Posts Tagged ‘Editorial’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Prop. 16: No – Prop. 17: No

May 25th, 2010

Editorial, THE VENTURA COUNTY STAR

Propositions 16 and 17 on the June 8 ballot might be compared to the sound of glass breaking at 3 a.m. on a dark night. The outcome isn’t entirely predictable, but it’s more likely to be bad than good for you.

These two initiatives deal with separate issues — electricity and car insurance — but they have something in common. Each was put on the ballot by a business seeking its own advantage and willing to provide virtually all of the initiative’s support at a cost of millions of dollars.

Proposition 16 is constitutional amendment for the self-protection of Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which operates in Northern California. Southern California Edison has not taken a position on it.

Proposition 16 would make it harder for communities to exercise their right to set up electricity-buying cooperatives known as “community choice aggregation,” which can provide residents with an alternative to their local power company. It’s been done in Marin County to promote renewable energy sources.

Proposition 16 would impose a new requirement — approval by two-thirds of voters. Two-thirds approval also would be required before a publicly owned utility could expand its service territory — something PG&E has fought at the ballot box.

Consumers won’t benefit from either of those proposed changes. Members of electricity-buying coops already have the right to opt out at no cost during the first five months, and consumers stand to benefit more without the straightjacket of a two-thirds vote for municipal-utility expansion.

Proposition 17 received the overwhelming portion of its funding from its sponsor, Mercury Insurance Co.

State law allows car-insurance companies to give their longtime customers a “persistency” discount, and Proposition 17 would let consumers transfer it if they switch to a competing insurance company. The problem is that car-insurance rates are a zero-sum game, so Proposition 17 automatically would cause surcharges to be levied on other customers, according to an analysis by the state Department of Insurance.

Critics also are skeptical of promises of new discounts by Mercury Insurance as the Department of Insurance last month accused it of overcharging customers.

The warning signs are evident with Propositions 16 and 17. We recommend voting no on both.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorials | Comments Off

Vote ‘No’ On This Tricky Measure

May 23rd, 2010

By Editorial, THE SAN BERNARDINO SUN

Frankly, there’s little credibility in a major insurance company spending beaucoup bucks on a ballot measure just so it can offer motorists a discount.

But that is what Mercury Insurance wants you to swallow. The insurance giant says it is spending millions on Proposition 17 so it can offer California motorists a “continuous coverage discount” if you switch insurance carriers to Mercury, something they can’t offer now except to their own clients. Their commercials say their ballot measure will reduce your car insurance premiums by hundreds of dollars.

Consumer groups and others have tested these claims by asking a knowledgable third party, the California Department of Insurance.

Guess what? The CDI analysis says no, this goes against the ratemaking principles established in state law of “zero-sum.” The CDI concluded: “If an insurer offers a continuous coverage discount for some drivers it will result in a surcharge for other drivers. This is because automobile insurance discounts and surcharges must offset one another so that each rating factor applied by an insurer is evenly balanced within the insurer’s rating plan.”

In short, there will be winners and losers if Proposition 17 passes. Some will save money but many more will pay more for car insurance. After all, Mercury isn’t spending millions on its own hand-written ballot measure to lose money.

What others say, such as Consumer Watchdog, is that if Proposition 17 is approved automobile insurance companies will then be able to tack on surcharges to these folks:

Senior citizens who’ve stopped driving for whatever reasons – surgery, hospitalization – and then restarted their insurance.

Members of the armed forces stationed in the United States when they return and restart their insurance. That’s right, Proposition 17 penalizes those in the military serving stateside.

Someone who lost a job and stopped driving, then started driving again after finding a job. Or anyone taking public transit who returned to driving. Or someone who was in college and couldn’t afford a car, but now can.

Worst of all, Proposition 17 hurts those who have gone without insurance by adding the “lapse surcharge” when they sign up – and the surcharge lasts five years, while the discount is just for six months. Think about it. For those who abide by the law and buy car insurance, it is in their best interest to encourage those driving without it to get insurance. By adding surcharges to new start-ups, Proposition 17 discourages drivers from buying first-time insurance and increases the chances of being hit by an uninsured driver.

