Last night, wife and I went over the ballot and made our cheat sheet. Yes, I know, I've failed again as I failed to fully complete my voter guide. . .sorry, but when there's 30+ propositions to go over and summarize, it's a little difficult.
Anyway, so, this morning we head down to our local polling place which is in a Starbucks. There's a line that stretches about halfway down the street- I attribute this to a combination of increased voter turnout and the aforementioned 30+ ballot propositions we have to go through, which takes time. As we approach, it becomes clear to me that that is no pretense of a secret ballot. The polling officials only set up 8 "private" booths, but there are far too many people for those 8 booths, so people just set up shop at the various tables scattered throughout the Starbucks, two people to a table, whether or not they know the person. Wife and I end up doing our ballot on a ledge in front of the holiday ground coffee bags for sale, and she asks me questions about the ballot because she couldn't remember what we agreed on. I motor through the ballot- all 30+ propositions, 4 school board positions, 4 city college positions, president, U.S. Rep, State Assembly, Board of Supervisors, City Judge and BART. As I put my ballot through the scanner, the woman says, "Don't forget, free coffee today at Starbucks!" Great, I hate coffee. As we walk out, there are a few people doing their ballots on tables outside, in front of everyone waiting in line. And no one apparently minds.
About the free coffee. Apparently, giving free stuff to people who voted isn't necessarily legal. Businesses from Starbucks, to Ben and Jerrys, Krispy Kreme and even possibly Chick fil A all were planning on giving free stuff to people who voted. . .unfortunately, giving a reward to only people who voted is illegal. So, instead, anyone who asks for a free cup of coffee, or scoop of ice cream or a doughnut will get it; no need to prove you actually did anything. I find this final line from the WAPO ad amusingly prescient as we presumably move into an Obama administration: "So today's lesson is: Vote or don't vote -- either way you get free food." Wow, an excellent summary of exactly what Obama is promising.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Local races
Putting these up the day before the election probably won't mean very much, but at least I put them up- maybe someone out there will find them beneficial.
First up, S.F. School Board.
The school board has been very contentious over these past few years, mainly because it has been led by the progressives who show that they are anything but. And I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I'm basically doing a one-issue slate this time. The issues? JROTC. Those opposed to JROTC, which has been led by the progressive majority, have been extremely vocal both in their opposition to it (for very non-JROTC reasons) and have been very vocal in trying to stifle debate on this issue. I'll get more into JROTC when I get around to Proposition V. Let it be said, though, the list below are people who support JROTC in high schools; who support free and open debate; and show they are willing to listen to other people. So, please vote for:
Rachel Norton
Emily Murase
Marigrace Cohen
Jill Wynns
I have not included Norman Yee, because he supported the petition to removed JROTC from the PE requirement. Despite his general position supporting JROTC, I feel that he has not shown leadership on this issue, instead, just following the tide, whichever way it may be. So, if you think my one-issue list is wrong, feel free to read the Chronicle's endorsements, where we disagree on Norman Yee and Marigrace Cohen.
Next up is the Community College Board. I'll admit to having little understanding of what this board does, or even having a real opinion on who should make up the board. However, I do know who I do not support, even though almost all of those up for election are Democrats that I would ordinarily not support, so it was a struggle to find four. So, after a period of whittling down names, here are the four I would suggest:
Steve Ngo
Mary Hernandez
For the final two, I can find no reason to not vote for current board members Natalie Berg and Milton Marks.
For District 5 Board of Supervisors, I'm left with the great distinction of choosing between three candidates, none of whom are likely to give a whit about the Inner Sunset portion of their district. First up, I do not support current Supe Ross Mirkarimi. He does not represent what I believe in, and he supports Proposition H, which deals with a potential city takeover of PG&E. I promise to get a Prop. H post up sometime soon. He is aligned with the Progressives in this city, although he is registered as a Green. And I have no faith in him holding the interests of the Inner Sunset in his mind. The second candidate is Owen O'Donnell, who is a Democrat. I do not agree with him either, most notably on the various social enginnering programs he supports all gussied up under the environment banner. Finally, there's Rob Anderson. On his website, he notes that he's trying to get at the left by moving further to the left of San Francisco progressives. What I find most alarming, at least to me, is how much I agree with him on a number of issues, homelessness and the various bicycle gangs, such as Critical Mass (who is a big supporter of Mirkarimi), that try to run this city. As he notes,
Nevertheless, it appears quite clear that the Inner Sunset is an area in District 5 that continues to get the short end of the stick. Inner Sunset is far less "progressive" than nearly all of the rest of District 5, which includes the Haight and the Western Addition. Which leaves me with a decision as to which candidate for District 5 would result in the least amount of problems for the Inner Sunset. I'm also comfortable in the knowledge that what I say probably won't change the fact that Mirkarimi will likely win re-election. So, I'm gonna vote for Rob Anderson, if for no other reason than it will make Board of Supervisors meetings far more interesting for
Melissa.
For the supervisor districts that border the Inner Sunset, re-elect both Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chu.
Quick fire-
BART Director: I see no reason to not re-elect Tom Radulovich.
District 12 State Assembly: What to do with Fiona Ma. She single-handedly thwarted a very good bill in the legislature on an issue of great importance to me because of her relationship with a certain lobbyist. And she co-authored an editorial supporting Proposition H. So, you would think that that would lead me to cast my lot with the Republican running against her. Again, my vote isn't going to really matter in this district. Nevertheless, while I have substantial concerns about Fiona's stances on energy, she is in the Assembly leadership, and she does appear to be doing a decent job on behalf of those of us living in the her district. She has tackled recycling scavengers, who are stealing money from the garbage companies, and has sought to make Highway 1 much safer. While I disagree with her on energy policy, I see no reason to not re-elect her.
District 12 U.S. Representative: Unlike for the State Assembly, I as of yet do not have a solid opinion on Rep. Jackie Speier. I will preface this by saying the Rep. Speier is a newcomer still getting used to how Washington works, and I am greatly enthused that she is working with Rep. Jeff Flake on how to combat earmarks. Yet, at the same, she introduced a bill to re-establish a federal speed limit. Her opponent, Greg Conlon, has been around a long time, and, like most Bay Area Republicans, appear to be simply taking one for the team. I have no doubt that either one of them would be an adequate representative for this district. And, like in the State Assembly, it doesn't really matter who I recommend, because Jackie Speier will likely be re-elected. I suppose it does concern me that Jackie has been in office since April, but only has 2 pieces of legislation to show for herself, one being the Federal speed limit, the other being a post office naming for her old boss Leo Ryan, who was gunned down at Jonestown (and where a much younger Jackie Speier lay bleeding on the tarmac for several hours until help finally arrived). I will be interested to see how she performs with a full 2 year term.
San Francisco Superior Court: This one is easy. As I wrote earlier this year, current Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval has no business being elected to the S.F. Superior Court. Simply put, the position of judge is not to further certain social policies, create new law, or to use it as simply another city job; rather, the role of a judge is to interpret and enforce the law. I have zero faith that Gerardo Sandoval will be able to adequately or faithfully execute the law as written. Incumbent Judge Thomas Mellon may not be the nicest person on the planet, but he knows what it means to be a judge. Keep Judge Mellon.
First up, S.F. School Board.
The school board has been very contentious over these past few years, mainly because it has been led by the progressives who show that they are anything but. And I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I'm basically doing a one-issue slate this time. The issues? JROTC. Those opposed to JROTC, which has been led by the progressive majority, have been extremely vocal both in their opposition to it (for very non-JROTC reasons) and have been very vocal in trying to stifle debate on this issue. I'll get more into JROTC when I get around to Proposition V. Let it be said, though, the list below are people who support JROTC in high schools; who support free and open debate; and show they are willing to listen to other people. So, please vote for:
Rachel Norton
Emily Murase
Marigrace Cohen
Jill Wynns
I have not included Norman Yee, because he supported the petition to removed JROTC from the PE requirement. Despite his general position supporting JROTC, I feel that he has not shown leadership on this issue, instead, just following the tide, whichever way it may be. So, if you think my one-issue list is wrong, feel free to read the Chronicle's endorsements, where we disagree on Norman Yee and Marigrace Cohen.
Next up is the Community College Board. I'll admit to having little understanding of what this board does, or even having a real opinion on who should make up the board. However, I do know who I do not support, even though almost all of those up for election are Democrats that I would ordinarily not support, so it was a struggle to find four. So, after a period of whittling down names, here are the four I would suggest:
Steve Ngo
Mary Hernandez
For the final two, I can find no reason to not vote for current board members Natalie Berg and Milton Marks.
For District 5 Board of Supervisors, I'm left with the great distinction of choosing between three candidates, none of whom are likely to give a whit about the Inner Sunset portion of their district. First up, I do not support current Supe Ross Mirkarimi. He does not represent what I believe in, and he supports Proposition H, which deals with a potential city takeover of PG&E. I promise to get a Prop. H post up sometime soon. He is aligned with the Progressives in this city, although he is registered as a Green. And I have no faith in him holding the interests of the Inner Sunset in his mind. The second candidate is Owen O'Donnell, who is a Democrat. I do not agree with him either, most notably on the various social enginnering programs he supports all gussied up under the environment banner. Finally, there's Rob Anderson. On his website, he notes that he's trying to get at the left by moving further to the left of San Francisco progressives. What I find most alarming, at least to me, is how much I agree with him on a number of issues, homelessness and the various bicycle gangs, such as Critical Mass (who is a big supporter of Mirkarimi), that try to run this city. As he notes,
City progressives---that rather elastic term includes Greens and the left wing of the Democratic Party---live inside an ideological box that prevents their seeing homelessness and other issues clearly. Instead of seeing it as an ongoing emergency---with 100-200 homeless people a year dying on our streets---progressives acted as if the homeless were another oppressed minority, like blacks and gays, whose rights and lifestyle had to be defended. As a result, progressives ended up in effect defending a tragic status quo instead of launching serious political initiatives to address homelessness.
