 |
HOME |  |
SCHEDULE | |
PROGRAMS | |
KIDS & FAMILY | |
LOCAL | |
SUPPORT KCET | |
ABOUT US | |
SHOP KCET |  |
| About Us | Contact Us | |
 |
|
 |
          |
|
|
 |
 |
||
|
|
Life & Times Transcript
11/03/06 Val Zavala>> Tonight on Life and Times -- Will it raise the price of gas or reduce our dependence on foreign oil? The pros and cons of Proposition 87. Yusef Robb>> The oil companies have us over a barrel. We're addicted to the oil they sell. That dependence puts money in their pockets. Scott MacDonald>> It's not about oil companies. No one gets to vote yes or no on oil companies. No one gets to vote yes or no on campaign spending. We have to vote yes or no on Proposition 87. Val Zavala>> And then, does the punishment fit the crime or is Proposition 83 too harsh even for sex offenders? These stories and more next on tonight's Life and Times. Announcer>> Life and Times is made possible through the generous support of the L.K. Whittier Foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life by supporting innovative endeavors in the fields of medicine, health, science and education. And by a generous grant from Jim and Anne Rothenberg. Val Zavala>> Welcome to this Life and Times election special. Are you confused by all those political ads on television? Well, you're not the only one. The ads only tell a tiny part of one side of the story, so we'd thought we'd bring you more complete, balanced reports on some of the most controversial initiatives on Tuesday's ballot. We begin with Proposition 87, the oil tax and alternative fuels initiative. Toni Guinyard has our report. Toni Guinyard>> The Clean Alternative Energy Initiative, Proposition 87, is all about oil. Voters must decide if oil producers should have to pay an extraction tax on every barrel of oil pumped from California, and the money collected, four billion dollars by the year 2017, would be used to fund production and research of alternative energy technology. Maya Hyams>> I know everything that you do for progress is going to cost some money and I think we just have to bite the bullet and make this a better world for our children. Bob Stern>> This is another proposition where California is trying to be sort of at the head of the rest of the country. Toni Guinyard>> Bob Stern is President of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Center for Governmental Studies. Bob Stern>> California is the only state that doesn't have a major tax on taking the oil out of the ground. All other states have that. Now California taxes the oil companies, though, in other ways, income tax, property tax and other taxes. Well, the oil companies are saying this is unfair. You're adding a tax upon a tax. Toni Guinyard>> We asked him to analyze Proposition 87, the initiative aimed at decreasing the state's oil consumption twenty-five percent in ten years. It also calls for the formation of an authority to oversee how the money would be spent. Bob Stern>> Clearly, when you're talking about four billion dollars of money, you need to have oversight. You need to have somebody looking at that to make sure that the money is wisely spent, so that means a bureaucracy. Toni Guinyard>> There are arguments for -- Yusef Robb>> It is designed to reduce California's dependence on oil over the next ten years and we don't want that money to go into the general fund where the legislature and the governor can do whatever the heck they want to with it. Toni Guinyard>> -- and arguments against the initiative. Scott MacDonald>> A four billion dollar oil tax is going to lead to more dependence on foreign oil and that is more expensive to get here, more expensive to refine and that means that we pay for more money at the pumps. Toni Guinyard>> And that's become the centerpiece of the No On 87 campaign. Political Ad>> "If 87 passes, expect higher prices at the gas pumps." Political Ad>> "What are the chances a four billion dollar oil tax won't impact the price of gas?" Toni Guinyard>> The initiative specifically prohibits oil companies from passing on the cost of the tax to consumers by raising the price of oil, gas or diesel, but enforcing it could be tough. Bob Stern>> If costs go up for oil companies, they will pass on the costs. I think what will happen is that the costs will be spread out throughout the country. In other words, the oil companies aren't just in California. They're elsewhere, so I think what you'd see is probably people in the other states helping to pay for that. Toni Guinyard>> Chris Hall is one of approximately four hundred independent oil and gas producers in California. Chris Hall>> It's a very expensive, high-risk business to be in and it takes a lot of capital investment to keep it going. The tax will prevent that from happening. My personal belief is that we should not be ignoring any source of energy supply, whether that be alternative energy, just as we should not be ignoring domestic production in this country. Toni Guinyard>> As with most campaigns, both sides have very different interpretations of how Proposition 87 will impact all of us. But there is one common thread. Both sides are spending millions to save billions. You're spending the oil companies' money. Scott MacDonald>> Who cares (laughter)? I mean, what does it matter? We're at least discussing the initiative. It's not about oil companies. No one gets to vote yes or no on oil companies. No one gets to vote yes or no on campaign spending. We have to vote yes or no on Proposition 87 and it's time they talked about it. They don't talk about it. Yusef Robb>> The yes side