One year from this moment, the polls in California will have just closed, and I'll most likely be sitting at home, biting my lip, grinding my teeth, and hoping like hell that the Democrat gets elected. Right now, of course, that seems likely....but we have a year to go, and a lot can happen.
If one believes the polls as of this moment, the race will be between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. But early front-runners certainly don't always end up winning. Everyone is focusing on the Iowa caucuses, only about two months away, but with the shortened primary scheduling, I'm not sure just about anything can't happen.
For instance, an article in this week's Newsweek resurrects the idea of an independent run by Michael Bloomberg, a possibility I had thought laid to rest a few months back. The initial take is that such a candidacy would likely take more votes away from the Republican than the Democrat. On the other hand, could Bloomberg actually win? He's a billionaire who doesn't have to depend on outside fundraising; as a former Democrat and former Republican, he could presumably appeal to at least some folks in both parties. With a number of die-hard Democrats swearing that they won't vote for Clinton under any circumstances, Bloomberg would be an obvious alternative; and Giuliani's appeal to Republicans is likewise limited (though I'm not sure the evangelicals, who are already threatening to split off due to Rudy's pro-choice and pro-gay stances, probably wouldn't be all that thrilled with Bloomberg either). And I think the entire rest of the country might take a slightly dim view of choosing between two mayors and a Senator who are all from New York.
I haven't made much of a secret that my own preference is for Barack Obama. I had a bumper sticker for him on my truck even before he officially announced his candidacy; I donated to his exploratory committee, and again to his primary campaign -- two things I've never done before. In fact, the last time I chose a candidate this far out was in 1984, when (being a total space buff) I supported John Glenn. (It wasn't entirely space; I thought only someone with Glenn's middle-American appeal could possibly break off votes from Ronald Reagan, whereas nominating a known liberal like Mondale was a certain route to failure. In retrospect, I doubt if Glenn would have done much better -- the Democrats were pretty doomed in '84.)
Why Obama? As with most people, he first came to my attention with his marvelous keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. I didn't think about it too much, however, until somewhat later. I liked what I knew, but that wasn't much.
Then I read his book, The Audacity of Hope. It definitely got my interest. Obama is, as it happens, just my age; we are also both male, American, and have a tiny amount of Cherokee blood. Other than that, we have very little in common. I'm a suburban white guy who's lived his whole life in southern California and has traveled very little; who did well in school but have drifted through adult life with little success. Obama is an African-American (literally; his father was from Kenya, his mother from Kansas) born in Hawaii, who has lived in Indonesia, New York, and Chicago, has been a community organizer and a teacher in constitutional law as well as a legislator, joined the Church of Christ as an adult, and has traveled all over the place. But boy, do we think alike about politics: not only on issues, but on processes; on concern about the divisiveness we face, about the values Americans have in common, on the need to work to transcend partisanship and actually get some things done.
Now, that's not to say that I agree with every single policy he proposes, or every single vote he's cast; I've been disappointed in him a couple of times. Nor am I put off by the rest of the Democratic field -- I would very happily support John Edwards or Chris Dodd; I think Joe Biden and Bill Richardson are extremely well-qualified; while I find Dennis Kucinich a bit too far left for my tastes, I think he brings a lot to the debate; and I think Hillary Clinton is extremely smart, extremely well informed on the issues, and has the drive and guts to fight through the fire that will doubtless be directed at her if she's our candidate -- and through any crises she might face in office. I will happily support and vote for any of them if they are nominated.
But Obama still appeals to me in a way none of the others quite do. I think he means it; I think he gets it; and I think he can do it. And if he can get people to listen to him enough, I think he can get that across, get elected -- and actually lead in a way no President has done since at least Reagan, possibly since Kennedy.
Can he win? Well, he has the funds to see the race through, notwithstanding all those (including his wife) who have made the claim that Iowa is a must-win for him. Not only has he kept up with Clinton in raising money -- which is a prodigious feat in itself -- but he has done so largely on the backs of small contributors. (Which means that he might easily be able to raise much more in the long run -- unlike Clinton, many of whose donors have already donated the maximum amount allowed, Obama can get three or four times as much from many of his donors than he already has.)
What I think could happen in the Democratic race is that, after Iowa and New Hampshire, it will shake down to three, maybe four candidates. One will certainly be Clinton; one will certainly be Kucinich (not because I expect him to win, but I think he will stay in the race till the end regardless). Biden will almost certainly be gone by then, and (I think) so will Richardson. And the supporters of Clinton's two main competitors -- Obama and Edwards -- will be vying to see which of the two is going to survive to be the "anti-Hillary", to gather the votes of those Democrats who desperately want the nominee to be anyone but her. On the funding grounds, Obama would appear to have the advantage over Edwards, but in other ways -- one of which, sadly, is race -- Edwards might appear to be the more electable of the two.