Nevertheless, it appears quite clear that the Inner Sunset is an area in District 5 that continues to get the short end of the stick. Inner Sunset is far less "progressive" than nearly all of the rest of District 5, which includes the Haight and the Western Addition. Which leaves me with a decision as to which candidate for District 5 would result in the least amount of problems for the Inner Sunset. I'm also comfortable in the knowledge that what I say probably won't change the fact that Mirkarimi will likely win re-election. So, I'm gonna vote for Rob Anderson, if for no other reason than it will make Board of Supervisors meetings far more interesting for
Melissa.
For the supervisor districts that border the Inner Sunset, re-elect both Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chu.
Quick fire-
BART Director: I see no reason to not re-elect Tom Radulovich.
District 12 State Assembly: What to do with Fiona Ma. She single-handedly thwarted a very good bill in the legislature on an issue of great importance to me because of her relationship with a certain lobbyist. And she co-authored an editorial supporting Proposition H. So, you would think that that would lead me to cast my lot with the Republican running against her. Again, my vote isn't going to really matter in this district. Nevertheless, while I have substantial concerns about Fiona's stances on energy, she is in the Assembly leadership, and she does appear to be doing a decent job on behalf of those of us living in the her district. She has tackled recycling scavengers, who are stealing money from the garbage companies, and has sought to make Highway 1 much safer. While I disagree with her on energy policy, I see no reason to not re-elect her.
District 12 U.S. Representative: Unlike for the State Assembly, I as of yet do not have a solid opinion on Rep. Jackie Speier. I will preface this by saying the Rep. Speier is a newcomer still getting used to how Washington works, and I am greatly enthused that she is working with Rep. Jeff Flake on how to combat earmarks. Yet, at the same, she introduced a bill to re-establish a federal speed limit. Her opponent, Greg Conlon, has been around a long time, and, like most Bay Area Republicans, appear to be simply taking one for the team. I have no doubt that either one of them would be an adequate representative for this district. And, like in the State Assembly, it doesn't really matter who I recommend, because Jackie Speier will likely be re-elected. I suppose it does concern me that Jackie has been in office since April, but only has 2 pieces of legislation to show for herself, one being the Federal speed limit, the other being a post office naming for her old boss Leo Ryan, who was gunned down at Jonestown (and where a much younger Jackie Speier lay bleeding on the tarmac for several hours until help finally arrived). I will be interested to see how she performs with a full 2 year term.
San Francisco Superior Court: This one is easy. As I wrote earlier this year, current Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval has no business being elected to the S.F. Superior Court. Simply put, the position of judge is not to further certain social policies, create new law, or to use it as simply another city job; rather, the role of a judge is to interpret and enforce the law. I have zero faith that Gerardo Sandoval will be able to adequately or faithfully execute the law as written. Incumbent Judge Thomas Mellon may not be the nicest person on the planet, but he knows what it means to be a judge. Keep Judge Mellon.
More econ.
From the WSJ, letters to the editor:
As I raised in my Vote for John McCain posting, over 20 years of economic growth, study, and experience is on the verge of being wiped-out with an Obama election. Reinstituting FDR's policies of massive government spending, raising taxes and raising trade barriers has been shown to be colossal failures, yet Obama has campaigned on a message of recreating the worst aspects of the New Deal. Taxing the rich, raising trade barriers and increasing government hand-outs does nothing to drive people to create, to produce or to flourish; rather, it encourages people to cut-back, relax and open their government check every week.
As for Obama's promise to "spread the wealth" via government handouts and social programs, it is useful to look back at one president who understood the limits imposed upon the Federal government by the Constitution: President Grover Cleveland. In 1887, President Cleveland wrote the following in a statement vetoing $100,000 that would purchase seed for farmers in Texas suffering through a drought-
Once upon a time, receiving a government hand-out was something one did not admit for it showed a failure upon the individual; now, though, receiving a government hand-out is no longer frowned upon, rather, it's expected. This year simply magnifies that fact. Free markets are characterized by ups and downs, the one means by which the Federal government can and should regulate those ups and downs is through monetary policy, i.e., interest rates and injecting capital. However, when government intervenes outside of monetary policy, havoc can be created; of which the source of our most recent economic troubles is but one example. Other examples are such things as increasing taxes and implementing protectionist foreign trade policies, especially in times of economic difficulties, which are two things being proposed by Obama.
I plan only one more post about the current presidential election, which I do hope to get out sometime today, unless something very noteworthy pops across my screen.
I think the answer to Alan Reynolds's excellent question and article ("How's Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?," op-ed, Oct. 24) is that Barack Obama is not going to raise $4.3 trillion, and he is not going to perform on his rhetoric. He excels as a rhetorician -- common to both the great and the least of past presidents -- but performance cannot run on that fuel. Inevitably, I think his luster will fade even with his most ardent supporters as that reality sets in. We also have seen luster fade time after time with Republican presidents. The rhetoric of a smaller and less invasive government always leads to king-size performance disappointments. This weakness is as central to the reality of our political economy as are its strengths. With all its foibles, its strengths become transparent when you compare it, not with our various idealizations, but with the litter of human experiments in political economy that have delivered far more suffering and murder than human betterment to the citizens of those economies.
Of course it is entirely likely that Mr. Obama will succeed in going for higher business, capital gains and income taxes, but it is an economic illusion to think for a minute that this will benefit the poor. All our wars on poverty have been lost by failing to help the poor help themselves. Higher business taxes, which ultimately can only be paid by individuals anyway, will simply export more economic activity to the world economy. Higher capital gains and income taxes will primarily reduce savings and investment at the expense of greater future productivity, which is at the heart of cross-generational reductions in poverty. A dozen countries, including the third largest economy, already have zero taxes on capital gains, and eight of them score high on the Economic Freedom Index and high in gross domestic product per capita.
As I raised in my Vote for John McCain posting, over 20 years of economic growth, study, and experience is on the verge of being wiped-out with an Obama election. Reinstituting FDR's policies of massive government spending, raising taxes and raising trade barriers has been shown to be colossal failures, yet Obama has campaigned on a message of recreating the worst aspects of the New Deal. Taxing the rich, raising trade barriers and increasing government hand-outs does nothing to drive people to create, to produce or to flourish; rather, it encourages people to cut-back, relax and open their government check every week.
As for Obama's promise to "spread the wealth" via government handouts and social programs, it is useful to look back at one president who understood the limits imposed upon the Federal government by the Constitution: President Grover Cleveland. In 1887, President Cleveland wrote the following in a statement vetoing $100,000 that would purchase seed for farmers in Texas suffering through a drought-
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.
Once upon a time, receiving a government hand-out was something one did not admit for it showed a failure upon the individual; now, though, receiving a government hand-out is no longer frowned upon, rather, it's expected. This year simply magnifies that fact. Free markets are characterized by ups and downs, the one means by which the Federal government can and should regulate those ups and downs is through monetary policy, i.e., interest rates and injecting capital. However, when government intervenes outside of monetary policy, havoc can be created; of which the source of our most recent economic troubles is but one example. Other examples are such things as increasing taxes and implementing protectionist foreign trade policies, especially in times of economic difficulties, which are two things being proposed by Obama.
I plan only one more post about the current presidential election, which I do hope to get out sometime today, unless something very noteworthy pops across my screen.
Friday, October 31, 2008
San Francisco propositions
To give you an idea of the ridiculousness of the initiative process in this city, the voters guide is 272 pages for 22 propositions, of which the legal text takes up 40 of those pages; the Controllers Statement, pros and cons and Digest take up 160 or so pages.
Proposition A
Proposition A would issue $887.4 million in bonds that will be used to rebuild or retrofit San Francisco General Hospital in order to improve the hospital's earthquake safety. Construction is set to begin in 2010 and be completed by 2015. State law requires hospitals to be able to withstand large earthquakes through retrofitting or rebuilding by 2013, or risk being shut-down. This proposition would also allow landlords to pass 50% of the resulting property tax increase to tenants. In this instance, the City is deciding to rebuild the General- treatment would continue through the construction.
Again, I have various concerns about increasing government debt, and will oppose such imprudent government spending. However, rebuilding a hospital to meet state law to meet earthquake safety standards in a completely different thing. I am in no position to doubt the veracity or completeness of whatever the design study for the new hospital. This bond measure certainly appears to be worthwhile.
Vote yes on Proposition A.
Proposition B
Proposition B will amend the city charter requiring a new specific funding set aside for a new affordable housing fund. This set aside would guarantee a revenue stream from the city's general fund, so new revenue sources would have to be found to replace the lost funding. The Affordable Housing Fund would be used to purchase, build, rehabilitate or maintain housing for households that earn not more than 80% of the median income of Ess Eff; support programs to help first-time buyers; provide rent subsidies and other services to tenants; and help with urgent repairs of public housing properties owned by the Ess Eff Housing Authority. Money can also be used for housing with dependents, seniors, people with disabilities, people who are HIV positive, and people who were recently homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless. There are other specific requirements for spending funds from this fund. This fund is set to expire in 2024. In the first year, the program will take away $36 million out of the 2008-2009 budget, afterwards, it will cost $88 million a year, for a total of nearly $3 billion over the length of the program.