We can’t trust Mercury Insurance or any big, special interest that goes out and buys a ballot proposition. Vote “no” on Proposition 17.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorials | Comments Off

Proposition 14 Gets a Tough ‘Yes’

May 23rd, 2010

Editorial, THE MONTEREY COUNTY HERALD

Four of the five propositions on California’s June 8 ballot are slam-dunk, easy-call, no-contest pieces of political cake, or at least that’s how it seems to us.

The tough one is Proposition 14, which is intended to reform the political primary system. It deserves support despite a rough spot that actually could create problems as large as those it aims to fix.

But let’s start with the simpler ones.

Proposition 13: Opposed by almost no one, not even the Howard Jarvis folks, it would provide tax breaks to owners of unreinforced masonry buildings if they make their structures safer. It seems to be a small price. Yes.

Proposition 15: This creates an experiment with public campaign financing, a public financing system for the next two elections for California secretary of state. The money would come from a tax on lobbyists and their employers. Those opposed say it would give more power to government employees and their unions. They don’t explain that the reason they would have more power is that even bigger corporate spenders would have less power. Yes.

Proposition 16: Written by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., it is designed to protect the giant utility from municipal takeover efforts by setting up a nearly impossible requirement of a two-thirds vote. No.

Proposition 17: Another special-interest boondoggle, this one was written by Mercury Insurance to punch loopholes in existing state law limiting increases in auto insurance premiums. It is made to look like a consumer-protection measure, but don’t be fooled. No.

OK, to the tougher one.

Proposition 14 would create an open California primary in races for Congress, the Legislature, the governor and other statewide offices. There would be no party primaries, like the one we face June 8. Instead, all candidates would run in one race and the two top vote-getters would advance to a runoff.

The political parties don’t like this one because it would make them less relevant, which is largely the point. Backers of Proposition 14 argue that it would move candidates toward the middle. That is because rather than appealing only to their party’s core, the way gubernatorial candidates Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner are now pandering almost exclusively to the conservative side of the GOP, the candidates would try to seek votes from everyone.

That sounds good, but it seems that it would be too easy for rich candidates, such as Republicans Whitman and Poizner, to spend lots of money early to the point of overwhelming candidates of other persuasions.

Though this would not take effect this year, envisioning a November “runoff” between Whitman and Poizner, with no Democrat to coax them anywhere near the middle, gives us very serious pause.

But if time has taught us one thing, it is that when the League of Women Voters is on one side and the party bosses are on the other side, the LWV probably has it right. We’ll go with a yes.

The Herald recommends:
Supervisor District 2: Lou Calcagno
Monterey County Sheriff: Scott Miller
County schools superintendent: Donna Vaughan
Treasurer/tax collector: Mary Zeeb
Proposition 13, earthquake retrofit: YES
Proposition 14, open primaries: YES
Proposition 15, public campaign financing: YES
Proposition 16, PG&E monopoly protection: NO
Proposition 17, Mercury Insurance premium loopholes: NO

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorials | Comments Off

Propositions – 2010 Election Endorsements

May 20th, 2010

Editorial – The Santa Barbara Independent

As a general rule, The Santa Barbara Independent has come to regard any and all statewide ballot measures as guilty until proven innocent: guilty of unintended consequences; guilty of being wolves in sheep’s clothing; guilty of being unnecessary; and guilty of messing things up for no good reason. For the paper to endorse any proposition, we must be convinced that the measure is necessary and will do only what it says it will do. As a result, we are only supporting one of this June’s ballot measures.

Prop. 13: Yes

Property Tax Exemption on Seismic Retrofits

Currently, state law exempts earthquake upgrades from property tax assessments. This eliminates a possible disincentive for property owners wanting to make a necessary safety improvement. Prop. 13 would extend this practice and policy indefinitely. (If voted down, the policy will continue for another 15 years, but then be phased out.) It’s worth noting that this measure was unanimously endorsed by both houses of the State Legislature and that no group or individuals are campaigning against it.

Prop. 14: No

Top Two Vote-Getters ‘Open’ Primary

Given how vehemently the Democratic and Republican parties have come out against Prop. 14, we’re sorry to report that we can’t support it. At a time when California needs a head-to-toe tourniquet, Prop. 14 is only a Band-Aid. While it might do some good — should it survive the inevitable court challenges — it doesn’t come close to addressing the root problems generating Sacramento’s systemic dysfunction.