has to do what it can to fight back against the industry with an infinite wealth of profits from which to draw to kill Proposition 87. The oil companies have us over a barrel. We're addicted to the oil they sell. That dependence puts money in their pocket. They don't want us to have access to cleaner, cheaper energy, so the oil companies are going to spend and say and do whatever it takes to kill Proposition 87. We have to fight back. Political Ad>> "We buy their oil. They burn our flag." Toni Guinyard>> It's a scrappy, expensive fight being waged on the airwaves. Political Ad>> "87 would shrink California's oil supply, increase dependence on foreign oil." Toni Guinyard>> The No On Prop 87 campaign is well-financed by oil companies while money is being poured into the Yes on Prop 87 side by Hollywood producer, Stephen Bing. Bob Stern>> Now we don't know very much about Stephen Bing. He's a multi-millionaire who's inherited some money. But we do know, at least at this point, that he doesn't seem to gaining financially by supporting this. But anytime somebody puts in forty million of his or her own money -- that never happened before -- you have to wonder why. That's a lot of money. Toni Guinyard>> And so the fate of Proposition 87 and the quest for alternative energy sources rests with the voters. Bob Stern>> This is an active place on the part of the voters and the question for the voters would be how do we feel about oil companies? How do we feel about alternative fuel sources? And do we want to tax the oil companies to pay for it? That's the bottom line question. Toni Guinyard>> A question voters will decide November 7. I'm Toni Guinyard for Life and Times. Announcer>> Kcet.org is the place to look for the very latest on Life and Times. You'll find previews of upcoming stories, plus transcripts and audio of past episodes and links to some of our most interesting features. Just go to kcet.org, scroll down the page and click on "Life and Times". Val Zavala>> It's one of the most difficult crimes to understand. How could an adult molest a child? And in the case of the man you're about to meet, his own granddaughter. Well, now voters are being asked whether they want to toughen the penalties for sex offenders and put them on high-tech tracking devices. Will it work? Sam Louie takes a look at both sides of Proposition 83. Sam Louie>> He agreed to share his story with us only if we protected his identity. We'll call him "Paul". Paul is a convicted sex offender. "Paul">> I've lived sixty-some years with only a couple of minor traffic violations in my history. Sam Louie>> He was found guilty of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under fourteen years old, his granddaughter. "Paul">> She was six and a half when this happened and, up until that time, I had no inclinations of doing anything like that. I love my granddaughter. When I was doing this, I wasn't even aware that it was a crime. I mean, I didn't think -- because if I'd have thought that, it wouldn't have happened. Sam Louie>> Eventually, his own son questioned him. Paul acknowledged the wrong behavior and was sentenced to a year in jail with five years probation. As part of his probation, he must register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. He's also required to go to counseling, see his probation officer and stay away from all children. But should the punishment be more restrictive? That's what supporters of Proposition 83 are hoping for. Provisions of Proposition 83 on November's ballot would increase penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters. It would require lifetime GPS monitoring of their whereabouts. It would also toughen restrictions on where sex offenders could live, extending the residential restrictions from thirteen hundred feet of any school to two thousand feet of any school or park. Ron Smith>> I think that's the main reason to keep them away from there and not living by there because what they do is, they get into those neighborhoods. They start ingratiating themselves to the children or to the, you know, school and that's how they are able to build that relationship. So I think it's important to try to keep them away. Sam Louie>> So how effective are residency restrictions in deterring sex crimes against minors? Opponents of Proposition 83 say not very. Dr. Wesley Maram>> There's absolutely no research, not one iota of valid research, that indicates where a person lives is related to sex-offending behavior. Sam Louie>> Dr. Wesley Maram is a forensic psychologist. He also evaluates sex offenders for the state's Department of Mental Health. Maram says that Proposition 83 would force many sex offenders to move, severely disrupting their ability to rehabilitate. Dr. Wesley Maram>> What keeps them stable is employment and people knowing who they are and where they are and living a responsible life. Sam Louie>> He says other states that have passed tougher restrictions have been disappointed in the results. Dr. Wesley Maram>> In Iowa, the District Attorney's Association of the County of Iowa has gone on record requesting that they rescind their residency restriction laws for sex offenders. They recognized that it's not working. It's ineffective and it's going to drive people underground. They now have three times the number of people that have failed to register compared to what they had before the law. Sam Louie>> But are children likely to be snatched and molested at a park or school? Statistics show that's highly unlikely. Dr. Wesley Maram>> Ninety percent of the sex offenders