This proposition is simply put a 15 year earmark that takes money out of the city's general fund without replacing the lost funds. This is an attempt by Chris Daly to hijack the city's spending priorities and funnel money to groups aligned with him. Despite claims to the alternative, this fund will not help middle class families stay in San Francisco. Not to mention that losing this money will take away money that would be better used at, say, fixing roads, maintaining police and fire departments, helping out MUNI, maintaining parks or helping out schools. While the city infrastructure begins to fall apart, the city repeatedly is forced to make funding judgments on social policies. This measure will not help the people who live in this city.
Vote No on Prop. B.
Proposition C
This is a proposition that will prohibit city employees from serving on most City Charter created boards and commissions. Some commissions require the city employees are part of the commission, and some commissions require city officials as part of the board. This proposition would not apply citizen advisory committees, the Law Library Board of Trustees, the Arts Commission, the Asian Art Commission, the Fine Arts Museums Board of Trustees, the governing board of the War Memorial and Performing Arts Center, the Retirement Board and the Health Service Board.
I honestly do not know what the purpose of this proposition is supposed to accomplish. The argument in favor say that this proposition will reduce conflicts and undue influence by city employees. This proposition seems needlessly excessive and unnecessary. The threat imagined by the Board of Supervisors that put this on the ballot seems to be really off the mark. My general feeling when dealing with city propositions is that if I have any doubts, vote no. I don't know what the real purpose or design is for this proposition and it seems really unnecessary. So, vote No on Prop. C.
Proposition D
This proposition will provide funds to develop Pier 70 based on new city hotel and payroll expense tax revenues from the development of Pier 70, provided that the Board of Supervisors approves a financial and land use plan for Pier 70. In other words, this would allow the Port of San Francisco and/or the city's General Fund to expend funds to pay for the development of new buildings and commercial buildings, and would allow the Port and/or the city to recover those expenditures through an increase in hotel and payroll expense taxes on property built and businesses operating in the Pier 70 waterfront development. This will allow for redevelopment of a historical area badly in need of redevelopment and repair, at little to no cost to citizens. This proposition is supported by the entire Board of Supervisors, the S.F. Chamber of Commerce and both the S.F. Republican Party and the S.F. Democratic Party.
This is a good deal for the residents of this city. Vote Yes on Prop. D.
Proposition E
This proposition will change the number of signatures required for petitions to recall city officials to match state law for a recall of an official. Currently, the number of signatures required for a petition to recall city officials is 10% of the registered voters in the supervisor's district. This proposition would change that to 20% of the supervisor's district. What is telling about the purpose of this proposition is the rebuttal by supporters of this proposition, there the supporters come out and say they want this to stop recall attempts "based on one or two policy disagreements." They claim this 10% level is "ripe for abuse"; in other words, they don't want to make it easy for residents to recall them. Over the past 2 years, 2 separate recall attempts have been tried against Supervisor Jake McGoldrick and Board President Aaron Peskin, conveniently, both of them are termed out this year. Both attempts failed. There is nothing wrong with the current 10% requirement, and has not be abused. This is simply to make it harder for residents to move to recall their supervisor.
Vote No on E.
Proposition F
This proposition would declare that all city elections, except special elections, be held only in even-numbered years beginning after the 2011 elections. Currently, elections for Mayor, Sheriff, District Attorney, City Attorney and Treasurer in odd-numbered years for 4 year terms. If approved, those positions elected in either 2009, when City Attorney and Treasurer are up, or 2011, when Mayor, Sheriff and District Attorney are up, would serve 5 year terms; thereafter, terms would return to 4 years. Supporters argue that turn-out tends to be higher in even numbered years, especially in Presidential election years, additionally, holding elections every year increases voter fatigue. Opponents argue that by aligning local races with federal races will decrease attention paid to local races.
I will simply note that this is the largest voter guide since I've lived in San Francisco; I'm sure it's no coincidence that the size of this voter guide coincides with a Presidential election. As a voter do I want 20+ city wide ballot propositions every 2 years, or have them spread out over 2 or more elections. I say the latter. Also, it's important to note that the language still allows the city to call a special election whenever it wants. So, even though it attempts to say elections will only be held every 2 years, it's still possible, and likely, that we'll have elections at least every year or something.
Vote No on Proposition F.
Proposition G
This proposition would allow city employees who took unpaid parental leave before July 1, 2003 to purchase retirement system credit for those lost days. In 2003, city voters approved paid parental leave for city employees, up to 16 weeks paid leave. Employees would be eligible to buy back this lost credit if they returned to work with the City and stayed for at least 6 months. Employees would be able to buy back this credit in 2 month blocks, up to 4 months, for each period of unpaid leave. Employees must purchase this credit before they retire. All costs to purchase this credit will be borne by the employee and not the City.
This seems an entirely reasonable solution to working mothers and fathers who were city employees before 2003 and took unpaid parental leave. If the city employees subject to this proposition want to be able to buy back their service credit for those unpaid periods, they should be able to. This is a fair result to what turned out to be an inequitable situation.
Vote Yes of G.
I'm going to skip Prop. H, and save that for another post.
Proposition I
This proposition will create an Office of the Independent Ratepayer Advocate. Basically, this will be an independent office that will provide advice on behalf of ratepayers before the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. The SF PUC sets rates to be paid by citizen residents on water and sewer services, as well as operating the Hetch Hetchy Dam, Hetchy Hetchy water canal, and any power created from Hetch Hetchy Dam. The SF PUC is essentially a municipal utility that is responsible for water and sewer service to San Francisco residents. The ratepayer advocate would provide advice, comments and make recommendations on PUC rates from the ratepayer perspective; review PUC revenues; hold public meetings on PUC rates; accept inquiries from PUC customers; provide explanations of PUC rates; and conduct customer outreach activities. The ratepayer advocate would be paid for by ratepayers, as such, the PUC would be allowed to raise rates to recover the costs of funding the Office of Ratepayer Advocate. The City Administrator would appoint or remove the Advocate. Currently, the PUC contracts for an independent analysis of the fairness of their rates and the soundness of their business plan and revenues.
I know this sounds like a good idea, having someone specifically designated to review PUC rates and revenues, but, really, isn't that the job of the Board of Supervisors? The PUC is a municipal agency, as such, it's rates are designed to cover its operating costs. Now, might the PUC decide to go off on some random policy road that ultimately end up costing ratepayers more; sure. But again, that's the job of the Board of Supervisors to deal with. If this city wants to make the PUC more accountable to the people, they would put the PUC board up for a vote. As it is, the PUC board is now subject to Board of Supervisor scrutiny. If the Board of Supervisors don't like what the PUC is doing, they can haul the PUC board into a meeting. At this point, pending revelations of wild PUC spending or unwise policy pronouncements (ok, changing water rate structures may not have been ideal, but they are trying to force conservation, a measure I doubt the Office of Ratepayer Advocate would oppose), I see no reason to support this increase in annual PUC expenditures. It will cost an estimated $125K a year to staff this office. Plus, it seems to me that the Board of Supervisors don't want to do their job of oversight of the PUC; hence, they delegate their responsibility to an unelected official, that serves that the pleasure of the City Administrator, which is appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Board of Supervisors.
So, I do not see this office as needed, nor do I see a need to increase PUC spending (and S.F. ratepayers rates). Therefore, vote No on I.
Proposition J
This proposition will create a Historic Preservation Commission that will consist of 7 members. The Historic Preservation Commission will replace the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. The differences between the two agencies are: 1) the Landmarks Board only provides recommendations to the Planning Commission and Planning Department, which can accept or reject the Landmarks Board's recommendation and 2) the Historic Preservation Commission would become a separate City agency, taking over the duties of the Landmarks Board, as well as certain duties from the Planning Commission and Planning Department. The Historic Planning Commission will have authority to make recommendations directly to the Board of Supervisors on designation of landmarks, historic buildings, historic districts and conservation districts; approve permits or certificates for demolition of or alteration to designated landmarks and historic buildings; and make recommendations about proposed ordinances and resolutions concerning historic preservation. Decisions from the Commission can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. Despite all that, the Historic Planning Commission will not have its own staff, but will rely on budgets and staff from the Planning Department.
Ok, so what does all this mean? It means that this new commission is replacing an old commission and giving the new commission some additional authority over historical building issues. Generally, I don't mind historical preservation commissions or boards; I think they do a decent job at trying to keep the historical nature of a building or neighborhood intact. Coupled with the fact that there was already a board required to deal with this issue, I don't really see a major problem with approving this proposition. However, in San Francisco, these things are never so easy. With this new authority, the Commission could go out of its way to deny much needed new construction in areas that are deemed historical. Of course, the way this city works, any number of boards or commissions, or the Board of Supervisors themselves, can kill a worthwhile project- historical or not. Not that I want to be seen as advocating for more regulation, I do admit the need to have some oversight over historical buildings and structures. I recommend this proposition in the hopes that there is some common sense, and buildings aren't declared historical just because.
I recommend Yes on Prop. J.
Proposition K
This proposition would stop enforcing laws against prostitution and direct the City to stop funding anti-prostitution programs. It would keep laws relating to coercion, extortion, battery, rape, sexual assault and other violent crimes on the books and allow police to enforce those laws whether or not the victim is a "sex worker."
Without getting into the hysterics that supporters and opponents whip themselves into on this measure, I will admit there is at least some reasoning behind decriminalizing prostitution. That being said, a modicum of regulation normally steps in to ensure the safety of those workers so that the prostitutes themselves aren't here illegally or against their will, and that they are not engaging in other criminal activity. This proposition provides none of the safeguards that one would expect upon decriminalizing certain behavior. It is an open question as to whether or not human trafficking would be subject to the decriminalizing aspect of this proposition. This proposition is simply poorly constructed, poorly conceived, and poorly thought-out. It is possible to have a reasoned discussion on decriminalizing prostitution, but this measure it not the way to begin this debate.
Vote No on Proposition K.
