple of points. First, it would reduce the existing tax from 10 percent to 9 percent. Second, it would change the language of the tax to cover most telecommunications (so, things like T1 lines that would be setup to provide voice communications would now be included). Two basic changes that are causing a huge uproar. It would maintain the exemption of low-income senior citizens and disabled people, non-profit educational organizations, some media organizations, and a 5% tax for telecommunications companies.
The proponents say that the tax would be fairer because it closes a corporate loophole that kept them from paying their fair share of the tax (that whole use of T1 lines for voice communications). And, it would NOT tax the Internet. The funding is a necessary part of the general fund that provides money for public safety programs, city services, parks and recreations, etc. The opponents say that the tax is illegal, as it is sitting in the appellate court due to a snafu with collection on cellphone usage. It would ultimately be a tax increase, rather than a tax reduction because it would tax more forms of telecommunications.
The pro side and the con side seem to be contradicting each other, right? Right.
Here's the real info. Yes, it is a tax reduction from 10 percent to 9 percent. Yes, it will tax your cellphone calls, but this has already been done and will continue to happen. The appellate courts are deciding whether or not this can happen and under what circumstances it can happen, so while one could argue that a part of the existing tax should not be collected, one cannot argue the ENTIRE tax shouldn't be collected. It won't tax the Internet. Federal law says that the Internet is not to be taxed and there exists a clear line in the law that says that it will follow state and federal laws first and foremost. Yes, there are some companies, organizations, and individuals that will be exempt or have differing versions of the law, but this is how it always was.
I will say this. We have a $155 million projected shortfall in the city's budget. Do we really want to shoot ourselves in the foot by saying that we won't collect anywhere between $240-273 million in the future? If we don't pass this measure, it'll be continued to be collected until a court decision is made. If we pass it, we firmly say that we will collect it and we will collect it in a perfectly legal matter. We need some way to fund our public services...
Tina says vote YES on Measure S (aka Prop S) because it's not really that complicated and we seriously need the money.


Democratic Presidential Primary
Barack: http//www.barackobama.com
Hillary: http://www.hillaryclinton.com
I'm only doing the Democratic Primary candidates because I don't think I would do the Republicans any justice by talking about them. I could try, but it would just be a waste of time for everyone.

We have two candidates left on our ballot (I mean, you are totally free to vote your conscience and vote for some of the other candidates like Edwards or Kucinich, but your vote would seriously be going nowhere...). Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Let's be honest. Both are pretty middle-of-the-road candidates. They have questionable policies on a lot of different issues, be it the war in Iraq, immigration, or healthcare. Clinton voted for the war, while Obama came out against it. Both haven't really done much lately to stop it from continuing. Clinton and Obama both talk about "comprehensive immigration reform," a reform that involves sending people "back to the end of the line." (Question, with the line to enter the United States always growing, where does the "end of the line" start?) One touts experience, while the other promises change. Both would be historic nominees of the Democratic party.
So how does one choose?
I don't imagine either of their policy positions being shockingly to the left. They will both be competent at playing the middle, pulling in those moderate Republicans. Word is, Obama has a better shot against McCain (assuming he is the Republican nominee) than Clinton in the general elections. If you're shooting for the anyone-but-a-republican candidate, than that might help sway your decision.
Bottom line is, both candidates are quite exciting. Both are trying to mobilize groups of voters that get very little attention in this country. (Now if one of them would start courting the Asian American vote, I'm totally in). The question is, who will be able to attract the other's votes for the general elections. Who won't lose members of the excited Democratic Party if they win the nomination?
I'll be honest. I have more faith in Obama, if one could have any amount of faith in an elected official, particularly a national one. I prefer his background to hers (working as a community organizer in Chicago) and the excitement he causes amongst typically disenfranchised voters. His youthfulness could potentially carry young people into a new era of civic engagement. Clinton might have the experience and she may have done good things in her career, but she can't promise the same thing to me.
If I had my way, I'd vote for Jed Bartlett-like candidate, but that isn't going to happen so...
Tina says vote for OBAMA for the Democratic nominee for President because Michelle Obama would make a badass First Spouse.


If this wasn't enough for you, check out www.smartvoter.org, a comprehensive voter guide (the official, really). And do some research. You owe it to yourself, you ordinary person... because dammit, you can do some extraordinary things.