are people that they know. They're typically family members or neighbors that you know, trust and love and been involved in your life. Sam Louie>> Another controversial provision of Proposition 83 is the GPS requirements. It would require that sex offenders be monitored their entire lives by wearing GPS, or Global Positioning Satellite ankle bracelets. Currently, GPS is used only on those most likely to re-offend. But if Proposition 83 passes, GPS would be used on all sex offenders like Paul. Maram says GPS tracking would be completely impractical, that there isn't enough manpower to monitor everyone and it would cost the state tens of millions of dollars. Dr. Wesley Maram>> There are a hundred four thousand individuals that are registered sex offenders. Let's get real. Do you really think that we have that many police officers to follow those individuals and people to monitor them on a computer? Sam Louie>> Maram adds that only three percent of sex offenders are violent predators. But retired Los Angeles County deputy sheriff, Ron Smith, says that the financial cost of GPS tracking is high, but worth it. Ron Smith>> There was a parolee that they put an ankle bracelet on and, within three weeks, they found him to have gone to a school, to a Doll House, and to a kid's amusement park. Because of the GPS system, they were able to track him within fifty feet of where he was and now he's back in prison because of that. Sam Louie>> Supporters of the measure believe Proposition 83 will give them the additional peace of mind they're looking for. Ron Smith>> A lot of these child molesters are not rehabilitative. They always go back. There's a high reoccurrence, so any way to track them and keep them under control or keep them in prison longer is important. Sam Louie>> As for Paul, regardless of what voters decide on come election day, he'll continue to try to put his life back together. "Paul">> Because I am a responsible person. I dealt with it. My life is virtually destroyed since this happened. Right at the time when I should be thinking of the golden years, you know, and being able to enjoy life, well, that's gone basically and, if I mess up while I'm on probation, I go to prison for ten years. Sam Louie>> I'm Sam Louie for Life and Times. Announcer>> To send a comment or a question to our program, you can reach us by mail at this address: Life and Times 4401 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90027 You can also call our viewer comment line (323) 953-5555) or contact us the fast way by e-mail at kcet.org. Val Zavala>> Call it the thirty-seven billion dollar question. Are California voters ready to approve the biggest building boom since the 1960s? Well, there are five bond measures on this November's ballot that would authorize billions for highways, schools, levies, housing and more. So are they a good idea? Well, Roger Cooper takes a look at the measures that you will have to decide on come November 7. Roger Cooper>> The governor of California striding towards the microphones was accompanied by state and local officials, both Republican and Democrat. This spot overlooks the 405 Freeway in Sherman Oaks. It was ten in the morning and traffic was still backed up. The governor chose this location to convince voters to approve a set of five bond measures. Together, they called for an unprecedented thirty-seven billion dollars to be spent on everything from roads, houses and port security, to levies, schools and mass transit. He says our present infrastructure was meant to serve only a much smaller population. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger>> "We're going to have to start rebuilding California, to create an infrastructure that is truly for thirty-seven million people rather than twenty million people. So the legislators, Democrats and Republicans, got together and we started working and negotiating and out came a thirty-seven billion dollar infrastructure package." Roger Cooper>> Not since Pat Brown was governor back in the 1960s has such an ambitious investment plan been put forward. Brown is credited with building massive water projects, freeways and our state college and university systems. Are voters ready for another major investment? And just what would the five bonds do? Let's begin with 1A. Proposition 1A would require the gasoline taxes earmarked for transportation projects actually go for transportation instead of getting siphoned off. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger>> "Which is very important that the transportation funding stays where it is, that government, the state legislators, cannot raid it every year." Roger Cooper>> Republican Assemblyman, Chuck DeVore from Irvine, agrees. Chuck DeVore>> So what Proposition 1A does is it kind of puts a firewall around monies that are supposed to go for transportation. Roger Cooper>> But opponents argue that 1A would take away flexibility to make wide spending choices. By locking in tax monies, budget decisions would be put on autopilot. Then in hard economic times, cuts would have to be made in other areas like education, health care or disaster relief. Next on the ballot is Proposition 1B which also deals with transportation. 