Election Recommendations: Candidates and Propositions

L.A. Times Archives

Nov. 3, 1992 12 AM PT

T raditionally The Times does not endorse in the contests for President, U.S. Senate or governor. It believes that readers have more than enough information to form their own views on those races. As for other, lesser-known contests, Times policy is to endorse selectively.

Only those political races in which this newspaper is endorsing in Tuesday’s election are listed here.

State Propositions

YES--Proposition 155: School Bonds

This measure would authorize $900 million for building and modernizing schools.

YES--Proposition 156: Rail Bonds

This proposition would raise $1 billion for trains, light rail and subways.

NO--Proposition 157: Toll Roads

Permits developers to build roads that may--or may not--be needed, with certainty that California’s taxpayers would pick up the bills down the road.

YES--Proposition 158: Analyst

Would embed in the state Constitution the Office of the California Analyst, which would objectively examine impact of legislative proposals and ballot measures.

YES--Proposition 159: Auditor

Would give constitutional protection to the state auditor general, an office that performs vital independent audits of government projects.

NO--Proposition 160: Tax Break

This proposal would create a property tax exemption for surviving spouses of people who died while on active military duty as a result of service-related injury or disease. What about the surviving spouses of police officers? The spouses of firefighters? Too narrow for a ballot amendment.

NO--Proposition 161: Aid in Dying

This initiative would allow anyone with a life expectancy of six months or less to sign a directive requesting “aid in dying.” The measure lacks adequate safeguards and could lead to abuse.

NO--Proposition 162: Pensions

This proposed constitutional amendment would grant nearly absolute powers to the state’s two major retirement boards. It’s intended to eliminate pension-fund raids, but the California Constitution already prohibits such looting.

NO--Proposition 163: Snack Tax

This would repeal the tax on snacks, candy and bottled water, which generates revenues of about $210 million for the state and $70 million for local governments each year. It obviously is the wrong time to eliminate this tax.

NO--Proposition 164: Term Limits

This measure would limit the consecutive terms of California’s members of the House and the Senate. By doing so it would put the state at a disadvantage in Washington. Term limits may be a good idea, but only if all states have them.

NO--Proposition 165: Budget Reform

This measure would, among other things, cut benefits to those who receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children by 25%, a move that would punish innocent children more than anyone else. It also would give the governor sole power to enact a budget if the Legislature passed no budget by July 1. That’s too much power.

NO--Proposition 166: Health Plan

This proposal would mandate that all employers provide insurance for those who work more than 17 1/2 hours a week. One problem is that federal law prohibits such a mandate. Another problem is that it could motivate employers to reduce or eliminate jobs. Very risky.

NO--Proposition 167: Taxes

A complex package of tax increases and cuts; it’s precisely the sort of measure that should not be placed on a ballot. The timing is also problematic; a tax increase of this sweeping nature during a major recession is not a good idea.

San Diego County

Propositions

NO--Prop. A: Jails and Courts

This measure would increase sales tax to fund jails and courts.

NO--Prop. B: County Charter

This proposition mandates funding source designation for County Charter amendments.

NO--Prop. C: Deputies

Proposition C sets minimum staffing levels for sheriff’s deputies.

San Diego County

Candidate Endorsements

San Diego Mayor

Susan Golding