Prop. 14 was placed on the ballot at the insistence of State Senator Abel Maldonado — a rare Republican moderate — who demanded it as a concession for his deadlock-breaking vote in support of last year’s budget. Maldonado’s solution to legislative gridlock is to change the way elections are held. He dreams that Prop. 14 will help elect moderate candidates, more in touch with mainstream voters rather than the partisan extremists who’ve flourished by appealing to both parties’ activist bases. And it is these activist bases who wield the most influence in the primaries.

Under Prop. 14, members of any party can vote for any candidate of their choice during a primary, regardless of that candidate’s party. The top two vote-getters — again, regardless of party affiliation — would then face off in the general election. Independent or third-party candidates who didn’t make the final cut would not make it on the general election ballot, as they would under the existing system. It would also be possible for candidates of the same party to face one another in the general election. And it would be up to the candidates themselves to decide whether to identify their party affiliation to voters.

Proponents point out that every year more and more voters leave the traditional two parties. Because of this, the current system effectively disenfranchises a perilously large number of voters by preventing them from casting their ballots when it counts the most — in primary elections.

Maybe Prop. 14 would usher in a new era of reasoned moderation, but similar systems in other states have proved inconclusive. Our chief quarrel with Prop. 14, however, is that it will not solve any of the four most disruptive aspects obstacles to sensible legislation in Sacramento: (1) to pass a budget or levy a new tax a two-thirds majority vote is required; (2) the outrageous gerrymandering of voting districts all but guarantees the reelection of incumbents; (3) term limits, the result of a proposition intended to rectify incumbent invincibility, has instead turned the Legislature into a revolving door where no one can establish the collegial relationships essential for political compromise; (4) lastly, the initiative process itself — designed to empower voters to counter the might of “special interests” — has largely become a tool for, of, and by the special interests. The passage of Prop. 14 in the absence of these more meaningful reforms will accomplish little, if anything.

Prop 15: No

Allows Public Financing for Candidates, Secretary of State

In a highly theoretical universe, Prop. 15 would be recognized as a positive step forward. Unfortunately, that is not the universe in which most voters, politicians, and campaign donors dwell. If passed, Prop. 15 would tax state lobbyists, raising $6 million to be used in Secretary of State races for candidates who have accepted voluntary campaign limits. Instead, using less than half that amount, the state should pioneer meaningful improvements in reporting campaign donations and figure out better ways to disseminate that information to the public. At least that way, voters might be better informed about which special interests are backing which candidates and pick their poisons accordingly. The fine print of Prop. 15 stipulates that it would apply for only two election cycles. Presumably, in that time we will have figured out something better.

Prop 16: No

Two-thirds Vote Requirement for Local Providers

If truth in advertising laws had any teeth, this initiative would be renamed the Monopoly Protection Act, brought to you by — and for the benefit of — PG&E, which to date has spent $30 million trying to persuade voters to endorse a measure that runs counter to their own best interests. If approved, Prop. 16 would require local governments to get approval from two-thirds of the electorate before attempting to contract with any electricity providers other than big investor-owned utilities, like PG&E. Currently, many local governments are exploring arrangements — known as Community Choice — that supplement the energy they purchase from big utility companies with other supplies. So far, only one municipality has actually done so. Community Choice is seen by alternative energy advocates as a promising strategy by which California can increase its reliance upon non-fossil fuel energy sources. Big utilities, like PG&E, bristle at being required to share their transmission lines with these new providers. And they recoil at the prospect of actual competition, however limited. To discourage such competitors from ever materializing, PG&E has conjured this legislative hat trick, which they’ve presented as a taxpayer protection plan. Two-thirds majorities are notoriously difficult to achieve under even the most harmonious of circumstances. In the face of any controversy, they’re all but impossible. And that, of course, is the entire point.