1B would provide $19.9 billion to repair roads, build highways, improve mass transit, reduce congestion and air pollution and increase security at ports. In this case, Assembly DeVore parts ways with the governor, calling Proposition 1B unneeded borrowing. Chuck DeVore>> There is a tremendous amount of pork in this measure that will not build roads or bridges. It goes to ongoing funding of things like transit, and things like transit ought to be funded with general fund money. Roger Cooper>> But State Senator, Kevin Murray, a Democrat from Los Angeles, begs to differ. Kevin Murray>> If you kind of just don't believe in mass transit, you could take that argument. But first of all, there is no pork in the transportation bond. Transportation monies going back a long way are distributed virtually by population. Roger Cooper>> The next infrastructure proposal is the smallest of the five. 1C calls for $2.85 billion to be spent on low-cost housing for low-income people, shelters for battered women and seniors, as well as parks. Kevin Murray>> We need affordable housing. The one thing we can't do, as much as we need developers to do, you know, profit making projects and keep our economy rolling, we can't leave our entire housing stock to the whims of whether or not it's enough profit for a developer. Roger Cooper>> DeVore argues that, if you want to encourage home building, restrictions on developers should be eased, like requiring less open space. As for Proposition 1C -- Chuck DeVore>> It talks a really good game, but what it doesn't tell people is that, out of the $2.85 billion dollars worth of new debt, you have four hundred million dollars in parks that won't house anybody and up to a hundred fifty million dollars of state bureaucratic costs. Kevin Murray>> Yes, there are some parks in it, but one of the things we need in our communities are livable communities. Roger Cooper>> Next on the ballot is Proposition 1D. 1D would spend $10.4 billion dollars on education infrastructure, repairing and upgrading public schools from kindergarten through state colleges and universities. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger>> "That means ten of thousands of new classes will be built and tens of thousands more classes will be modernized. We also have money put aside to expand our universities and our community colleges." Roger Cooper>> Once again, Assemblyman DeVore is a dissenting voice. He agrees that our schools need repairs, but questions who should pay for it. Chuck DeVore>> I think, when you look at school bonds, the question that I would like people to ask themselves is isn't it better to have local control? If you have a local school district that is undergoing tremendous expansion or needs to recapitalize aging facilities, wouldn't it be better to try to convince local voters that they should encumber themselves with debt to build these new facilities? Kevin Murray>> Post-proposition 13, the local people just don't have the flexibility to do it. You know, the question is do you want your education, the value and the quality of your education, decided by where you live? In a state like California, I don't think we do. Everybody knows we are way behind on infrastructure development in terms of schools. Roger Cooper>> And last on the list is 1E. 1E would devote $4.1 billion for levy repairs, flood protection and disaster preparation, much of it in the Sacramento Delta. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger>> "As you all probably know, our levies are in worse shape than the ones in New Orleans, so we are literally one big storm or one big earthquake away from a major disaster." Roger Cooper>> Opponents of 1E argue that the state can't afford the new debt. Once again, they say that local projects should be funded locally. And where does Assemblyman DeVore stand on this one? He supports 1E, but reluctantly. Chuck DeVore>> Again, like the others, there's a tremendous amount of waste in it. There's a tremendous amount of money that will be spent on things like environmental mitigation that will not save people or property from damage. But the reason why I'm supporting it is precisely because people may die if we don't support it. Kevin Murray>> I mean, it's pretty self-explanatory, particularly given Katrina and the other natural disasters that have happened. What people in southern California don't necessarily realize all the time is that we have a series of levies up in northern California that not only protect the homes and businesses of the people in northern California, but protect the quality of our water supply. Roger Cooper>> Governor Schwarzenegger is working hard to put his own positive spin on the bond measures. He's pledged to build and repair California's infrastructure, but whether he will be as successful as his predecessor, Governor Pat Brown, is the question, a thirty-seven billion dollar question that can only be answered on November 7. I'm Roger Cooper for Life and Times. Val Zavala>> It's a simple question, but then again, it deals with abortion which means it's anything but simple. Should parents be required to be informed before their daughter has an abortion? That question was answered by Californians in a previous election. They turned the idea down. Well, now they're being asked again in the form of Proposition 85. Hena Cuevas takes a look at both sides of the Parent's Right to Know Initiative. Hena Cuevas>> With only a short time left until the general election, this group is getting ready to hit the streets. They're campaigning against Proposition 85, the Parent's Right to Know Initiative. >> "Our focusing this afternoon is saying no to 85 and why we're saying no is because we don't want to endanger any of our teenagers." Hena Cuevas>> Proposition 85 would require that parents be informed before a daughter under the age of eighteen has an abortion. Right now in California, any girl, no matter