What about Dodd? Well, he might be gone, too. But I think he might pull an Iowa surprise. He has a lot of strong union support there -- including the Firefighters union, whose work has been largely credited with Kerry's victory there in 2004. Dodd has also been one of the louder voices protesting the seeming continued capitulation of Congress to policies of the administration on things like privacy violations. I think it is just possible that this could propel him, if not to a win in Iowa, to finishing second or third. While I don't think Iowa is necessarily a must-win for Obama (or Edwards), I think finishing behind Dodd could be a fatal blow to either of them -- or to both.
Well, I will have lots more to say on the campaign as we go along. (In fact, I am entered in a competition to become a "citizen journalist" for the local public radio station, which would entail writing something at least once a week -- good-luck vibes appreciated!) But for now, that's probably enough. Get out the soapboxes, brush off all the horse-racing analogies, and prepare for rhetoric, attack ads, and gaffes -- the campaign year is here!
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Republican Smear Machine Gearing Up for 2008
The 2008 presidential race is already underway, and in its early stages, the Democratic contenders are looking pretty strong compared to their Republican counterparts. So it should be no surprise that the right-wing smear engine is already gearing up.
This Salon.com column by Joe Conason explains how they're lifting a trick from the old Nixon days. Not only did Insight Magazine -- the magazine connected with the Washington Times, the Sun Myung Moon-owned newspaper that spent the 1990's trying to destroy the Clinton administration -- print an article alleging that Senator and Presidential contender Barack Obama attended a "madrassa" (a term for schools sponsored by radical Islamists, where the next generation of terrorists are taught) as a child; it tried to claim that the story came from Hillary Clinton's campaign.
In fact, Obama did attend an Islamic-sponsored school in Indonesia for a copule of years, when his mother and he were living their with her second husband. (He also attended a Catholic school later.) However, not only was this around 40 years ago -- before radical Islam began its modern rise -- but the school had then, as it has now, students of other faiths (Christians, Buddihsts, and Confucians) and does not emphasize religion. Girls attend as well as boys, and there are women amongst the teachers as well.
In case Conason (author of such books as Big Lies and The Hunting of the President) isn't credible enough for you, how about CNN? They sent reporter John Vause to the school. His summation:
Naturally, however, that hasn't stopped the story from spreading, to Fox News and beyond. Kudos to CNN for jumping on it and showing it to be a pack of crap. I hope that's a precedent for all the futher smears to come.
This Salon.com column by Joe Conason explains how they're lifting a trick from the old Nixon days. Not only did Insight Magazine -- the magazine connected with the Washington Times, the Sun Myung Moon-owned newspaper that spent the 1990's trying to destroy the Clinton administration -- print an article alleging that Senator and Presidential contender Barack Obama attended a "madrassa" (a term for schools sponsored by radical Islamists, where the next generation of terrorists are taught) as a child; it tried to claim that the story came from Hillary Clinton's campaign.
In fact, Obama did attend an Islamic-sponsored school in Indonesia for a copule of years, when his mother and he were living their with her second husband. (He also attended a Catholic school later.) However, not only was this around 40 years ago -- before radical Islam began its modern rise -- but the school had then, as it has now, students of other faiths (Christians, Buddihsts, and Confucians) and does not emphasize religion. Girls attend as well as boys, and there are women amongst the teachers as well.
In case Conason (author of such books as Big Lies and The Hunting of the President) isn't credible enough for you, how about CNN? They sent reporter John Vause to the school. His summation:
The Clinton campaign has denied any involvement in sourcing the story, and AFAIK, no one has presented any actual evidence that they had any hand in it. Given the history of the relations between the Clintons and the Washington Times, it seems much more likely that this is an attempt to smear two campaigns with one story.Vause reported he saw boys and girls dressed in neat school uniforms playing outside the school, while teachers were dressed in Western-style clothes.
"I came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa ... like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Vause said on the "Situation Room" Monday. "I've been to those madrassas in Pakistan ... this school is nothing like that."
Naturally, however, that hasn't stopped the story from spreading, to Fox News and beyond. Kudos to CNN for jumping on it and showing it to be a pack of crap. I hope that's a precedent for all the futher smears to come.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Even for the Bush Administration....
...this may be a new low.
From a Senate hearing on January 17th, the following exchange between Senator Arlen Specter and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:
Wow. Just....wow.
Bush should demand Gonzales' resignation immediately. (He won't.)
Oh, and just to keep Mark Evanier happy.....
From a Senate hearing on January 17th, the following exchange between Senator Arlen Specter and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:
Gonzales: There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away. ...