Prop 17: No

Auto Insurance Continuous Policy Driver Rate Change

Yes, Virginia, there really is a Santa Claus. Mercury Insurance, we are led to believe, is spending $10 million to persuade the voters of Prop. 17’s virtues so it can charge auto insurance customers on average $250 a year less. Mercury claims it’s attempting to amend a voter initiative passed in 1988 so that auto insurance customers with good driving records and continuous coverage can claim a continuous-coverage discount. The language of that 1988 initiative, passed to regulate auto insurance rates, did not authorize continuous coverage discounts for customers changing policies. Prop. 17 would make that permissible, but not required. Consumer advocates and the State Insurance Commissioner have expressed concern that Mercury would make up the difference by charging higher rates to customers — even those with good driving records — who’ve let their insurance lapse for 91 days anytime in the past five years. They point out that many in the armed services have such lapsed coverage. Maybe if Mercury hadn’t been fined $500,000 recently for overcharging practices, we might be less dubious about their purported altruism. But really, when was the last time an insurance company spent millions so they could charge customers less?

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorials | Comments Off

Post Urges a No Vote for Prop. 17

May 20th, 2010

Editorial, THE PARADISE POST (Paradise, California)

On Tuesday we made our recommendation to vote no on Proposition 16. We liked the idea of voters being able to have some say in how their tax dollars may be spent.

We just didn’t like the 67 percent threshold. Today, we tackle Proposition 17 which unlike Prop. 16, there’s nothing to like. To start with, this bill is almost entirely funded by Mercury Insurance.

Now it is entirely possible that Mercury Insurance’s support for 17 is based on what’s best for everyone. It’s also possible the San Francisco Giants will trade pitcher Tim Lincecum to the Los Angeles Dodgers for a bag of chips to be named later.  But that won’t happen and it’s unlikely Mercury Insurance’s support is based on anything other than its own self-interest. As our sister paper at the Contra Costa Times wrote, “It is designed to fool voters into believing it is simply a change in the law that would allow insurers to offer a “continuous coverage” discount on policies to new customers who switch auto insurance companies.”

However, companies would also be able to raise rates on drivers who have dropped their car insurance for 91 days or more in the past half-decade.

And carriers would get to slap surcharges of several hundred dollars or more on those motorists with good driving records. We’re guessing a lot more people would fall on the category of those who had lapses in coverage than those who have had “continuous coverage.” There are plenty of people who have lapses of insurance coverage because they don’t own car and not because they are driving uninsured. Why should those who don’t own  a car get whacked for that? And punishing those who have driven uninsured is in the purview of law enforcement, not Mercury Insurance. It seems us to that Mercury Insurance isn’t looking to reward “continuous coverage” customers as much as it sees a gold mine in those who have had prior lapses.

But if Mercury is looking to reward its “continuous coverage” customers, then it can do that on its own without Prop. 17. This is an easy call. No on Prop. 17.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorials | Comments Off

Companies Hijack Initiative Process

May 20th, 2010

Editorial, THE MONTEREY COUNTY HERALD (California)

Next year marks the 100th anniversary of California’s landmark decision to give voters a direct voice in governance through the initiative process. The public, as is its nature, has generally used it wisely, with an assist from the courts, which have done a rather good job of cleaning up the occasional mistakes.

But, as demonstrated by two measures on the June 8 ballot, the process has been hijacked to a distressing degree by the very forces it was designed to protect against, special corporate interests.

Progressive politicians and California voters created the initiative process in 1911 largely as part of an effort to wrestle political power away from the Southern Pacific Railroad. The railroad company, known not so affectionately as the Octopus, held unmatched sway over electoral politics, the courts and the newspapers of the day.

It worked, and ballot measures have proved to be fairly effective at forcing the political parties and the political pros in Sacramento to pay some attention to the folks back home. They are, however, being used more and more to serve whoever has the money to pay for signature gathering and considerable advertising. The initiative process has become a dramatic example of the law of unintended consequences. Look no further than Proposition 16 and Proposition 17 on the June ballot.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is the sole sponsor of Proposition 16, which would require a two-thirds supermajority before communities could buy out their utility providers or buy power from independent operators. Existing publicly owned utilities also would need an almost unobtainable two-thirds vote before expanding into neighboring territory. Beyond the state Chamber of Commerce, almost no significant political organizations support the measure.