Ok, that's all I have the patience to deal with for now. I'll get cracking on the remaining 10 propositions later on. I hope this makes sense; my head hurts. If I have any egregious errors, someone let me know.
Proposition A
Proposition A would issue $887.4 million in bonds that will be used to rebuild or retrofit San Francisco General Hospital in order to improve the hospital's earthquake safety. Construction is set to begin in 2010 and be completed by 2015. State law requires hospitals to be able to withstand large earthquakes through retrofitting or rebuilding by 2013, or risk being shut-down. This proposition would also allow landlords to pass 50% of the resulting property tax increase to tenants. In this instance, the City is deciding to rebuild the General- treatment would continue through the construction.
Again, I have various concerns about increasing government debt, and will oppose such imprudent government spending. However, rebuilding a hospital to meet state law to meet earthquake safety standards in a completely different thing. I am in no position to doubt the veracity or completeness of whatever the design study for the new hospital. This bond measure certainly appears to be worthwhile.
Vote yes on Proposition A.
Proposition B
Proposition B will amend the city charter requiring a new specific funding set aside for a new affordable housing fund. This set aside would guarantee a revenue stream from the city's general fund, so new revenue sources would have to be found to replace the lost funding. The Affordable Housing Fund would be used to purchase, build, rehabilitate or maintain housing for households that earn not more than 80% of the median income of Ess Eff; support programs to help first-time buyers; provide rent subsidies and other services to tenants; and help with urgent repairs of public housing properties owned by the Ess Eff Housing Authority. Money can also be used for housing with dependents, seniors, people with disabilities, people who are HIV positive, and people who were recently homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless. There are other specific requirements for spending funds from this fund. This fund is set to expire in 2024. In the first year, the program will take away $36 million out of the 2008-2009 budget, afterwards, it will cost $88 million a year, for a total of nearly $3 billion over the length of the program.
This proposition is simply put a 15 year earmark that takes money out of the city's general fund without replacing the lost funds. This is an attempt by Chris Daly to hijack the city's spending priorities and funnel money to groups aligned with him. Despite claims to the alternative, this fund will not help middle class families stay in San Francisco. Not to mention that losing this money will take away money that would be better used at, say, fixing roads, maintaining police and fire departments, helping out MUNI, maintaining parks or helping out schools. While the city infrastructure begins to fall apart, the city repeatedly is forced to make funding judgments on social policies. This measure will not help the people who live in this city.
Vote No on Prop. B.
Proposition C
This is a proposition that will prohibit city employees from serving on most City Charter created boards and commissions. Some commissions require the city employees are part of the commission, and some commissions require city officials as part of the board. This proposition would not apply citizen advisory committees, the Law Library Board of Trustees, the Arts Commission, the Asian Art Commission, the Fine Arts Museums Board of Trustees, the governing board of the War Memorial and Performing Arts Center, the Retirement Board and the Health Service Board.
I honestly do not know what the purpose of this proposition is supposed to accomplish. The argument in favor say that this proposition will reduce conflicts and undue influence by city employees. This proposition seems needlessly excessive and unnecessary. The threat imagined by the Board of Supervisors that put this on the ballot seems to be really off the mark. My general feeling when dealing with city propositions is that if I have any doubts, vote no. I don't know what the real purpose or design is for this proposition and it seems really unnecessary. So, vote No on Prop. C.
Proposition D
This proposition will provide funds to develop Pier 70 based on new city hotel and payroll expense tax revenues from the development of Pier 70, provided that the Board of Supervisors approves a financial and land use plan for Pier 70. In other words, this would allow the Port of San Francisco and/or the city's General Fund to expend funds to pay for the development of new buildings and commercial buildings, and would allow the Port and/or the city to recover those expenditures through an increase in hotel and payroll expense taxes on property built and businesses operating in the Pier 70 waterfront development. This will allow for redevelopment of a historical area badly in need of redevelopment and repair, at little to no cost to citizens. This proposition is supported by the entire Board of Supervisors, the S.F. Chamber of Commerce and both the S.F. Republican Party and the S.F. Democratic Party.
This is a good deal for the residents of this city. Vote Yes on Prop. D.
Proposition E
This proposition will change the number of signatures required for petitions to recall city officials to match state law for a recall of an official. Currently, the number of signatures required for a petition to recall city officials is 10% of the registered voters in the supervisor's district. This proposition would change that to 20% of the supervisor's district. What is telling about the purpose of this proposition is the rebuttal by supporters of this proposition, there the supporters come out and say they want this to stop recall attempts "based on one or two policy disagreements." They claim this 10% level is "ripe for abuse"; in other words, they don't want to make it easy for residents to recall them. Over the past 2 years, 2 separate recall attempts have been tried against Supervisor Jake McGoldrick and Board President Aaron Peskin, conveniently, both of them are termed out this year. Both attempts failed. There is nothing wrong with the current 10% requirement, and has not be abused. This is simply to make it harder for residents to move to recall their supervisor.
Vote No on E.
Proposition F
This proposition would declare that all city elections, except special elections, be held only in even-numbered years beginning after the 2011 elections. Currently, elections for Mayor, Sheriff, District Attorney, City Attorney and Treasurer in odd-numbered years for 4 year terms. If approved, those positions elected in either 2009, when City Attorney and Treasurer are up, or 2011, when Mayor, Sheriff and District Attorney are up, would serve 5 year terms; thereafter, terms would return to 4 years. Supporters argue that turn-out tends to be higher in even numbered years, especially in Presidential election years, additionally, holding elections every year increases voter fatigue. Opponents argue that by aligning local races with federal races will decrease attention paid to local races.
I will simply note that this is the largest voter guide since I've lived in San Francisco; I'm sure it's no coincidence that the size of this voter guide coincides with a Presidential election. As a voter do I want 20+ city wide ballot propositions every 2 years, or have them spread out over 2 or more elections. I say the latter. Also, it's important to note that the language still allows the city to call a special election whenever it wants. So, even though it attempts to say elections will only be held every 2 years, it's still possible, and likely, that we'll have elections at least every year or something.
Vote No on Proposition F.
Proposition G
This proposition would allow city employees who took unpaid parental leave before July 1, 2003 to purchase retirement system credit for those lost days. In 2003, city voters approved paid parental leave for city employees, up to 16 weeks paid leave. Employees would be eligible to buy back this lost credit if they returned to work with the City and stayed for at least 6 months. Employees would be able to buy back this credit in 2 month blocks, up to 4 months, for each period of unpaid leave. Employees must purchase this credit before they retire. All costs to purchase this credit will be borne by the employee and not the City.
This seems an entirely reasonable solution to working mothers and fathers who were city employees before 2003 and took unpaid parental leave. If the city employees subject to this proposition want to be able to buy back their service credit for those unpaid periods, they should be able to. This is a fair result to what turned out to be an inequitable situation.
Vote Yes of G.
I'm going to skip Prop. H, and save that for another post.
Proposition I
This proposition will create an Office of the Independent Ratepayer Advocate. Basically, this will be an independent office that will provide advice on behalf of ratepayers before the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. The SF PUC sets rates to be paid by citizen residents on water and sewer services, as well as operating the Hetch Hetchy Dam, Hetchy Hetchy water canal, and any power created from Hetch Hetchy Dam. The SF PUC is essentially a municipal utility that is responsible for water and sewer service to San Francisco residents. The ratepayer advocate would provide advice, comments and make recommendations on PUC rates from the ratepayer perspective; review PUC revenues; hold public meetings on PUC rates; accept inquiries from PUC customers; provide explanations of PUC rates; and conduct customer outreach activities. The ratepayer advocate would be paid for by ratepayers, as such, the PUC would be allowed to raise rates to recover the costs of funding the Office of Ratepayer Advocate. The City Administrator would appoint or remove the Advocate. Currently, the PUC contracts for an independent analysis of the fairness of their rates and the soundness of their business plan and revenues.
I know this sounds like a good idea, having someone specifically designated to review PUC rates and revenues, but, really, isn't that the job of the Board of Supervisors? The PUC is a municipal agency, as such, it's rates are designed to cover its operating costs. Now, might the PUC decide to go off on some random policy road that ultimately end up costing ratepayers more; sure. But again, that's the job of the Board of Supervisors to deal with. If this city wants to make the PUC more accountable to the people, they would put the PUC board up for a vote. As it is, the PUC board is now subject to Board of Supervisor scrutiny. If the Board of Supervisors don't like what the PUC is doing, they can haul the PUC board into a meeting. At this point, pending revelations of wild PUC spending or unwise policy pronouncements (ok, changing water rate structures may not have been ideal, but they are trying to force conservation, a measure I doubt the Office of Ratepayer Advocate would oppose), I see no reason to support this increase in annual PUC expenditures. It will cost an estimated $125K a year to staff this office. Plus, it seems to me that the Board of Supervisors don't want to do their job of oversight of the PUC; hence, they delegate their responsibility to an unelected official, that serves that the pleasure of the City Administrator, which is appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Board of Supervisors.
So, I do not see this office as needed, nor do I see a need to increase PUC spending (and S.F. ratepayers rates). Therefore, vote No on I.
Proposition J
This proposition will create a Historic Preservation Commission that will consist of 7 members. The Historic Preservation Commission will replace the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. The differences between the two agencies are: 1) the Landmarks Board only provides recommendations to the Planning Commission and Planning Department, which can accept or reject the Landmarks Board's recommendation and 2) the Historic Preservation Commission would become a separate City agency, taking over the duties of the Landmarks Board, as well as certain duties from the Planning Commission and Planning Department. The Historic Planning Commission will have authority to make recommendations directly to the Board of Supervisors on designation of landmarks, historic buildings, historic districts and conservation districts; approve permits or certificates for demolition of or alteration to designated landmarks and historic buildings; and make recommendations about proposed ordinances and resolutions concerning historic preservation. Decisions from the Commission can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. Despite all that, the Historic Planning Commission will not have its own staff, but will rely on budgets and staff from the Planning Department.