Specter: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in cases of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's an invasion or rebellion?
Gonzales: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas. Doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except...
Specter: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.
Wow. Just....wow.
Bush should demand Gonzales' resignation immediately. (He won't.)
Oh, and just to keep Mark Evanier happy.....
Monday, November 06, 2006
More Election Stuff -- Judicial Races and a few changes of mind
I've had some trouble finding much information about the statewide judicial candidates. They aren't allowed to campaign, and I haven't seen any sources I particularly trust giving recommendations -- in fact, I've only really found one place that gives any recommendations at all. That would be a blog called The James Hartline Report. (Actually, I first found it posted to something called "The Conservative Voice" but they seem to have gotten it from Hartline. In describing himself, Mr. Hartline says, "From fighting illegal porn stores to exposing the corruption within the homosexual agenda, James is being used to confront the powers of darkness in San Diego, California." His recommendations on the judicial candidates are based pretty much entirely on their adherence, or lack thereof, to the Christianist "family values" agenda (anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-secular in general), rather than any evaluation of their legal competence or basic fairness (with one exception I will come to).
Since Mr. Hartline seems to hold beliefs almost diametrically opposed to mine on these issues, however, it seems that without further information, the best I can do is see what he says -- and then, for the most part, do the opposite.
For Joyce L. Kennard, for instance, he notes that she's stated support for gay marriage and voted to overturn parental consent laws with respect to abortion. Big Yes here.
Carole A. Corrigan -- I found editorials listing her as a moderate, and praising Schwarzenegger for appointing her instead of caving to the far right and appointing someone more like the judge she was replacing (Janice Rogers Brown, a nutjob Bush was attempting to promote to the Federal appeals court). Of course, Hartline recommends a no vote for the simple reason that she's "is perhaps the first lesbian appointed to California's Supreme Court" by the "liberal" Schwarzenegger. Yes.
Judith McConnell draws fire for a ruling she made some years back, granting custody of a 16-year-old boy to the partner of his late gay father, rather than to his natural mother. Admittedly, this is a bit of an odd ruling. However, his Mom had kept him in hiding for a couple of years rather than let his father see him (she's a "born-again" Christian who believes homosexuality a sin), and according to the ruling, had interfered with his education and generally been a source of instability. Naturally, the conservative group accuses her of promoting the gay/secular/moral relativist agenda. Big Yes from here!
Patricia Benke is another one the anti-abortion crowd despises, since she ruled that pro-life groups had to pay the "bogus" attorney's fees when they sued Planned Parenthood to "protect young girls who were getting abortions." Riiiiight. Yes.
On the other hand, they like Richard D. Huffman, since he ruled that doctors were within their rights to refuse to impregnate a lesbian woman, owing to their personal religious beliefs. No.
Judith Haller joined in the same ruling as Patricia Benke, above, and is called "one of the most radical and liberal supporters of abortion in the California judiciary." Yes.
Cynthia G. Aaron -- well, let me just quote: "Another radical appointment by former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, Cynthia G. Aaron was recently honored by the radical liberal group, the American Jewish Committee, whose board of trustees include radicals Bob Filner, Lynn Shenk and gay pride participant Sheriff Bill Kolender, as well as lesbian board member Bonnie Dumanis. This group lists as speakers for its leadership program, leftist Congresswoman Susan Davis, embryonic stem cell advocate Joe Panetta of BIOCOM, and radical San Diego City Councilman Scott Peters. The American Jewish Committee has been fighting aggressively for the removal of the Ten Commandments from public squares and is a major proponent of the separation of church and state." A glowing recommendation! Definite Yes! (...oh, they don't like her? Ooops. Well, they're wrong, so...)
Joan K. Irion -- not much to say about her, except that Gray Davis appointed her, meaning she is "sure to continue the radical rulings for abortion and gay rights." Yes.
Art W. McKinster is a "perverted-minded judge" who ruled in favor of a strip club in San Bernadino. No real details are given, but anyone Harline calls perverted gets an up-check here. Yes.
Betty A. Richli-- I may break precedent here. They say that Richli has "mostly been conservative in her rulings. Recent rulings to protect students and parents privacy by declaring a state law unconstitutional which had allowed the names of minor students to be publicly disclosed when the student is expelled from school was a fair ruling to protect parental/child rights. Richli has also ruled in favor of the strength of marijuana drug laws. She has ruled that police officers cannot sue for defamation of character when they are falsely accused, a ruling not too favorable with law enforcement. Overall Justice Richli should be returned to the bench on Nov. 7, 2006." I'm not sure about the latter two rulings, but the privacy one seems like a win to me. I'm actually going to agree with them (gasp). Yes.