Who is opposed to Proposition 16? A wide-ranging group that includes the California Association of Realtors, California Manufacturers & Technology Association, League of Women Voters, Sierra Club, AARP, League of California Cities, the SEIU and the California Farm Bureau, for starters.

Like Proposition 16, Proposition 17 is being falsely promoted as a consumer protection measure. Who it really protects is its sponsor, Mercury Insurance, California’s third largest auto insurer.

On the surface, it sounds good. Proposition 17 would enable Mercury to offer discounts to customers who can demonstrate that they have had no lapses in their insurance coverage. But what it really does is create loopholes in a legitimate 1998 ballot measure that put limits on insurance companies’ ability to raise rates for most drivers.

Proposition 17 would penalize even the safest drivers for having let their insurance lapse in the past but it also would discourage uninsured motorists from obtaining insurance and would penalize good drivers whose insurance had lapsed because they weren’t driving. Among those hurt would be college students who left their cars at home, military personnel sent on temporary assignments or people who had experienced long hospitalizations.

The advertising campaign will try to convince voters Mercury Insurance has selflessly spent $10 million so far to protect insurance customers.

Logic so clearly weighs against these propositions that they hardly seem worth worrying about. But the potential is great for well-financed ad campaigns that will mislead and confuse the voters into voting against their own interests. If either of these propositions is approved, it will demonstrate that we need to find a way to restore the original intent of the initiative process.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorials | Comments Off

Yes on 13, 14, No on the Rest

May 19th, 2010

Editorial, CHICO ENTERPRISE-RECORD

Our view: One proposition cuts through red tape and another should improve elections. The rest deserve to be rejected by voters.

The five propositions on the June 8 ballot are fairly underwhelming issues, nothing like we’ll see in November, when state voters will have to decide such controversies as whether to legalize marijuana and whether to approve another multibillion-dollar water bond.

This time around, there’s just a no-brainer about governmental red tape, two self-serving initiatives that two wealthy companies are paying millions to try to get passed, and another attempt to try public financing of elections.

The most intriguing proposition in the primary and the only weighty one is Proposition 14, the latest attempt at an open primary. The state’s political power brokers hate the idea of an open primary. The Democratic and Republican parties like things just fine the way they are. They’ve done everything they can to thwart anything that looks like an open primary in the past.

Meanwhile, the broken system keeps sending the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans to Sacramento. With ideologues in the Capitol and no middle ground, little gets accomplished. The gridlock gets worse every year.

Proposition 14 would take a small step toward unlocking the extremism and perhaps give moderates a voice.

The fastest-growing political party in the state isn’t the Republicans or Democrats it’s the people who register as “decline to state.” That’s now more than 20 percent of the electorate.

They don’t identify with either party probably because neither party speaks to them.

Proposition 14 would change the procedure for statewide and congressional elections. All candidates, regardless of party affiliation, would be listed on one ballot. A Republican could vote for a Democrat, and vice versa. Decline-to-state voters could vote for anybody as well.

The top two vote-getters would then face a runoff in November, meaning a general election could feature, say, two Republicans vying for a state Senate seat, two Democrats battling for a U.S. Senate seat and a Republican vs. a Democrat for governor  or any combination thereof.

Candidates could choose to be listed by party affiliation, or not.

Instead of just trying to appeal to a party’s political base in the primary, candidates will have to appeal to all people. For example, look at this year’s Republican primary for governor. Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner’s campaign ads seem a competition to prove who is the most conservative Republican. With an open primary, they’d have to at least attempt to appeal to moderate Republicans, crossover Democrats and decline-to-state voters as well.

Let’s force our politicians to talk to everyone by voting yes on Proposition 14.

Proposition 13 is the only other measure that warrants approval. It would allow property owners to make improvements for seismic retrofit mandates without subjecting them to higher taxes. As it stands now, many property owners are hesitant to make their buildings more resistant to earthquakes because the improved buildings would be reassessed at a higher tax rate. Vote yes to cut the red tape and allow the needed improvements.

Proposition 15 is an experiment to tax lobbyists and allow for public financing of the election for secretary of state. We can think of many reasons to tax lobbyists, but to help fund political candidates is not one of them.

