Penny's Picks for June 5, 2012 Primary Election - California State & San Diego County

Penny’s Picks

June 5, 2012 Primary Election

San Diego County

 

Who is Penny?  Penny Harrington is a close friend who is a highly respected conservative political and legislative analyst who is a Christian and uses the lens of a biblical worldview. She has been publishing "Penny's Picks" for years now, as a voting aid for Christian conservatives here in southern California.  I have found her wise analysis and advice to be invaluable in making my own decisions at election time. For more info on Penny, see a brief bio at the bottom of these recommendations.  What follows are Penny's words and picks.

 ____________________________

Chief among the factors to consider when reviewing candidates from a conservative biblical worldview are their positions on essential core values: the sanctity of life, the preservation of traditional heterosexual marriage, religious liberty, smaller government, original constitutional intent and lower taxes so that families and businesses can thrive.  Other considerations include how a candidate matches up against the others in the race in terms of electability (particularly important with the change to a top-two primary system), character (to the extent that this can be known) and experience.

 

There are no “perfect” candidates.  More often than we would like, the choices may be difficult.  Perhaps neither candidate is acceptable from a biblical worldview.  Try not to think in terms of voting for the lesser of two evils, but of voting for the candidate who would do the greater good in office, or of choosing the one who would keep the greater evil from occurring.  Strategically, this may mean that you consider voting for a less conservative candidate than desirable to avoid two even more undesirable candidates moving to the November ballot.  If you are uncertain about a race, leaving an office blank does not invalidate your ballot, nor does voting for less than the number of available seats.

 

The following are my personal recommendations and not those of any organization(s) with which I am involved.

 

Republican Ballot

President:  Mitt Romney  

 

Republican County Central Committee - 71^st Assembly District

Eric Andersen

Jim Kelly

Dan Summers

 

Republican County Central Committee - 75^th Assembly District

Donald Burgett

Lee J. De Meo

Stephen Guffanti

Maureen Guffanti

 

Republican County Central Committee - 76^th Assembly District

Sandy Waecker

Judy Rees

Sherry Hodges

 

Republican County Central Committee - 77^th Assembly District

Randy Berholz

Jeannie Foulkrod

Ani Mdivani-Morrow

Scott Rieker

Lynette Williams

 

Republican County Central Committee - 78^th Assembly District

Barbara Decker

Julio DeGuzman

Dan Holstein

Mia Freymiller

 

Republican County Central Committee - 79^th Assembly District

Bill Baber

Myssie McCann

 

 

Nonpartisan Ballot

 

Federal Offices

 

U.S. Senate:  Dan Hughes  

 

U.S. Representative

Dist 49 – Darrell Issa

Dist. 50 – Duncan Hunter

Dist. 52 – Brian Bilbray (Not the most conservative candidate, but the best equipped to face Scott Peters, the likely top-two winner from the left – and Rep. Bilbray has received some strongly conservative scores in the past two years, such as a 0% from Planned Parenthood, 100% from National Right to Life, an "F" from the NEA, 100% from Eagle Forum, and 94% from AFA.)

Dist. 53 – Nick Popaditch

 

State Senator

Dist. 39 – George Plescia

 

State Assembly

Dist. 71 – Brian Jones

Dist. 75 – Marie Waldron

Dist. 76 – Sherry Hodges

Dist. 77 – Dustin Steiner

 

Judicial

Judge of Superior Court Office No. 24 – David Berry

Judge of Superior Court Office No. 25 – Jim Miller

Judge of Superior Court Office No. 34 – Gary Kreep

 

County Board of Education

2^nd District – Jerry Rindone

4^th District – John Rajcic

 

School/College Boards

San Diego Comm. College – District B – Scott Hasson

San Diego Unified Schools – District A – Mark Powell

 

Cities

San Diego

Mayor – Unfortunately, no candidate on the ballot holds core Biblical positions supporting life, marriage, family and religious freedom; I have no recommendation among them.  If you are looking for an alternative candidate, Woody Woodrum is running as a write-in.