Jeffrey King -- He should be "soundly rejected" because -- ready? -- he made a $450 donation to a Democratic congressional candidate in 2002. Yeah, that's a crime. Oh, wait, it was Joe Baca, a "radical abortion-extremist." Personally, I think people who blow up abortion clinics are the "radical abortion-extremists." However, given the slant of this site, I'm not sure there are many Democrats they wouldn't slap that term on. So, another Yes.
Douglas P. Miller gets my favorite down-check so far. He's a recent Schwarzenegger appointment, which they hold against him ("Schwarzenegger has not appointed anyone who supports a pro-life or pro-traditional marriage inclination"). Worse yet... "Miller spent a great deal of his educational and teaching history with BYU" -- so, they reason, he would have a pro-Mormon prejudice, which "could be a problem for those who are strict Christian traditionalists." Yeah, 'cause we all know what radical liberals come out of BYU, right? I have to give him a Yes just for that.
Kathleen O'Leary is another Gray Davis appointee, so he hates her. Yes.
And lastly the one I'm not sure about from their info, Raymond J. Ikola. It says that Ikola "has made controversial rulings on illegal immigrants and video camera surveillance issues vs. free speech." But it doesn't say what those rulings are, just that he's "dangerous." Based on what they seem to consider dangerous....I have to go with Yes.
On a couple of other matters: I have been mulling over two issues in particular since last time, and I think I may change my votes. They are California's proposition 86 and San Diego's prop A.
Prop 86 is the big cigarette tax. Though it might induce some people to smoke less or quit, and might stop some young people from starting, I just don't think I can support a tax increase this big to fund a lot of programs only indirectly related. Stopping and preventing smoking is good; more funding for hospitals is good; but this seems a bit ill-designed. I think, after all, I'm going to vote No.
As for Prop A, I'm unmoved by the people who seem to imply that voting against it means you hate the Marine Corps. And I still think that Miramar would be a very good site for a future international airport, if the military ever decided to shut the base down. However, I don't think that decision will be the least bit affected by how we vote on this measure. It seems to me all it's likely to do is delay any alternative planning. It seems more reasonable to take that option off the table, until and unless the military changes its position. So, I think I will change to a No on this as well. After all, doing so doesn't actually prevent resuming negotiations if the Marines suddenly decide to change plans.
You have a day or so to try to talk me into changing my mind on any of this. :)
Since Mr. Hartline seems to hold beliefs almost diametrically opposed to mine on these issues, however, it seems that without further information, the best I can do is see what he says -- and then, for the most part, do the opposite.
For Joyce L. Kennard, for instance, he notes that she's stated support for gay marriage and voted to overturn parental consent laws with respect to abortion. Big Yes here.
Carole A. Corrigan -- I found editorials listing her as a moderate, and praising Schwarzenegger for appointing her instead of caving to the far right and appointing someone more like the judge she was replacing (Janice Rogers Brown, a nutjob Bush was attempting to promote to the Federal appeals court). Of course, Hartline recommends a no vote for the simple reason that she's "is perhaps the first lesbian appointed to California's Supreme Court" by the "liberal" Schwarzenegger. Yes.
Judith McConnell draws fire for a ruling she made some years back, granting custody of a 16-year-old boy to the partner of his late gay father, rather than to his natural mother. Admittedly, this is a bit of an odd ruling. However, his Mom had kept him in hiding for a couple of years rather than let his father see him (she's a "born-again" Christian who believes homosexuality a sin), and according to the ruling, had interfered with his education and generally been a source of instability. Naturally, the conservative group accuses her of promoting the gay/secular/moral relativist agenda. Big Yes from here!
Patricia Benke is another one the anti-abortion crowd despises, since she ruled that pro-life groups had to pay the "bogus" attorney's fees when they sued Planned Parenthood to "protect young girls who were getting abortions." Riiiiight. Yes.
On the other hand, they like Richard D. Huffman, since he ruled that doctors were within their rights to refuse to impregnate a lesbian woman, owing to their personal religious beliefs. No.
Judith Haller joined in the same ruling as Patricia Benke, above, and is called "one of the most radical and liberal supporters of abortion in the California judiciary." Yes.
Cynthia G. Aaron -- well, let me just quote: "Another radical appointment by former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, Cynthia G. Aaron was recently honored by the radical liberal group, the American Jewish Committee, whose board of trustees include radicals Bob Filner, Lynn Shenk and gay pride participant Sheriff Bill Kolender, as well as lesbian board member Bonnie Dumanis. This group lists as speakers for its leadership program, leftist Congresswoman Susan Davis, embryonic stem cell advocate Joe Panetta of BIOCOM, and radical San Diego City Councilman Scott Peters. The American Jewish Committee has been fighting aggressively for the removal of the Ten Commandments from public squares and is a major proponent of the separation of church and state." A glowing recommendation! Definite Yes! (...oh, they don't like her? Ooops. Well, they're wrong, so...)
