The chapter met and voted on recommendations for the upcoming election
** Santa Barbara DSA Ballot Recommendations
📚🌹📚
------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings, comrades!
Vote-by-mail ballots for the November 8 midterm election should be arriving soon, if they haven't already. On Sunday, DSA-Santa Barbara held a chapter meeting to vote on ballot recommendations. Thank you to our own Marcy Winograd for presenting propositions, John Douglas for looking into the school board races, and to everyone who came and participated! The summary is given below with reasoning given further below.
YES: Props 1,28, 29, 30, 31
NO: Prop 27
No recommendation: Prop 26
School board
* Goleta Union School Board
+ Richard Mayer
+ Emily Zacarias
+ Ethan Bertrand
* SB Unified School District Board of Trustees
+ Gabe Escobedo
+ Rose Munoz
* SBCC Board of Trustees
+ Charlotte Gullap-Moore
+ Jonathan Abboud
+ Marsha Croninger
* SB County Board of Education
+ Marybeth Carty
Reasoning for proposition recommendations:
* Prop 1 - Recommend YES
+ Amends the California constitution to include a person's right to reproductive freedom
+ Arguments for: We believe in reproductive freedom, which is in danger after the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade.
* Prop 26 - No recommendation
+ Allows some in-person sports betting at racetracks and trival casinos. Requires racetracks and casinos that offer sports betting to make certain payments to the state
+ Arguments for: A broad coalition of California Indian tribes supports Prop 26 because it will promote self-reliance for all tribes, including smaller and non-gaming tribes. Prop 26 will increase funds for revenue sharing agreements that provide tens of millions every year to California's smaller, poorer Indian tribes. Indian gaming has helped lift tribes out of poverty - creating jobs and providing revenues for critical tribal services including education, healthcare, housing, public safety, and cultural preservation. In light of the (ongoing) history of colonialism, genocide, and disregard for the people who lived in California before we stole the land, we should generally support tribal sovereignty.
+ Arguments against: Gambling is effectively a tax on the poor, which DSA opposes. We should not allow more of it. Horseracing is nothing less than animal cruelty, and we should not support a system of profiting off of it. PETA says "between 700 and 800 racehorses are injured and die every year, with a national average of about two breakdowns for every 1,000 starts. According to The Jockey Club's Equine Injury Database, nearly 10 horses died every week at American racetracks in 2018." While the tribes are in favor of Prop 26, it seems a few of the large ones will be benefitting most. We don't actually know what the others think of the proposition.
* Prop 27 - Recommend NO
+ Allows online and mobile sports wagering outside tribal lands
+ Arguments against: Gambling is effectively a tax on the poor, which DSA opposes. There is some fear that online gambling will enable gambling among children. Prop 27 is supported by large gambling corporations outside California that we don't feel any need to support.
* Prop 28 - Recommend YES
+ Provides additional funding for arts and music in public schools from the California General Fund
+ Arguments for: Arts and music are constantly underfunded, and have been especially hard hit by 2008 funding cuts. The source of funds could be better, but funding for arts and music is better than no funding.
+ Arguments against: The money comes from the General Fund instead of taxes on the rich.
* Prop 29 - Recommend YES
+ Requires all dialysis clinics to have a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant on-site during all treatment hours
+ Arguments for: While dialysis corporations are making billions across the United States, they shortchange patients by not staffing dialysis clinics with doctors and nurse practitioners. Instead, clinics rely on publicly-funded 911 emergency services when complications arise. That these corporations are making the standard threat to close if this proposition passes is another reason to vote for it and expose the empty threat.
* Prop 30 - Recommend YES
+ Places a 1.75% tax on income over $2 million to reduce air pollution and prevent wildfires. Specifically, 80% of the 20-year revenue stream would go toward making zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), such as cars, vans, and pick-up trucks, more affordable and to installing ZEV charging stations. The remaining 20% would go to wildfire education and prevention
+ Arguments for: It is rare that we have a real opportunity to tax the rich. Even if for no other reason, this bill is good for establishing a precedent for taxing the rich. While electric cars are not the answer to transportation needs, at least they address the greatest source of air pollution in the state. Wildfires also produce a large amount of air pollution, and funding for prevention is needed. California has the worst air pollution in the country. Gov. Newsom argues this is a gift to Lyft and that he has already set aside money for electrification and wildfire prevention. While these are true, the money he has set aside is not a 20-year revenue stream, and the benefit to Lyft is also a benefit to the drivers who own the cars they drive. Furthermore, half of the money must be spent on projects that benefit people who live in or near heavily polluted and/or low-income communities.
+ Arguments against: This would be a state subsidy for Lyft (who is funding the YES campaign) to electrify its drivers' cars. Also, electric cars are not an answer. They still produce pollution, road debris, and car deaths. We need to start driving less entirely. Finally, taxing the rich is good, but because of Prop 13, California continues not to tax where most of the state's wealth is: property.
+ Supported by: Lyft, American Lung Association, Union of Concerned Scientists, CA Democratic Party
+ Opposed by: CA Republican Party, Gov. Gavin Newsom, CA Chamber of Commerce, CA Teachers Association
* Prop 31 - Recommend YES
+ Referendum on a 2020 law prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products
+ Arguments for: The LA Times says "Flavors in tobacco products are uniquely harmful because they mask the harsh taste of tobacco and can lure in new and often young users and get them hooked. Studies have shown year after year that the vast majority of tobacco users under 18 first tried flavored tobacco products." A law was already passed to ban flavored tobacco, and it is being challenged by the industry.
If the workers of the world want to win, all they have to do is recognize their own solidarity. They have nothing to do but fold their arms and the world will stop. The workers are more powerful with their hands in their pockets than all the property of the capitalists.
- Joseph Ettor, IWW Labor Organizer
** Building a Better Future
------------------------------------------------------------
Organize with us as we fight for a habitable planet and a just future.
In Solidarity,
Aaron, Tara, Andrew, Zac & John
DSA Santa Barbara Steering Committee
🌹🐬
Chapter Calendar ([link removed])
============================================================
** Facebook ([link removed])
** Twitter ([link removed])
** Link ([link removed])
** Website ([link removed])
Copyright © 2022 DSA Santa Barbara, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.
Our mailing address is:
DSA Santa Barbara
2012 Castillo St
Apt C
Santa Barbara, Ca 93105
USA
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