Proposition 16 was paid for by PG&E to benefit PG&E. Proposition 17 was paid for by Mercury Insurance Co. to benefit Mercury Insurance Co. We can think of no better reason to vote no on each of them.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Editorials | Comments Off

Good Idea with a Fatal Flaw / Proposition 17: Anti-Military Provision Mars Its Broad Appeal

May 19th, 2010

Editorial, THE SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE

Proposition 17, the June 8 ballot measure that would allow drivers to transfer their “continuous coverage” discount from one auto insurer to another, is a close call.

Its starting point, as is the case with every fight over auto insurance in California, is the enmity between Mercury Insurance and Harvey Rosenfield, founder of Consumer Watchdog, formerly the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

Mercury has long chafed at the Rosenfield-authored Proposition 103, the successful 1988 ballot initiative that closely regulates insurer premiums and policies. This disdain hasn’t just translated into ballot campaigns such as Proposition 17 but into a history of ugly behavior. A scathing 275-page state Department of Insurance report obtained by The San Francisco Chronicle noted that in 2009, regulators wrote that “Mercury has a deserved reputation for abusing its customers and intentionally violating the law with arrogance and indifference.” The company has been fined at least $600,000 since 2006.

Rosenfield says the report confirms Mercury is a corporate outlaw that discriminates against categories of drivers including soldiers, small business owners, people with diabetes, the unemployed, waiters and more.

Mercury generally denies the allegations. Its defenders say the company, which often offers cheaper rates than other insurers, should be praised for helping Californians make ends meet. And its criticism of state rules sometimes is sharp and informed – such as its argument that it is wrong to exclude ZIP codes as a factor in premiums because auto theft and break-ins are significant costs for insurers.

Consumer Watchdog, meanwhile, has its own issues. It refuses to disclose its funding sources and often appears far more aligned with trial lawyers than consumers.

We think this back story helps explain Rosenfield’s harsh opposition to Proposition 17. The change Mercury is advocating makes sense. There is no reason why drivers shouldn’t be able to transfer their “continuous coverage” discounts to another insurer, as is the norm in many states. If this were allowed, drivers would benefit from genuine price competition among insurers. This is badly needed.

Rosenfield, however, treats Proposition 17 as if it were a nefarious plot against those who don’t qualify for “continuous coverage” discounts. He says this group inevitably will face higher rates, citing insurance department rules noting that “every ‘discount’ requires a corresponding ‘surcharge’ so that every factor influencing [an insurer’s official average rate plan] will balance evenly over an insurer’s book of business.”

But Mercury offers persuasive evidence that this didn’t happen after the adoption of a later-overturned 2003 state law that allowed the discount to be transferred. Instead, insurers filed amended rate plans that didn’t penalize those without discounts. They were able to do so because the discounted policies were not “loss leaders” that required a makeup in revenue.

Nevertheless, there are two reasons to have sharp doubts about Proposition 17.

The first is that Proposition 17 is a perfect example of the deplorable way the state initiative process is used by private companies for their own benefit.

The second has to do with the fact that a member of the U.S. military would not be protected from losing his or her “continuous coverage” discount if transferred within the United States. The protection extends only to those transferred abroad. This is why the United Services Automobile Association, an insurer which specializes in military families, strongly opposes Proposition 17.

Especially in a time of war – and especially as the newspaper of a community with such a rich history and relationship with the U.S. armed forces – we find this very difficult to accept.

For this reason, we recommend a “no” vote. It is quite possible that insurers would use their discretion to protect all military transfers – either willingly or after pressure from the public and the Pentagon – but it shouldn’t be a matter of discretion.

If Proposition 17 didn’t have this fatal flaw, it would merit support. Otherwise, Rosenfield’s contempt for Mercury isn’t much of a reason to oppose the common-sense idea that drivers with a record of continuous coverage should qualify for discounts with all insurers, not just their present provider.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Editorials | Comments Off

Proposition 17 Would Hurt Consumers

May 18th, 2010

Editorial, VISALIA TIMES-DELTA

Proposition 17 on the June 8 ballot continues a tradition in California initiatives of promising one thing while doing the opposite.

Supporters of Proposition 17, including its chief backer, Mercury Insurance, claim it would offer savings on premiums for consumers. In fact, it would allow insurers to raise insurance premiums.