Joan K. Irion -- not much to say about her, except that Gray Davis appointed her, meaning she is "sure to continue the radical rulings for abortion and gay rights." Yes.
Art W. McKinster is a "perverted-minded judge" who ruled in favor of a strip club in San Bernadino. No real details are given, but anyone Harline calls perverted gets an up-check here. Yes.
Betty A. Richli-- I may break precedent here. They say that Richli has "mostly been conservative in her rulings. Recent rulings to protect students and parents privacy by declaring a state law unconstitutional which had allowed the names of minor students to be publicly disclosed when the student is expelled from school was a fair ruling to protect parental/child rights. Richli has also ruled in favor of the strength of marijuana drug laws. She has ruled that police officers cannot sue for defamation of character when they are falsely accused, a ruling not too favorable with law enforcement. Overall Justice Richli should be returned to the bench on Nov. 7, 2006." I'm not sure about the latter two rulings, but the privacy one seems like a win to me. I'm actually going to agree with them (gasp). Yes.
Jeffrey King -- He should be "soundly rejected" because -- ready? -- he made a $450 donation to a Democratic congressional candidate in 2002. Yeah, that's a crime. Oh, wait, it was Joe Baca, a "radical abortion-extremist." Personally, I think people who blow up abortion clinics are the "radical abortion-extremists." However, given the slant of this site, I'm not sure there are many Democrats they wouldn't slap that term on. So, another Yes.
Douglas P. Miller gets my favorite down-check so far. He's a recent Schwarzenegger appointment, which they hold against him ("Schwarzenegger has not appointed anyone who supports a pro-life or pro-traditional marriage inclination"). Worse yet... "Miller spent a great deal of his educational and teaching history with BYU" -- so, they reason, he would have a pro-Mormon prejudice, which "could be a problem for those who are strict Christian traditionalists." Yeah, 'cause we all know what radical liberals come out of BYU, right? I have to give him a Yes just for that.
Kathleen O'Leary is another Gray Davis appointee, so he hates her. Yes.
And lastly the one I'm not sure about from their info, Raymond J. Ikola. It says that Ikola "has made controversial rulings on illegal immigrants and video camera surveillance issues vs. free speech." But it doesn't say what those rulings are, just that he's "dangerous." Based on what they seem to consider dangerous....I have to go with Yes.
On a couple of other matters: I have been mulling over two issues in particular since last time, and I think I may change my votes. They are California's proposition 86 and San Diego's prop A.
Prop 86 is the big cigarette tax. Though it might induce some people to smoke less or quit, and might stop some young people from starting, I just don't think I can support a tax increase this big to fund a lot of programs only indirectly related. Stopping and preventing smoking is good; more funding for hospitals is good; but this seems a bit ill-designed. I think, after all, I'm going to vote No.
As for Prop A, I'm unmoved by the people who seem to imply that voting against it means you hate the Marine Corps. And I still think that Miramar would be a very good site for a future international airport, if the military ever decided to shut the base down. However, I don't think that decision will be the least bit affected by how we vote on this measure. It seems to me all it's likely to do is delay any alternative planning. It seems more reasonable to take that option off the table, until and unless the military changes its position. So, I think I will change to a No on this as well. After all, doing so doesn't actually prevent resuming negotiations if the Marines suddenly decide to change plans.
You have a day or so to try to talk me into changing my mind on any of this. :)
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
California General Election, November 7th, 2006
Hey gang! It’s nearly election time! That means it’s time for our irregular feature…
E.Q. TAFT's CALIFORNIA VOTER GUIDE
We start simply..
Statewide Partisan Offices: I’m voting the straight Democratic ticket – yeah, I’m kind of in a rut that way. I don’t expect Angelides will beat Schwarzenegger at this point, since Ahnold has done a good job of running back to the center after taking his licking in the special election, and Angelides hasn’t had a lot to say campaign-wise other than “Ahnold likes Bush! Ahnold likes Bush!” Which just ain’t much of a state plan.
I am amused, however, at the way the Democrats have reacted to the term limit laws, by shuffling portfolios around. Bustamante and Garamendi propose to trade jobs, while Lockyear moves from Attorney General to Teasurer, and John Chiang hops from State Board of Equalization to Controller. Yeah, those term limits sure eliminated the “professional politicians,” didn’t they?
Anyhow, to be specific: That’s’ Angelides for Governor, Garamendi for Lt. Governor, Bowen for Secretary of State, Chiang for Controller, Lockyear for Treasurer, Jerry Brown for Attorney General, Bustamante for Insurance Commissioner, and Christian-Heising for Board of Equalization (3rd District).