Ok, so what does all this mean? It means that this new commission is replacing an old commission and giving the new commission some additional authority over historical building issues. Generally, I don't mind historical preservation commissions or boards; I think they do a decent job at trying to keep the historical nature of a building or neighborhood intact. Coupled with the fact that there was already a board required to deal with this issue, I don't really see a major problem with approving this proposition. However, in San Francisco, these things are never so easy. With this new authority, the Commission could go out of its way to deny much needed new construction in areas that are deemed historical. Of course, the way this city works, any number of boards or commissions, or the Board of Supervisors themselves, can kill a worthwhile project- historical or not. Not that I want to be seen as advocating for more regulation, I do admit the need to have some oversight over historical buildings and structures. I recommend this proposition in the hopes that there is some common sense, and buildings aren't declared historical just because.
I recommend Yes on Prop. J.
Proposition K
This proposition would stop enforcing laws against prostitution and direct the City to stop funding anti-prostitution programs. It would keep laws relating to coercion, extortion, battery, rape, sexual assault and other violent crimes on the books and allow police to enforce those laws whether or not the victim is a "sex worker."
Without getting into the hysterics that supporters and opponents whip themselves into on this measure, I will admit there is at least some reasoning behind decriminalizing prostitution. That being said, a modicum of regulation normally steps in to ensure the safety of those workers so that the prostitutes themselves aren't here illegally or against their will, and that they are not engaging in other criminal activity. This proposition provides none of the safeguards that one would expect upon decriminalizing certain behavior. It is an open question as to whether or not human trafficking would be subject to the decriminalizing aspect of this proposition. This proposition is simply poorly constructed, poorly conceived, and poorly thought-out. It is possible to have a reasoned discussion on decriminalizing prostitution, but this measure it not the way to begin this debate.
Vote No on Proposition K.
Ok, that's all I have the patience to deal with for now. I'll get cracking on the remaining 10 propositions later on. I hope this makes sense; my head hurts. If I have any egregious errors, someone let me know.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Why I'm voting for John McCain
It's really pretty simple- I am voting for McCain, both because I wholeheartedly disagree with a lot of what Obama says, I disagree with a lot of what he stands for, and I disagree with a lot of what he wants to do and will do; I am also pro-McCain, as I agree with McCain on a large number of issues.
First off, a personal decision is to be made, and I'll let Volokh's Todd Zywicki explain a large reason why I should vote for McCain, as opposed to voting for Obama (I being a libertarian leaning Republican):
Obama promises more of the failed economic policies of Democrats from years gone by, free markets, despite recent events, have more than shown and proved their value and worth; most people rightly criticize knee-jerk reactions against something because they are based on fear and rigid ideology, and not on any proof of failure. Obama's economic policies, coupled with a Democratic control of Congress, are not what's needed today- instead, by using populism, they will suck out the life of free-market capitalism, in favor of populist, government sponsored and controlled markets. We should not be turning our back on 20+ years of positive growth, positive freedoms, and positive experience- let the markets do their thing.
Obama proposes none of that- he proposes government interfering in the marketplace; he proposes government interfering in the free exchange of ideas; he proposes getting rid of secret ballots for union formation; he proposes a huge tax increase on the very same people that should be relied on to invest capital into the market. In a time of undercapitalization in the market, how government taking that money and giving it away makes sense is beyond me- that capital would be better used to be re-invested in the market.
Obama's reasoning behind raising taxes is simply to pay for this social redistribution of wealth spending plans, but, as even CBS has noted, "If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he's promised to do "line by line," he still doesn't pay for his list. If he's elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with - thanks to the recession." If taxes on the rich don't cut it, and, I might add he's now dropped the floor from $250K to $200K, a realization that he needs a bigger pool to steal from, then where else is he going to come up with this money? The answer- either he will continue to drop the floor on who will be subject to a tax hike, or he will have to cut his spending; guess which one I think he'll do. He'll raise more people's taxes.
All in all. . .Obama's economic plans are a recipe for disaster. In a time of recession, which Congressional Democrats have been waiting for, raising taxes and increasing spending does not work. John McCain knows that, that's why he advocates for cutting taxes and cutting government waste. He doesn't want government taking money away from the people who are best able to inject capital into the economy; he doesn't want the government to raise taxes to simply hand them out to someone else. He wants people to use their own money to make their own choices; he wants people to invest in America. He knows that the government is not a domestic charity organization.
After taxing and spending, my next near and dear topic is free trade. It is patently clear that Obama, egged on by a, to use a term from the Economist, "muddle-headed" Congress, will raise (or not lower) tariffs, will make it more difficult to enter into free trade agreements with foreign countries and will make protectionism their mantra for foreign trade. Again, history has shown us that throwing up protectionist barriers on free trade dramatically hurts American businesses and American consumers by making prices go up across the board. This is true during times of recession and panic, and it's true during times of economic prosperity. Obama has promised to renegotiate NAFTA, something that the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, is daring him to do. Why? Well, there's something in there that forces Canada to sell a majority of their oil to the U.S.; you can be sure that if NAFTA is renegotiated, Canada, and Mexico, will want that taken out. The result, well, a less secure and more volatile reliance on foreign oil. Instead of having a steady supply of Canadian and Mexican oil, they will put it up on the market, thereby necessitating that we potentially increase on imports of oil from less friendly countries. Obama claims that he will be better able to repair our image abroad, yeah, by making us less competitive, we'll be seen as an economic patsy, a country that is not worth the effort to trade with.
John McCain is a real free trader. He knows that in order to facilitate the on-going competitiveness of the American workforce and keep prices down, free trade is necessary. He will stand up to the unions, unlike Obama, who will sign a union card check law that will no longer provide for a secret ballot to create a union. Everything that Obama said he will do economically, John McCain won't- McCain won't raise tariffs, he wants to lower them, he won't support throwing up protectionist walls on our market, all of which hurt American business and customers. He will advocate for free trade agreements that are mutually beneficial- for free trade is one of the greatest sources of showcasing not only American technology and ingenuity, but also our core beliefs on freedom for all people without the threat of government interference.
So, yes, I'm not voting for Barack Obama. I am not voting for a return to a New New Deal, an economic program that will hurt America and its citizens more than help; I am not voting for one of the most inexperienced and unqualified nominees this country has seen in some time; I am not voting from one of the biggest frauds to run for president since Pat Paulson. Obama's minimal legislative experience is not one of envy- he is simply a yes man. In his years in the Illinois legislature, he voted as he was told, and was rewarded; in his years in the U.S. Senate, he has voted as he was told, and was rewarded. As President, I have no doubt that will sign what he is told. This is no time to vote Present. This is no time to elect someone who has shown little to no ability to think for himself- his sole ability is his ability to read lines off a teleprompter in a pleasant voice. This is no time for a yes man; this is a time to elect John McCain.
John McCain is no yes man. John McCain is his own man. John McCain has a history of putting aside partisanship and to do what's best for the country, even at his own political peril. He fought for and got signed a campaign finance law (a law that Obama is flouting by not disclosing all of his donors, especially in light of the numerous instances of fraud); he has fought for a cap and trade bill on the environment; he has fought for immigration reform; he criticized the Bush administration on the handling of Iraq; he has shown a willingness to put aside what's best for him, and do what's best for the country. Barack Obama does not and will not do what's best for the country; John McCain will.
I do not trust Barack Obama; I trust John McCain. I do not trust Obama's sense of judgment, this is evidenced by his unapologetic alliances with Tony Rezko, Valerie Jarrett, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and ACORN, amongst who knows how many others that the press has conveniently not bothered to investigate, instead, he simply brushes them aside and explains them away, like a one-night stand in college. He fails to see that his judgment to associate with these people, and not be offended at any point from then on out is important. John McCain has shown humility and a recognition of doing wrong. After his association with Charles Keating, he admitted it was a mistake to meet with him; Obama has made no such apology about any of the people above, nor has even admitted it was a mistake to begin with. John McCain has gone out of his way to make amends for that mistake; Obama has not once made any attempt to make amends, or even show remorse. He does not care, and has shown no inclination to apologize. Hiding behind mis-information, half-truths, thuggish attempts to silence non-believers and critics, and straight-up obfuscation is not the sign of a leader. Barack Obama is not a leader, he's a follower, and will only move America backwards. John McCain is the leader we need. He will lead America forward, and will do it for America, not for himself. That is why I'm voting for John McCain.
I will conclude with what former Democratic speech-writer Wendy Button wrote in a recent article:
Vote John McCain.
First off, a personal decision is to be made, and I'll let Volokh's Todd Zywicki explain a large reason why I should vote for McCain, as opposed to voting for Obama (I being a libertarian leaning Republican):
Perhaps most fundamentally, given the history of the world over the past 25 years I think I just had assumed that no serious politician or thinker would in this day and age hold the sorts of views that Obama seems to hold. Raising taxes in a recession, protectionism, abolition of the secret ballot for union elections, big spending increases, nationalized health care, and most appallingly (to my mind) the potential reimposition of the "Fairness Doctrine"--I mean this is pretty serious stuff. And when combined with a Democratic Congress, I think we may be talking about (to use Thomas Sowell's recent phrase) a "point of no return." I guess I just assumed that Obama would be sort of Bill Clintonish--"the era of big government is over" and all that stuff. That he would have absorbed the basic insights of recent decades on taxes, trade, regulation, etc. ...