We recommend that voters reject this disingenuous attempt to undermine protection of consumers.

Voters passed Proposition 103 in 1988, setting a number of provisions for consumer protection in the insurance industry. Among them was that insurers couldn’t use continuity of insurance coverage as a criterion for setting insurance premiums. Proposition 103 pretty much said a driver’s safety record, time on the road and location were the criteria for setting rates.

Proposition 17 would change the provisions of Prop 103 so that insurers could offer discounts to motorists who maintained their insurance coverage for long periods of time.

It would also guarantee the discounted premiums for motorists who changed insurers as long as they maintained coverage.

But Proposition 17 would also allow insurers to raise rates on motorists whose coverage lapsed for 90 days or more.

This is nothing more than a strategem devised by insurance companies that allows them to raise premiums unfairly. There are plenty of reasons people cancel their auto insurance temporarily: The motorists sell their car, for instance, because they are moving, or go into the military or to college or have a long illness, so they take their car off the road.

When any of those people decide later to renew their insurance, the provider can cite the lapse of continuity as indicative of greater risk and raise their rates.

In many cases, this would force people to pay for insurance coverage they might not need, because if they let their coverage lapse, they’ll be gouged when they want to buy insurance again.

That is one of the reasons that organizations representing veterans and military personnel oppose Proposition 17.

The only reason for this initiative is to sweeten the deal for some insurance providers.

It’s not necessary. Proposition 103 already protects the interests of consumers.

Voters should reject Proposition 17. Like its companion, Proposition 16, this is nothing more than a scheme by a large business to feather its nest.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorials | Comments Off

Public Financing Puts People Back in Charge

May 18th, 2010

By Christine Mitchell, THE RECORD SEARCHLIGHT (Redding, CA)

I have to disagree with two of last week’s editorials in the Record Searchlight. On Friday, the Searchlight supported Proposition 17, an initiative that is written by Mercury Insurance. This is the same insurance company that sponsored at least eight bills to override consumer protections that were voted in with the passage of Proposition 103 in 1988. Mercury also has a lengthy history of serious misconduct, contempt toward and/or abuse of its customers, according to a statement by a representative of California’s Department of Insurance. Does anyone really think this initiative will benefit the public? Vote “no” on 17.

Even more important is Proposition 15, The California Fair Elections Act. The Record Searchlight’s editors urged voters to vote no on this one. They are wrong.

Proposition 15 is a pilot project providing public financing to candidates running for secretary of state in 2014 and 2018. The secretary of state serves as the state’s chief election official and certainly shouldn’t be beholden to special interests.

Most, if not all, of the cost would be paid by a $350 yearly registration fee on lobbyists. This is the same as Illinois, which raised an estimated $8 million in four years. It is outrageous that lobbyists pay only $12.50 a year now.

This act will place strict reporting requirements on participants. Violators could even face jail time.

Why not try this and see how it works? Voters may find out they like to elect politicians who don’t owe big corporations or unions. Right now, the state and the entire country are run by big business not the government. All politicians have to take money from special interests to get elected. Even if they go into office with great intentions, they are forced to get in bed with big business if they want to be re-elected.

Think about how different things might be if politicians didn’t spend most of their time raising money. What if Wall Street hadn’t bought politicians who then did away with most of the regulations that protected the public? What about the regulations that the oil companies didn’t abide by? Now we have the gulf oil spill. These catastrophes can be linked to politicians being paid by big corporations. These terrible problems are the real “trickle-down economics.” They come down to the state, county, cities, and us, the taxpayer.

The Record Searchlight says Proposition 15 is “an attempt to nudge the state toward broader public financing of elections.” I hope it is. I hope that one day all elections in the country will be publicly financed.

Think about how much you pay now because corporations make all the rules. I am willing to bet if we had public financing and “We the people” made the rules, we would be paying less in the long run.

Proposition 15 is endorsed by the AARP, California Alliance of Retired Americans, League of Women Voters of California, California Clean Money Campaign, California Physician’s Alliance, California Primary Care Association and many more.

Give it a try. This proposition only addresses the 2014 and 2018 campaigns. Let’s see how it works. Vote yes on 15!

Christine Mitchell lives in Redding.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in In the News | Comments Off

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »