October 7, 2014
by Webmaster
Crucial Decisions Face Voters on Nov. 4 Ballot
The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce encourages businesses and their employees to vote for these candidates and ballot propositions endorsed by the Chamber PAC and the Chamber Board of Directors in the election four weeks from today. Every one of these votes is crucial to our future.
Los Angeles County Races:
L.A. County Sheriff: Vote for Jim McDonnell
Jim McDonnell has served as Chief of Police for the City of Long Beach, the second largest city in L.A. County, since March 2010. He began his law enforcement career in 1981 as a 21-year-old graduate from the L.A. Police Academy. Over nearly three decades, he held every rank in the LAPD, including First Assistant Chief and second in command to Police Chief Bill Bratton. McDonnell is a proven and respected leader in law enforcement.
L.A. County Supervisor: Vote for Bobby Shriver
As a business owner and former Santa Monica mayor and city councilman, Bobby Shriver will keep the L.A. County fiscally sound and not give away the store to public employee unions that are investing millions to get his opponent elected. Shriver is the only candidate in this race who will work with business to create jobs and lower the County’s 8 percent unemployment rate. The County needs Shriver’s creative and common sense approach to government service.
L.A. County Assessor: Vote for Jeffrey Prang
With more than 20 years of public service as a mayor, city councilmember and public administrator, Jeffrey Prang has earned a reputation as an effective and innovative leader in local government. For the past year and a half, he has played a key role in the reform efforts to stabilize the Assessor’s office in the wake of public corruption charges. Prang will use that success to guide his efforts as our Assessor.
State Ballot Propositions:
Vote YES for Proposition 1: The Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act
California’s economy depends on a reliable water supply. Proposition 1 will fund a comprehensive set of water projects to ensure a reliable water supply for farms, cities and businesses. In addition to cleaning up contaminated groundwater in the San Fernando Valley, Proposition 1 will put Californians to work building the new facilities needed to store, deliver, conserve and recycle state and local water supplies with a $7.5 billion bond. It was placed on the ballot with bipartisan support. Read more.
Vote YES for Proposition 2: Budget Stabilization Account. Legislative Constitutional Amendment
Proposition 2 will increase the size of the State’s “rainy day” reserve from $8 billion to $11 billion by requiring a minimum annual contribution into that reserve of $800 million – and more if capital gains revenues to the treasury are strong. Proposition 2 was placed on the ballot with bipartisan support and forces the state to save money by requiring politicians to live within their means and protect against unnecessary tax increases. Read more.
Vote NO on Proposition 45: Healthcare Insurance. Rate Changes. Initiative
Proposition 45 gives sweeping control over health care coverage rates to one elected politician — the Insurance Commissioner. The Commissioner would have authority to reject or modify health care premium rates and reject proposed co-payment amounts, deductibles and benefit offerings. Business groups and leaders of Covered California, the State’s Health Insurance Exchange both oppose Proposition 45 and believe it will undermine the stability of the state’s current health care system. Read more.
Vote NO on Proposition 46: Drug and Alcohol Testing Of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits. Initiative
Sponsored by trial lawyers, the measure seeks to increase the cap on noneconomic damages for medical malpractice lawsuits. Authors of this initiative sweetened the language in the measure by proposing new random drug testing requirements on physicians. But the primary beneficiary of the higher malpractice awards would be the medical malpractice trial bar, which would be incentivized to file more lawsuits and pursue higher damage awards. Read more.
Vote YES for Proposition 47: Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative
Proposition 47 reduces penalties for certain offenders convicted of nonviolent property and drug crimes. The measure also allows certain offenders who were previously convicted of such crimes to apply for reduced sentences. California’s prison population has grown to 135,000 inmates — the result of a mass incarceration of low level, non-violent, and non-sexual offenders. The cost to taxpayers has increased to $60,032 per year to incarcerate an offender, compared to $8,219 being spent on educating a K-12 student. This change will save many young adults from becoming a part of the revolving door of the State’s prison system. Read more.
We encourage you and your employees to Vote on Nov. 4. These endorsements by your peers on the Chamber Board of Directors and the Chamber’s Political Action Committee will benefit business in California and L.A. County.
And that's The Business Perspective.
Comments
passes. Many of these inmates would return to prison. There are no low level offenders in state prison. Many offenders in prison had numerous criminal charges but pled guilty to the least level of offense. A person caught in
possession of a date rape drug would be charged for a misdemeanor. Really! Why do you think the California Chief of Police Association and the California District Attorney's Association opposes Prop 47. Yes, one Chief Of Police from San Diego who resigned from there is a sponsor of the Prop as is the San Francisco District Attorney. Take time to read the arguments on both sides before deciding. You should oppose Proposition 47.
Victim's lawyers fees are CAPPED on a sliding scale. The higher the jury verdict, the more of that verdict goes to the victim, NOT the attorney. Ironically, the negligent doctor's lawyer fees are NOT capped. They get paid a huge hourly rate by the billion dollar insurance industry that's rolling in profits on the backs of harmed patients. So it's ridiculous to say this is about victim's attorneys trying to make more money. Sure, they'll make some more money because their fees, which have been capped since 1975 will finally fall in line with inflation. For 39 years they've been making less money than every other business person. Meanwhile they're accepting these cases on a contingency basis, fronting all the costs for their clients and taking on the huge risk of losing every cent they put into the case if the case is lost. And most medi-mal cases are decided for the doctors because no one wants to believe that doctors can do any wrong.
Take a look at my sister's story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSgO6S7WgEU, or Alicia Cole's story (she used the same hospital as my sister): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67vDXQMxUz4 or Annette Ramirez https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgZy9a3HTqo.
Then try and tell us this is about greedy trial lawyers.
Leave a Comment
Comments submitted are subject to review by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce prior to posting. The Chamber reserves the right to monitor and withhold comments that include personal, offensive, potentially libelous or copyright protected language, materials or links. Only comments relevant to the topic will be posted. Comments posted must have a valid email address. View our full terms & conditions.