But as I've looked at the actual policy positions of the two more closely, it seems to me that Obama really seems to be pretty far out there. He is no Bill Clinton. And from what I can tell none of those libertarians or conservatives who are Obama supporters are attracted to because of his positions (other than those who care strongly about the Iraq war and foreign policy), but rather because of who he is. Obama is a compelling personality. But in reading these encomiums to him, I haven't seen any explanation as to how Obama's policies on tax, trade, spending, or regulatory would be friendlier to individual liberty than what is likely to be McCain's (as weak as those will be). As someone observed somewhere recently, this is about the first time in history that you have endorsements from people who endorse Obama on the hope that he won't do what he says he'll do rather than because of what he says he'll do.
Obama promises more of the failed economic policies of Democrats from years gone by, free markets, despite recent events, have more than shown and proved their value and worth; most people rightly criticize knee-jerk reactions against something because they are based on fear and rigid ideology, and not on any proof of failure. Obama's economic policies, coupled with a Democratic control of Congress, are not what's needed today- instead, by using populism, they will suck out the life of free-market capitalism, in favor of populist, government sponsored and controlled markets. We should not be turning our back on 20+ years of positive growth, positive freedoms, and positive experience- let the markets do their thing.
Obama proposes none of that- he proposes government interfering in the marketplace; he proposes government interfering in the free exchange of ideas; he proposes getting rid of secret ballots for union formation; he proposes a huge tax increase on the very same people that should be relied on to invest capital into the market. In a time of undercapitalization in the market, how government taking that money and giving it away makes sense is beyond me- that capital would be better used to be re-invested in the market.
Obama's reasoning behind raising taxes is simply to pay for this social redistribution of wealth spending plans, but, as even CBS has noted, "If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he's promised to do "line by line," he still doesn't pay for his list. If he's elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with - thanks to the recession." If taxes on the rich don't cut it, and, I might add he's now dropped the floor from $250K to $200K, a realization that he needs a bigger pool to steal from, then where else is he going to come up with this money? The answer- either he will continue to drop the floor on who will be subject to a tax hike, or he will have to cut his spending; guess which one I think he'll do. He'll raise more people's taxes.
All in all. . .Obama's economic plans are a recipe for disaster. In a time of recession, which Congressional Democrats have been waiting for, raising taxes and increasing spending does not work. John McCain knows that, that's why he advocates for cutting taxes and cutting government waste. He doesn't want government taking money away from the people who are best able to inject capital into the economy; he doesn't want the government to raise taxes to simply hand them out to someone else. He wants people to use their own money to make their own choices; he wants people to invest in America. He knows that the government is not a domestic charity organization.
After taxing and spending, my next near and dear topic is free trade. It is patently clear that Obama, egged on by a, to use a term from the Economist, "muddle-headed" Congress, will raise (or not lower) tariffs, will make it more difficult to enter into free trade agreements with foreign countries and will make protectionism their mantra for foreign trade. Again, history has shown us that throwing up protectionist barriers on free trade dramatically hurts American businesses and American consumers by making prices go up across the board. This is true during times of recession and panic, and it's true during times of economic prosperity. Obama has promised to renegotiate NAFTA, something that the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, is daring him to do. Why? Well, there's something in there that forces Canada to sell a majority of their oil to the U.S.; you can be sure that if NAFTA is renegotiated, Canada, and Mexico, will want that taken out. The result, well, a less secure and more volatile reliance on foreign oil. Instead of having a steady supply of Canadian and Mexican oil, they will put it up on the market, thereby necessitating that we potentially increase on imports of oil from less friendly countries. Obama claims that he will be better able to repair our image abroad, yeah, by making us less competitive, we'll be seen as an economic patsy, a country that is not worth the effort to trade with.
John McCain is a real free trader. He knows that in order to facilitate the on-going competitiveness of the American workforce and keep prices down, free trade is necessary. He will stand up to the unions, unlike Obama, who will sign a union card check law that will no longer provide for a secret ballot to create a union. Everything that Obama said he will do economically, John McCain won't- McCain won't raise tariffs, he wants to lower them, he won't support throwing up protectionist walls on our market, all of which hurt American business and customers. He will advocate for free trade agreements that are mutually beneficial- for free trade is one of the greatest sources of showcasing not only American technology and ingenuity, but also our core beliefs on freedom for all people without the threat of government interference.
So, yes, I'm not voting for Barack Obama. I am not voting for a return to a New New Deal, an economic program that will hurt America and its citizens more than help; I am not voting for one of the most inexperienced and unqualified nominees this country has seen in some time; I am not voting from one of the biggest frauds to run for president since Pat Paulson. Obama's minimal legislative experience is not one of envy- he is simply a yes man. In his years in the Illinois legislature, he voted as he was told, and was rewarded; in his years in the U.S. Senate, he has voted as he was told, and was rewarded. As President, I have no doubt that will sign what he is told. This is no time to vote Present. This is no time to elect someone who has shown little to no ability to think for himself- his sole ability is his ability to read lines off a teleprompter in a pleasant voice. This is no time for a yes man; this is a time to elect John McCain.
John McCain is no yes man. John McCain is his own man. John McCain has a history of putting aside partisanship and to do what's best for the country, even at his own political peril. He fought for and got signed a campaign finance law (a law that Obama is flouting by not disclosing all of his donors, especially in light of the numerous instances of fraud); he has fought for a cap and trade bill on the environment; he has fought for immigration reform; he criticized the Bush administration on the handling of Iraq; he has shown a willingness to put aside what's best for him, and do what's best for the country. Barack Obama does not and will not do what's best for the country; John McCain will.
I do not trust Barack Obama; I trust John McCain. I do not trust Obama's sense of judgment, this is evidenced by his unapologetic alliances with Tony Rezko, Valerie Jarrett, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and ACORN, amongst who knows how many others that the press has conveniently not bothered to investigate, instead, he simply brushes them aside and explains them away, like a one-night stand in college. He fails to see that his judgment to associate with these people, and not be offended at any point from then on out is important. John McCain has shown humility and a recognition of doing wrong. After his association with Charles Keating, he admitted it was a mistake to meet with him; Obama has made no such apology about any of the people above, nor has even admitted it was a mistake to begin with. John McCain has gone out of his way to make amends for that mistake; Obama has not once made any attempt to make amends, or even show remorse. He does not care, and has shown no inclination to apologize. Hiding behind mis-information, half-truths, thuggish attempts to silence non-believers and critics, and straight-up obfuscation is not the sign of a leader. Barack Obama is not a leader, he's a follower, and will only move America backwards. John McCain is the leader we need. He will lead America forward, and will do it for America, not for himself. That is why I'm voting for John McCain.
I will conclude with what former Democratic speech-writer Wendy Button wrote in a recent article:
The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.” ....
The party I believed in wouldn’t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.
Our economy is in the tank for many complicated reasons, especially because people don’t have enough money. So let them keep it. Let businesses keep it so they can create jobs and stay here and weather this storm. And yet, the Democratic ideology remains the same. Our approach to problems—big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies—is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding?
....
I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges. .... Whatever inspiration I had in Chapel Hill two years ago is gone. When people say how excited they are about this election, I can now say, “Maybe for you. But I lost my home.”
Vote John McCain.
A mess of state-wide California Propositions
Normally I will go over and get in-depth on the whole slate of propositions, both state-wide and before the City of San Francisco. However, I'm running late on these, and there are 12 state-wide props and 20+ city-wide propositions. So, I'm not going to go in-depth into the majority of these, but I will go into a few of these propositions where I think it appropriate.
First up is Proposition 2.
Prop. 2 proposes to set standards for the confinement of farm animals, specifically, pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal and egg-laying hens. Beginning in 2015, the proposed standards would require that those animals be confined in ways that allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely. Penalties are not to exceed $1000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days.
Believe me when I say that I want to support this measure, but I cannot. I agree with the sentiment expressed in this proposition, but, honestly, I do not believe that using the power of the government is the right way to go about this. Plus, there is already a burgeoning market in California, and elsewhere, for these free-range and cage free products; God knows that I pay a premium for them. Which goes to my next point; in order to accommodate these new rules, the costs to farmers to implement and maintain animals under these standards are going to, first of all, increase the production and maintenance costs, which will result in increased prices to customers. Second, it will likely result in many companies leaving California to other states, and Mexico, that do not have these restrictions. Which, of course, means that these products will need to be shipped in from a longer distance than today- and longer truck drives means more CO2 emission. Finally, this will also reduce the number of animals a business would be able to raise, as complying with these new standards would necessitate an increase in the total area for raising these animals, increasing costs due to potential shortages in supply, or increasing costs due to the need to purchase more land to raise these animals.
Like I said above, I completely agree with what this proposition wants to accomplish, but I disagree with enshrining it into state law. The market already provides incentives to businesses to raise animals in this style, but not every Californian can afford cage free eggs, free range pigs and veal. We currently buy cage free eggs, because we can afford it and know that the product is of better quality; we buy free range and cage free chicken when we can, but a lot of people in this state can currently barely afford to pay for eggs as they are. This proposition will only increase these costs and prices beyond what some people are able to pay. While the limitation on the production of foie gras only affects those who can afford foie gras, eggs, on the other hand, are a necessary component in many families lives. Increasing the costs to produce eggs will have profound negative impacts on the ability of millions of families in this state to purchase eggs.
So, I recommend No on Prop. 2.