Legislative Offices: Again, going Democratic here. I should emphasize I think it’s particularly crucial to vote Democrat at the Federal level, to try to recapture at least one house of Congress so that we might have some oversight and put a few checks on the power of President Bush. (If you don’t think he needs any, then I can’t imagine why you’d be interested in my political recommendations, except perhaps to report me to Homeland Security.)
For me it’s: US Senate – Dianne Feinstein; House of Representatives, 53rd District – Susan Davis; State Assembly, 76th District – Lori Saldana.
Statewide Judicial Offices: So far I can’t find much information on the various California Supreme and Appellate court nominees. I’m open to opinions...
Assorted Local Offices: I’ve cribbed recommendations here from assorted sources; I’m open to comment/persuasion.
Superior Court, Office #36: Rod Shelton
SD Community College Board, District A: Maria Nieto Senour
SD Community College Board, District C: Rich Grosch
SD Community College Board, District E: Peter Zschiesche
SD Unified School Board, District B: Katherine Nakamura
SD Unified School Board, District C: John DeBeck
State Ballot Propositions: Now we get long-winded...
Prop 1A: This would limit conditions under which the state could borrow from gasoline tax revenues (which are earmarked for transportation uses) for other purposes, and require any loans that do occur to be repaid, with interest, within three years. As matters stand, the state has to repay any money borrowed from these funds with interest, which already discourages (or should) doing so unless there’s a budget crisis. This seems to be a move to further limit the budget options of the Legislature, something we’ve already done too much of. I say NO.
Prop 1B: Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security funding. A pretty big bond issue -- $20 billion (about $38 billion to repay, over 30 years). But good, necessary causes, I think. YES.
Prop 1C: Bonds for housing assistance of various kinds. YES.
Prop 1D: Bonds for public education. The usual education bonds, the usual answer from us damn liberals: YES.
Prop 1E: Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention bonds. I love the bit in the “argument against” where the author first complains that too much of the money goes to local community projects that should be paid for by local districts, not state funds – then in the very next paragraph, says we should demand more federal funds. Oy. YES.
Prop 83: “Jessica’s Law” – oh no, if I vote against this, I hate children, right? *sigh*. GPS monitoring of “sexual predators” for LIFE? A requirement that all registered sex offenders live at least 2,000 feet away from schools and parks, which might force many of them out of urban areas altogether? (And of course, neither of those provisions helps in the least against those whose victims are their own relatives…) I expect this will almost certainly pass, but where do we draw the line? If sex offenders are so dangerous they have to be monitored 24/7, why aren’t we just keeping them in prison for life anyway? (Don’t worry, that will be on the 2008 ballot…) Sorry, Jessica, but NO.
Prop 84: Water Quality bonds. Have I mentioned, by the way, how tired I am of the arguments for and against these bond issues on the subject of taxes? The arguments against always scream that the measure will increase taxes, while the arguments against insist they can provide services without raising taxes. Both sides are, IMO, being somewhat misleading. The “for” people make it sound like free money, which it isn’t. But neither does passing a bond measure make a tax increase inevitable, as long as over-all debt is held down to a reasonable level that the budget can cope with.
Anyway, I kind of like clean water, so YES.
Prop 85: Parental notification before abortions are performed for minors. Didn’t we vote on this already? Well, yes, we did, actually, but the anti-choice folks don’t give up that easily. While I admit to some qualms about minors getting medical treatments without their parents being notified, these are easily trumped by my feeling that no one, adult of minor, should be forced to have a child they don’t want to have. Please vote NO again. Thanks.
Prop 86: A new tobacco tax, this one a whopping 13 cents per cigarette -- $2.60 per pack. My informal research shows that cigarettes currently go for about $3-5 per pack, so that’s a pretty substantial price increase. I am very much an anti-smoker. I have voted for higher cigarette taxes in the past. And I really dislike voting the way the tobacco companies want me to. But I have some hesitation about this one. Since tobacco use rates tend to be higher amongst minorities and the poor, this amounts to a huge and very regressive tax. Someone who smokes a pack a day ends up paying $950 a year in extra taxes. For someone who makes a couple of hundred thousand dollars, that may seem trivial, but for someone making, say, $15-20,000, that’s a pretty big chunk of their income. Sure, it’s easy to say they can avoid it merely by giving up smoking. But that’s not so easy. I’ve never smoked, so I don’t really know how difficult it is – but I find my own bad habits pretty hard to break, even without the factor of being physically addictive. Raising taxes on these people makes me feel a little bit like a heroin dealer who doubles the price on his customers once they’re hooked.