how young, can get an abortion without her parents' consent or knowledge. Proposition 85 would change that. Seventeen year old Lydia Matta says that many of her friends are worried that it will pass. Lydia Matta>> Some of the girls are like freaked out because I know some of my friends have had abortions without their parents knowing, so it's like, oh, my God, what are we going to do? So they're definitely against this. Hena Cuevas>> That fear also concerns Martha Swiller of Planned Parenthood, one of the places teens go for information on sex, contraception and abortions. Swiller is a mother of two young girls. Martha Swiller>> I'm going to do everything that's in my power as a parent. It's my responsibility to make sure that my daughters would talk to me if they were faced with an unintended pregnancy. But not all families have good communication and no law can mandate good family communications. Nora Urrea>> Well, it's not that they're forcing communications, but I think laws should encourage family communication. Hena Cuevas>> Nora Urrea is on the other side of the issue. She's the mother of seventeen year old, Olivia, and both are firm supporters of Proposition 85. Nora Urrea>> Why is it that the only medical procedure or any procedure that a child can get without parental involvement, notification and consent is abortion? Hena Cuevas>> Proposition 85 would require a forty-eight hour waiting period from the time the parents are informed to the time an abortion can be performed. Urrea says that these two extra days would stop a scared teen from making a rash decision. Nora Urrea>> So waiting is an important aspect to this proposition because you have time to think about the consequences of your decision. Not just the physical, but the emotional, the moral, the legal, all of those aspects that need to be carefully considered. Hena Cuevas>> But Lydia says her friends don't see it that way. That's why she's walking through neighborhoods to persuade voters to reject parental notification. Lydia Matta>> I think there's going to be a lot of girls more scared of their parents and getting hurt. Hena Cuevas>> The law would provide exceptions to the notification rule. If the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest or if the girl fears violence at home, she can then get a waiver, but she has to go before a judge. But Swiller is still not persuaded. She says that involving the courts could make matters worse for pregnant teens. Martha Swiller>> What Proposition 85 would do is narrow their choices. It would say talk to your parents or go to a judge. It just won't work. It will scare teens away from getting the help and the timely safe medical care that they need. Hena Cuevas>> How ironic is it that a parent needs to be notified when the daughter is to be given an aspirin; however, they're not notified when she's about to get a very serious procedure like an abortion? Martha Swiller>> There's not many teens that I know who are afraid to ask their parents for an aspirin. We think that a teen who is faced with this situation should be urged to talk to her parents, but if it's unsafe for her to do so, she needs a safety net there. Nora Urrea>> Someone has to assist the minor in this very difficult situation in her life and we're just saying that the parents are the ones that are most indicated to be the persons counseling that troubled teen. Hena Cuevas>> This isn't the first time California has tried to have a measure giving parents the right to know. Actually, twenty years ago, there was a law that required parents to give their permission before their daughter got an abortion. But ten years ago in 1997, it was struck down. The Supreme Court basically said it violated a minor's right to privacy. To make sure the law can't be challenged in court, Proposition 85 is being presented as a constitutional amendment. Also, it requires only that parents be informed, not that they give their permission. This isn't the first time that voters have been asked the question. Last November, it was called Proposition 73 and was part of a special election. It was defeated by a six-point margin. Swiller sees this latest effort as an extension of a larger attack on choice. Martha Swiller>> They are looking for every different way to limit a woman's access to abortion and other reproductive health care. Nora Urrea>> This proposition is not about limiting. It's about notification of parents, parental rights, so I don't see the connection. I mean, really it's about parental notification and helping your daughter make the best decision for her. Hena Cuevas>> Thirty-four other states already have parental notification laws. This November, voters will have yet another chance to determine whether parents have the right to be informed about their daughter's choice. I'm Hena Cuevas for Life and Times. Val Zavala>> If you'd like more information on other election issues, you can go to our website at kcet.org and click on "Life and Times". And that's our program. I'm Val Zavala. For everyone at Life and Times, thanks for watching and don't forget to vote. Announcer>> Life and Times was made possible through the generous support of the L.K. Whittier Foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life by supporting innovative endeavors in the fields of medicine, health, science and education. And by a generous grant from Jim and Anne Rothenberg. Sponsored in part by:  | |
|
Home | Features | Arts | Health/Science | OC Edition | L&T Blog | Archives | About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use |