Proposition 3
Prop 3 proposes to issue nearly $1 billion in bonds to fund construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children's hospitals across the state. There are 5 children's hospitals specifically mentioned in the text (UC Children's Hospitals, which will get at least 20% of the proceeds), and the voters guide identifies an additional 8 other hospital's that fit the requirements of the proposed law. So, what would be the potential issues I have with this proposition? Obviously, the first problem I have is that it increases the state's debt. The guide estimates that to pay off the bonds plus interest, 5% over 30 years, it would cost the state about $2 billion, with an average yearly payment of $64 million- this would all be paid out of the General Fund. Secondly, in 2004 the state passed Prop. 61, which authorized the sale of $750 million in bonds for this same purpose, of which $403 million has been awarded. In other words, there are still nearly $350 million worth of bond money currently unappropriated, and this proposition asks for another $980 million on top of that.
However. . .I'm really not a heart-less person. I do believe that there are worthwhile bond projects, and, let's not forget, think of the children. Plus, the proposition (along with Prop. 12, which I'll get to below) have the great advantage of being on the same ballot as Prop. 1A. Compared to Prop. 1A, these two propositions amount to peanuts. Where does that leave me? Well, even though this is proposition will increase the state's debt, during a time of serious economic constraints, these funds appear to be needed to upgrade the various children's hospitals across the state. Plus, if I recommended no, a doctor that I know would kill me.
So, I recommend Yes on Prop. 3.
Proposition 4.
Proposition 4 is another attempt to get an abortion parental notification law through the voters. The last attempt 2 years ago with Prop. 85 failed 46-54. This proposition provides for a 48 hour notification period before an abortion can be completed on an "unempancipated minor" under the age of 18. This time the authors of this Proposition have added several new exceptions, notably, notification is not needed in the case of an emergency (defined as a condition that threatens the minors life; a waiver of notification signed by a parent or guardian; and, if the minor is fearful of abuse from a parent, notification may be sent to an adult family member, identified as a grandparent, step-parent, foster parent, aunt, uncle, sibling, half-sibling or first cousin, provided they are at least 21 years old. In such a circumstance, the doctor performing the procedure would be required to file a notice of suspected child abuse with local law enforcement and/or local child protection services. Additionally, a minor can petition the juvenile court for a waiver, which the court may grant if it decides the minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed enough to make their own decisions.
In 2006, I supported Proposition 85. As I argued then, I find it odd that a minor needs a parent to get a tattoo, get a piercing, get a driver's permit and even go to an R rated movie; yet, state law and policy is fine with allowing a minor to have an abortion without parental notification. This is entirely inconsistent with the motives and rationale for keeping those other parental requirements on the books. Having an abortion is one of the most important decisions a minor can make, yet, state policy is of the belief that parents or some other adult family member shouldn't even be notified. Opponents of Proposition 85 presented the threat of parental abuse as reasons why notification laws are bad; as I argued in 2006, those activities are illegal, and Prop. 85 provided for a waiver of parental notification in those circumstances. Proposition 4 strengthens these protections from abuse by allowing a minor to notify another family member, and requires the doctor to report abuse.
I still see no reason to oppose this proposition. As noted above, Prop. 4 provides for new exceptions to parental notification, which should allay fears for parental abuse due to parental notification. I still see an illogical divide in the treatment of minors in state law and policy. As such, I have no reason to change my recommendation from 2006 on parental notification of abortions.
I recommend Yes on Proposition 4.
Propositions 5, 6 and 9 all deal with various aspects of law enforcement. For the life of me, I can't understand what any of those three do, so I am going to pass on those for the time being.
Proposition 8
I am not at all looking forward to talking about this proposition. I must admit, I thought about deleting this section and giving a terse "I have no opinion" statement, but I came to the conclusion that using that would be a cop-out. So, I left the text intact- I realize that it is probably not at all satisfactory, but I'm fine with that. I have tried to be honest with myself and the reader on my this topic; you may disagree, but I hope you do not think I came to this conclusion rashly.
Proposition 8 re-writes into the California Constitution that marriage be defined as between a man and a woman, and that only those marriages be recognized by the State of California. This proposition is in response to a California Supreme Court decision earlier this year that ruled that Proposition 22, that was passed by California voters in 2000, and subsequent legislative activities on domestic partnerships, violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. Now, I disagreed with the California Supreme Court decision because it overturned a valid vote by the people of the state. I also disagreed with the ruling because it overturned a series of legislative actions by the state that granted same sex couples the same rights and benefits afforded to straight couples, except that it wasn't called marriage. I believed that the Court had no power or authority to overturn either of those decisions; instead, that decision should be left with the people.
So, here is a proposition to get the vote of the people on this topic. My internal struggle on this question is profound- my political philosophy is that government shouldn't care what individuals do or decide on their own, as long as there is no detrimental effects on society. In other words, according to my political philosophy, the government shouldn't care about the decisions of individuals to marry. However, my personal view, based on my own personal morals and ethics come to a different conclusion. So, where does that leave me.
From a legal perspective, I disagreed with the Court's equal protection argument on gay marriage- I believed that the Court created a new law, a law that I do not believe is correct, outside of current statutes in overturning Prop 22, as such, they violated the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. Therefore, I am not inclined to believe in an equal protection argument for the justification of gay marriage. I do not believe that domestic partnership laws, as in effect at the time of the court's ruling, violated the equal protection laws of the California Constitution. Nevertheless, that does not answer the question presented in this proposition.
Frankly, I do not believe that I can make a recommendation on this proposition. I believe that how one votes on this decision is incumbent on one's own interpretation and beliefs; my own struggles between divergent philosophy's provide just one example. Since I do not buy an equal protection argument, primarily because domestic partnership laws provided for the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriages, I'm left with determining which philosophy is important to me. As such, I am left with the conclusion that this is fundamentally a personal decision- and I still am uncertain as to how I will vote.
The final proposition that I will discuss on this posting is Proposition 12.
Proposition 12 would approve the issuance of $900 million worth of bonds to provide loans to California veterans to purchase farms and homes. Money from the sale of these bonds are used by the State Department of Veterans Affairs to help our veterans, and voters have been approving bonds like this since 1921. The total cost of paying off these bonds and interest (5% over 30 years) would total around $1.8 billion, at an annual cost of $59 million a year. However, as supporters of Prop. 12 note, all costs of the program and repayment of the bonds that have been issued to support Veterans have been repaid through the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program, and have not relied on the General Fund. In other words, this program has historically been entirely self-sufficient, being paid off by the borrowers, only relying on the state so that it can take advantage of the state's superior credit rating. The Home Loan Program purchases homes using the proceeds from the bonds, then re-sells the houses to veterans, thereby recovering all costs from the mortgages of the borrowers to pay off the bonds. The state would only be required to cover the costs in the event that the program came up short, primarily if a foreclosure occurred.
All of that is to say that this is a good program- bonds are issued to help veterans purchase homes, then the mortgages themselves pay off the bonds, with little risk to California voters.
So, I recommend Yes on 12.
I'll finish off the rest of the state-wide ballots soon. There will really only be one San Francisco initiative that I think I'll have to get in depth on, so I hope to get the San Francisco post out in due time as well.
First up is Proposition 2.
Prop. 2 proposes to set standards for the confinement of farm animals, specifically, pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal and egg-laying hens. Beginning in 2015, the proposed standards would require that those animals be confined in ways that allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely. Penalties are not to exceed $1000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days.
Believe me when I say that I want to support this measure, but I cannot. I agree with the sentiment expressed in this proposition, but, honestly, I do not believe that using the power of the government is the right way to go about this. Plus, there is already a burgeoning market in California, and elsewhere, for these free-range and cage free products; God knows that I pay a premium for them. Which goes to my next point; in order to accommodate these new rules, the costs to farmers to implement and maintain animals under these standards are going to, first of all, increase the production and maintenance costs, which will result in increased prices to customers. Second, it will likely result in many companies leaving California to other states, and Mexico, that do not have these restrictions. Which, of course, means that these products will need to be shipped in from a longer distance than today- and longer truck drives means more CO2 emission. Finally, this will also reduce the number of animals a business would be able to raise, as complying with these new standards would necessitate an increase in the total area for raising these animals, increasing costs due to potential shortages in supply, or increasing costs due to the need to purchase more land to raise these animals.
Like I said above, I completely agree with what this proposition wants to accomplish, but I disagree with enshrining it into state law. The market already provides incentives to businesses to raise animals in this style, but not every Californian can afford cage free eggs, free range pigs and veal. We currently buy cage free eggs, because we can afford it and know that the product is of better quality; we buy free range and cage free chicken when we can, but a lot of people in this state can currently barely afford to pay for eggs as they are. This proposition will only increase these costs and prices beyond what some people are able to pay. While the limitation on the production of foie gras only affects those who can afford foie gras, eggs, on the other hand, are a necessary component in many families lives. Increasing the costs to produce eggs will have profound negative impacts on the ability of millions of families in this state to purchase eggs.
So, I recommend No on Prop. 2.
Proposition 3
Prop 3 proposes to issue nearly $1 billion in bonds to fund construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children's hospitals across the state. There are 5 children's hospitals specifically mentioned in the text (UC Children's Hospitals, which will get at least 20% of the proceeds), and the voters guide identifies an additional 8 other hospital's that fit the requirements of the proposed law. So, what would be the potential issues I have with this proposition? Obviously, the first problem I have is that it increases the state's debt. The guide estimates that to pay off the bonds plus interest, 5% over 30 years, it would cost the state about $2 billion, with an average yearly payment of $64 million- this would all be paid out of the General Fund. Secondly, in 2004 the state passed Prop. 61, which authorized the sale of $750 million in bonds for this same purpose, of which $403 million has been awarded. In other words, there are still nearly $350 million worth of bond money currently unappropriated, and this proposition asks for another $980 million on top of that.