But…
Proponents claim that studies show the tax will reduce and prevent smoking; that half a million Californians who smoke will quit; that hundreds of thousands of kids who haven’t yet started, won’t; that those who do smoke will smoke less. I’m not sure I believe all their numbers – but even if you cut them in half, that’s still one hell of an incentive to vote for this. Plus the money goes to some good places that need it badly.
(As an aside, I’m trying to not be overly influenced by the horrendous piece of mathematical manipulation the opponents have been using. Under current state law, you see, 40% of any new tax revenue must go to education. But this proposition, expected to raise about $2 billion, exempts itself from that requirement. So, the opponents say, passing it will TAKE $800 MILLION AWAY FROM THE SCHOOLS!!!! …never mind that it’s money that won’t exist unless the proposition is passed. I laughed out loud when I first read that one, but I wonder how many people will buy it.)
I’m still a bit torn. But I think I have to vote YES.
Prop 87: A tax on oil production, from 1.5-6.0%, depending on the market price per barrel, with the funds going to assorted alternative energy projects. The ads from the opponents on this one make it sound like it will be applied directly at the pump, which it will not. On the other hand, I have to shake my head at the law’s provision that the tax can’t be passed along to consumers – the way gas prices go up and down for no apparent reason, how the hell would they ever prove it? However, the legislative analyst points out it may be self-administering, since if the tax pushes the price of California-produced oil higher than other sources, refineries will just buy the oil from elsewhere.
In any case, even if it *were* being applied at the pump, I’d pay a few extra cents per gallon for alternative energy programs. And I drive a lot. I’m voting YES.
Prop 88: An extra property tax of $50 per parcel, set to go to education funding. Interestingly, the local Democratic party is recommending a no vote on this one, calling it “the wrong solution.” I do think it’s a sort of inadequate attempt to make up for the under-taxation on property created by Prop 13. Maybe some money is better than none, but I’m inclined to go NO unless someone persuades me otherwise.
Prop 89: An interesting one; a small tax on corporations (0.2%) to provide public campaign funding. I’ve come to believe that public financing of election campaigns is a good idea. It won’t eliminate all corruption or the influence of moneyed special interest in politics, no – but nothing will. It’s a step in the right direction. True, candidates don’t have to accept the public financing, and assorted restrictions it places on them. However, for those who don’t, the measure introduces stricter donation limits, including on donations directly from political parties; and it provides that the publicly financed candidates get funding that matches theirs, dollar for dollar, up to a pretty generous limit. That means that every dollar any moneyed interest pours into a race assists both sides equally – creating a built-in disincentive for spending too much.
I don’t think the measure is perfect. Funding it from corporate taxes seems a bit arbitrary. I’d rather it was financed by individual taxes, but then it probably would never pass – even though it seems very likely that it will save taxpayers a great deal of money in the long run, through “payoffs” from politicians to donors that would never happen. And I’m not so sure about the way it tries to limit spending on ballot measures, as opposed to candidates; and I’m not convinced it’s necessarily constitutional.
However, I think I’m willing to vote YES on it anyhow, and let the chips fall.
Prop 90: They’re trying to sell this one as a measure to stop the abuse of the eminent domain law – something I’m not convinced is that substantial a problem. But they threw in a bit that requires government to “pay property owners for substantial economic losses resulting from some new laws and rules,” which seems to me to be opening the door for God only knows how many lawsuits. NO.
Local Measures: for me, that’s San Diego County and City.
SD County Prop A: An advisory vote, asking if the airport authority should work to try to obtain some use of land at MCAS Miramar for a commercial airport. Almost certainly pointless, as the Marines have made it pretty clear they’re not moving and are not interested in a joint-use proposal. I will probably vote YES anyway because I think it makes by far the most sense as a location for a bigger airport. But maybe it would be better to tell them to forget it so they can go about finding another solution.
City Prop B: Would require the voters to approve increases in city employee’s retirement benefits (other than for cost of living). I am trying to imagine voters ever actually doing that, no matter how well merited. Considering we already underpay some of our city employees (police, for instance) this strikes me as a bad idea. NO.
City Prop C: Would allow for some services currently provided by city employees to be contracted out, if doing so is more economical and maintains at least equal quality of service. I’m apprehensive (so often, private companies appear to offer cheaper and better services, but in the long run do not; and of course it opens the doors for assorted kinds of abuse), and inclined to vote NO, but I’m not sure I’m right.
SD Community College District, Prop N: a local bond measure for assorted upgrades to local community colleges. I’d have been inclined to support this anyway, but when I read the argument against, I came across the sentence, “There is no reason for community colleges to be so much cheaper than state colleges such as SDSU.” If people who think that way are the only ones they could find to oppose the measure, it must be good. YES.