 

Council Dist. 1 – Ray Ellis

Council Dist. 7 – Scott Sherman

 

STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS  (See Kacer’s Call below for more details)

Prop 28 – No

Prop 29 – No

 

San Diego City Propositions

Prop A – Yes

Prop B – Yes

 

Kacer’s Call

Christian Citizenship Council’s Frank Kacer outlines the statewide and San Diego City props

Note: “(C)” following Proposition Number indicates a State Constitution change; “(S)” a Statute change

 

Prop 28 (C): Legislative Term Limits Reform Act of 2012 – Oppose (No)

Concerns:Incumbents will have a significant advantage, once elected to Assembly or Senate they could serve 12 consecutive years (6 terms or 3 terms, respectively) in that chamber with little opposition, decreasing effect of current term limits.  Term limits don’t in and of themselves improve the Legislature.  Active participation (accountability) in elections is the key, not artificial restrictions.

 

Consider:While term limits can remove corrupt but powerful politicians, it also removes solid, effective ones (Prov 22:29).  Absence of any term limits can breed powerful, entrenched representatives insulated from the public (Prov 17:8). Single term limits would have littlerestraining effect because of the lack of re-election pressures.  Balance seems appropriate.  Extending current time allowed in either chamber will tend to minimize accountability and reduce opportunity for newrepresentatives to reflect general public concerns (Prov 11:14)

 

Prop 29 (S): Imposes Additional Tax on Cigarettes for Cancer Research – Oppose (No)

Concerns: Oversight Committee making grant and loan decisions are from organizations that can compete for funds (conflict of interest) (Prov 17:8). Increases size of government. Continues expansion ofgovernment attempts to manipulate legal behavior; Taxing of distributors prior to sales tax sets pattern for double taxation (buys state & local support).

 

Consider: State has record of using new revenue sources to replace existing, related appropriations (like Lottery & school funding bait and switch) thus it’s an indirect general revenue increase (Prov 20:14). Increasing tax revenue when state has massive overspending deficit is not fiscally responsible (Prov 13:11). Is government’s role to discourage activity (declare it bad) then benefit from it (Rom 3:8; Prov 17:26a)?  Is purpose to improve health, protect children & decrease healthcare costs (No – can buy on Internet or out of state); increase effective tax base for the State (Yes)

 

Proposition A: Prohibits Requirement for Project Labor Agreements in Construction Projects – Support (Yes)

Concerns:  Government is to be a good steward of tax moneys (Deaconal role; Romans 13:4,6).  Government should seek most cost-effective approach to all necessary work. Discrimination based on arbitrary factors is unjust (e.g. companies with or without PLAs).  

 

Consider:  Discriminating using irrelevant factors is unjust (Deut 1: 17; Proverbs 11:1; 20:10, 23). Limited pre-selection reduces opportunity for most cost-effective option/solution (Proverbs 22:29). Posting relevant information allows public assessment of bias or pejorative treatment of bidders (Eph 5:13; John 3:20). Discriminatory decisions based on potential ccess to state/federal funds is doing wrong to gain benefit (Roman 3:8)

 

Proposition B: Comprehensive Pension Reform – Support (Yes)

Concerns:  Estimates of expected/future costs or savings are very difficult to evaluate on either side.  Implications of the proposed reforms are difficult to assess. Government is required to dispense justice, not provide life-long benefits with no return for the future cost.  

 

Consider:  Family member is responsible to provide for family (1 Tim 5:8), not government. Personal responsibility implies saving/investing in work years to provide during non-work years (Prov 6:6-8; 13:11).  The worker is worth his wages (1 Tim 5:18), particularly those in hazardous duty, but obligating taxpayers to decades of high financial obligation during non-work years is not providing value to city.  Future government obligation can be presumption on future (James 4:13-16), better to reward accordingly during career when revenues are known, than into far future which is volatile. Making changes without substantive impact on current employees is prudent – honoring current obligations (Eccl 5:4-6). Prop makes costs more visible since pay increases must be approved by 2/3 vote of city council (John 3:20).

 

For other local propositions, please check the FamilyVoterInfo guide page 2 (www.familyvoterinfo.org) to see how various groups line up on these issues.