However. . .I'm really not a heart-less person. I do believe that there are worthwhile bond projects, and, let's not forget, think of the children. Plus, the proposition (along with Prop. 12, which I'll get to below) have the great advantage of being on the same ballot as Prop. 1A. Compared to Prop. 1A, these two propositions amount to peanuts. Where does that leave me? Well, even though this is proposition will increase the state's debt, during a time of serious economic constraints, these funds appear to be needed to upgrade the various children's hospitals across the state. Plus, if I recommended no, a doctor that I know would kill me.
So, I recommend Yes on Prop. 3.
Proposition 4.
Proposition 4 is another attempt to get an abortion parental notification law through the voters. The last attempt 2 years ago with Prop. 85 failed 46-54. This proposition provides for a 48 hour notification period before an abortion can be completed on an "unempancipated minor" under the age of 18. This time the authors of this Proposition have added several new exceptions, notably, notification is not needed in the case of an emergency (defined as a condition that threatens the minors life; a waiver of notification signed by a parent or guardian; and, if the minor is fearful of abuse from a parent, notification may be sent to an adult family member, identified as a grandparent, step-parent, foster parent, aunt, uncle, sibling, half-sibling or first cousin, provided they are at least 21 years old. In such a circumstance, the doctor performing the procedure would be required to file a notice of suspected child abuse with local law enforcement and/or local child protection services. Additionally, a minor can petition the juvenile court for a waiver, which the court may grant if it decides the minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed enough to make their own decisions.
In 2006, I supported Proposition 85. As I argued then, I find it odd that a minor needs a parent to get a tattoo, get a piercing, get a driver's permit and even go to an R rated movie; yet, state law and policy is fine with allowing a minor to have an abortion without parental notification. This is entirely inconsistent with the motives and rationale for keeping those other parental requirements on the books. Having an abortion is one of the most important decisions a minor can make, yet, state policy is of the belief that parents or some other adult family member shouldn't even be notified. Opponents of Proposition 85 presented the threat of parental abuse as reasons why notification laws are bad; as I argued in 2006, those activities are illegal, and Prop. 85 provided for a waiver of parental notification in those circumstances. Proposition 4 strengthens these protections from abuse by allowing a minor to notify another family member, and requires the doctor to report abuse.
I still see no reason to oppose this proposition. As noted above, Prop. 4 provides for new exceptions to parental notification, which should allay fears for parental abuse due to parental notification. I still see an illogical divide in the treatment of minors in state law and policy. As such, I have no reason to change my recommendation from 2006 on parental notification of abortions.
I recommend Yes on Proposition 4.
Propositions 5, 6 and 9 all deal with various aspects of law enforcement. For the life of me, I can't understand what any of those three do, so I am going to pass on those for the time being.
Proposition 8
I am not at all looking forward to talking about this proposition. I must admit, I thought about deleting this section and giving a terse "I have no opinion" statement, but I came to the conclusion that using that would be a cop-out. So, I left the text intact- I realize that it is probably not at all satisfactory, but I'm fine with that. I have tried to be honest with myself and the reader on my this topic; you may disagree, but I hope you do not think I came to this conclusion rashly.
Proposition 8 re-writes into the California Constitution that marriage be defined as between a man and a woman, and that only those marriages be recognized by the State of California. This proposition is in response to a California Supreme Court decision earlier this year that ruled that Proposition 22, that was passed by California voters in 2000, and subsequent legislative activities on domestic partnerships, violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. Now, I disagreed with the California Supreme Court decision because it overturned a valid vote by the people of the state. I also disagreed with the ruling because it overturned a series of legislative actions by the state that granted same sex couples the same rights and benefits afforded to straight couples, except that it wasn't called marriage. I believed that the Court had no power or authority to overturn either of those decisions; instead, that decision should be left with the people.
So, here is a proposition to get the vote of the people on this topic. My internal struggle on this question is profound- my political philosophy is that government shouldn't care what individuals do or decide on their own, as long as there is no detrimental effects on society. In other words, according to my political philosophy, the government shouldn't care about the decisions of individuals to marry. However, my personal view, based on my own personal morals and ethics come to a different conclusion. So, where does that leave me.
From a legal perspective, I disagreed with the Court's equal protection argument on gay marriage- I believed that the Court created a new law, a law that I do not believe is correct, outside of current statutes in overturning Prop 22, as such, they violated the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. Therefore, I am not inclined to believe in an equal protection argument for the justification of gay marriage. I do not believe that domestic partnership laws, as in effect at the time of the court's ruling, violated the equal protection laws of the California Constitution. Nevertheless, that does not answer the question presented in this proposition.
Frankly, I do not believe that I can make a recommendation on this proposition. I believe that how one votes on this decision is incumbent on one's own interpretation and beliefs; my own struggles between divergent philosophy's provide just one example. Since I do not buy an equal protection argument, primarily because domestic partnership laws provided for the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriages, I'm left with determining which philosophy is important to me. As such, I am left with the conclusion that this is fundamentally a personal decision- and I still am uncertain as to how I will vote.
The final proposition that I will discuss on this posting is Proposition 12.
Proposition 12 would approve the issuance of $900 million worth of bonds to provide loans to California veterans to purchase farms and homes. Money from the sale of these bonds are used by the State Department of Veterans Affairs to help our veterans, and voters have been approving bonds like this since 1921. The total cost of paying off these bonds and interest (5% over 30 years) would total around $1.8 billion, at an annual cost of $59 million a year. However, as supporters of Prop. 12 note, all costs of the program and repayment of the bonds that have been issued to support Veterans have been repaid through the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program, and have not relied on the General Fund. In other words, this program has historically been entirely self-sufficient, being paid off by the borrowers, only relying on the state so that it can take advantage of the state's superior credit rating. The Home Loan Program purchases homes using the proceeds from the bonds, then re-sells the houses to veterans, thereby recovering all costs from the mortgages of the borrowers to pay off the bonds. The state would only be required to cover the costs in the event that the program came up short, primarily if a foreclosure occurred.
All of that is to say that this is a good program- bonds are issued to help veterans purchase homes, then the mortgages themselves pay off the bonds, with little risk to California voters.
So, I recommend Yes on 12.
I'll finish off the rest of the state-wide ballots soon. There will really only be one San Francisco initiative that I think I'll have to get in depth on, so I hope to get the San Francisco post out in due time as well.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
A look into the future
Pete duPont lays out the future:
Needless to say, in my opinion, each of those 7 things are bad, and will substantially degrade the relative freedoms in our society. Where are the Clinton Democrats and the DLC; have they all been run over by the progressives? Where are the free traders in the Democratic Party. For a party that at one time bemoaned how much Bush wasted the success of the Clinton years, they sure don't seem to want to repeat the success from the Clinton years either. How increasing taxes, throwing up trade barriers, increasing the power of unions, and increasing regulation is expected to breed success is beyond me; it's a recipe for doing nothing, but enjoying your government hand-out.
As Jonah Goldberg noted today, Obama is not simply rehashing the failed policies of FDR, but is also harkening back many of Woodrow Wilson's failures.
It sure seems like we've progressed since then; it's that progress that so-called progressives want to stop. Change we can believe in?? -for the sake of this country, I certainly hope not.
So where is the new Obama administration likely to take us? Seven things seem certain:
The U.S. military will withdraw from Iraq quickly and substantially, regardless of conditions on the ground or the obvious consequence of emboldening terrorists there and around the globe.
Protectionism will become our national trade policy; free trade agreements with other nations will be reduced and limited.
Income taxes will rise on middle- and upper-income people and businesses, and individuals will pay much higher Social Security taxes, all to carry out the new president's goals of "spreading the wealth around."
Federal government spending will substantially increase. The new Obama proposals come to more than $300 billion annually, for education, health care, energy, environmental and many other programs, in addition to whatever is needed to meet our economic challenges. Mr. Obama proposes more than a 10% annual spending growth increase, considerably higher than under the first President Bush (6.7%), Bill Clinton (3.3%) or George W. Bush (6.4%).
Federal regulation of the economy will expand, on everything from financial management companies to electricity generation and personal energy use.
The power of labor unions will substantially increase, beginning with repeal of secret ballot voting to decide on union representation.
Free speech will be curtailed through the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine to limit the conservative talk radio that so irritates the liberal establishment.
These policy changes will be the beginning of the Europeanization of America. There will be many more public policy changes with similar goals—nationalized health care, Kyoto-like global-warming policies, and increased education regulation and spending.
More important, all but the clean car credit would be "refundable," meaning people will get a check for them if they owe no taxes, which is simply a transfer of income from the government to individuals. In reality this is the beginning of a new series of entitlements for middle-class families, the longer-term effect of which will be to make those families more dependant on (and so more supportive of) larger government. The Tax Policy Center estimates that these refundable tax credits would cost the government $648 billion over 10 years.
Needless to say, in my opinion, each of those 7 things are bad, and will substantially degrade the relative freedoms in our society. Where are the Clinton Democrats and the DLC; have they all been run over by the progressives? Where are the free traders in the Democratic Party. For a party that at one time bemoaned how much Bush wasted the success of the Clinton years, they sure don't seem to want to repeat the success from the Clinton years either. How increasing taxes, throwing up trade barriers, increasing the power of unions, and increasing regulation is expected to breed success is beyond me; it's a recipe for doing nothing, but enjoying your government hand-out.
As Jonah Goldberg noted today, Obama is not simply rehashing the failed policies of FDR, but is also harkening back many of Woodrow Wilson's failures.
Blowing away the dust and cobwebs from ancient wares doesn't make them new. Save for his skin color, Obama doesn't represent anything novel. Rather, he symbolizes a return to an older vision of the United States that was seen as the "wave of the future" eight decades ago.
It sure seems like we've progressed since then; it's that progress that so-called progressives want to stop. Change we can believe in?? -for the sake of this country, I certainly hope not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)