AAA Double Wrong on Propositions

John Seiler:

Today I got in the mail the Automobile Club of Southern California’s ballot recommendations, limited to four of them. I’ve belonged to AAA for 25 years, and have gotten their insurance for 23.

CEO Thomas V. McKernan writes:

Dear Southern California Neighbor:

After carefully analyzing the statewide propositions, we wanted to share with you our thoughts and information on four of the propositions that are particularly important.

They’re right on two propositions. They oppose Prop. 21, which would impose an $18 per car tax to fund state parks. Even if you don’t use them. (My better idea: Privatize the parks. Turn them over to Disney.)

And they back Prop. 26, which requires “fees” to be passed with a two-thirds vote of the people. That would prevent politicians from redefining taxes, which already require a two-thirds vote of the people, as “fees” that currently require only a majority vote.

But AAA crashes and burns on two important propositions. They write:

No on Proposition 19 – Legalizes marijuana, would increase drugged driving and traffic crashes, could allow employees to come to work high, and bans employers from being able to drug test their employees for marijuana.

That’s all wrong, as I explained yesterday. Unfortunately, McKernan and AAA are part of the state’s political establishment, which opposes Prop. 19. And if they’re worried about crashes, why don’t they favor banning alcohol, which causes far more deadly accidents than the hippie lettuce, as was done during alcohol Prohibition? Down with Demon Rum!

Finally, he writes:

YES on Proposition 22 — Protects road and transit money by prohibiting the state from raiding local gas and tax funds.

Actually, Prop. 22 would guarantee the funding of redevelopment agencies that rob citizens to benefit private special interests. Such robbery violates the Fourth Amendment right to not be deprived of property without due process, and the Commandment “Thou shalt not steal.” How would McKernan like it of the government, using Prop. 22, stole his home and gave it to some rich company like Walmart?

When I was younger, I would boycott AAA for this. But nowadays, I oppose so much that companies do I’d have to boycott almost everything.

They’re still wrong. And when my insurance expires in 11 months, I’ll consider something else.

Oh, and it’s too bad they didn’t back Prop. 23, the jobs-saving proposition that would suspend the jobs-killing AB 32. When Prop. 23 loses, gas prices are going to rise. What happened to protecting California drivers?

Nov. 1, 2010


Write a comment
  1. stevefromsacto
    stevefromsacto 2 November, 2010, 09:01

    Even on Election Day, John, you’re still beating the dead Prop, 23 horse.

    While my opinion of California voters is generally not high (see Schwarzenegger, Prop. 187, Prop. 13, etc.) they do seem to have some common sense when it comes to corporate interests trying to buy elections. They shot down PG&E earlier this year and Tesero and Vallero are going down today. And the same apparently holds for billionaires trying to buy the governorship.

    Reply this comment
  2. John Seiler
    John Seiler 2 November, 2010, 11:50

    But, Steve, what about the billionaires opposed to Prop. 23 and funding the anti-23 campaign? Meg Whitman, Bill Gates, James Cameron, etc.?

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Covered CA caught in Prop. 45 crossfire

On Proposition 45, some Democrats are feeling as if they got a transfusion of the wrong blood type. The initiative would give

Orange County congresswoman looking to climb leadership ladder

Congresswoman Mimi Walters is preparing a run for a high-ranking spot in House Republican leadership, the Irvine Republican confirmed on Monday.

CalWatchdog Morning Read – April 29

CA Republican Party convention kicks off Donald Trump holds contentious rally in Costa Mesa President Obama disappoints Armenian-Americans TGIF! Today