And that would seem to be that for my sample ballot. Let the debate begin!
E.Q. TAFT's CALIFORNIA VOTER GUIDE
We start simply..
Statewide Partisan Offices: I’m voting the straight Democratic ticket – yeah, I’m kind of in a rut that way. I don’t expect Angelides will beat Schwarzenegger at this point, since Ahnold has done a good job of running back to the center after taking his licking in the special election, and Angelides hasn’t had a lot to say campaign-wise other than “Ahnold likes Bush! Ahnold likes Bush!” Which just ain’t much of a state plan.
I am amused, however, at the way the Democrats have reacted to the term limit laws, by shuffling portfolios around. Bustamante and Garamendi propose to trade jobs, while Lockyear moves from Attorney General to Teasurer, and John Chiang hops from State Board of Equalization to Controller. Yeah, those term limits sure eliminated the “professional politicians,” didn’t they?
Anyhow, to be specific: That’s’ Angelides for Governor, Garamendi for Lt. Governor, Bowen for Secretary of State, Chiang for Controller, Lockyear for Treasurer, Jerry Brown for Attorney General, Bustamante for Insurance Commissioner, and Christian-Heising for Board of Equalization (3rd District).
Legislative Offices: Again, going Democratic here. I should emphasize I think it’s particularly crucial to vote Democrat at the Federal level, to try to recapture at least one house of Congress so that we might have some oversight and put a few checks on the power of President Bush. (If you don’t think he needs any, then I can’t imagine why you’d be interested in my political recommendations, except perhaps to report me to Homeland Security.)
For me it’s: US Senate – Dianne Feinstein; House of Representatives, 53rd District – Susan Davis; State Assembly, 76th District – Lori Saldana.
Statewide Judicial Offices: So far I can’t find much information on the various California Supreme and Appellate court nominees. I’m open to opinions...
Assorted Local Offices: I’ve cribbed recommendations here from assorted sources; I’m open to comment/persuasion.
Superior Court, Office #36: Rod Shelton
SD Community College Board, District A: Maria Nieto Senour
SD Community College Board, District C: Rich Grosch
SD Community College Board, District E: Peter Zschiesche
SD Unified School Board, District B: Katherine Nakamura
SD Unified School Board, District C: John DeBeck
State Ballot Propositions: Now we get long-winded...
Prop 1A: This would limit conditions under which the state could borrow from gasoline tax revenues (which are earmarked for transportation uses) for other purposes, and require any loans that do occur to be repaid, with interest, within three years. As matters stand, the state has to repay any money borrowed from these funds with interest, which already discourages (or should) doing so unless there’s a budget crisis. This seems to be a move to further limit the budget options of the Legislature, something we’ve already done too much of. I say NO.
Prop 1B: Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security funding. A pretty big bond issue -- $20 billion (about $38 billion to repay, over 30 years). But good, necessary causes, I think. YES.
Prop 1C: Bonds for housing assistance of various kinds. YES.
Prop 1D: Bonds for public education. The usual education bonds, the usual answer from us damn liberals: YES.
Prop 1E: Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention bonds. I love the bit in the “argument against” where the author first complains that too much of the money goes to local community projects that should be paid for by local districts, not state funds – then in the very next paragraph, says we should demand more federal funds. Oy. YES.
Prop 83: “Jessica’s Law” – oh no, if I vote against this, I hate children, right? *sigh*. GPS monitoring of “sexual predators” for LIFE? A requirement that all registered sex offenders live at least 2,000 feet away from schools and parks, which might force many of them out of urban areas altogether? (And of course, neither of those provisions helps in the least against those whose victims are their own relatives…) I expect this will almost certainly pass, but where do we draw the line? If sex offenders are so dangerous they have to be monitored 24/7, why aren’t we just keeping them in prison for life anyway? (Don’t worry, that will be on the 2008 ballot…) Sorry, Jessica, but NO.
Prop 84: Water Quality bonds. Have I mentioned, by the way, how tired I am of the arguments for and against these bond issues on the subject of taxes? The arguments against always scream that the measure will increase taxes, while the arguments against insist they can provide services without raising taxes. Both sides are, IMO, being somewhat misleading. The “for” people make it sound like free money, which it isn’t. But neither does passing a bond measure make a tax increase inevitable, as long as over-all debt is held down to a reasonable level that the budget can cope with.
Anyway, I kind of like clean water, so YES.
Prop 85: Parental notification before abortions are performed for minors. Didn’t we vote on this already? Well, yes, we did, actually, but the anti-choice folks don’t give up that easily. While I admit to some qualms about minors getting medical treatments without their parents being notified, these are easily trumped by my feeling that no one, adult of minor, should be forced to have a child they don’t want to have. Please vote NO again. Thanks.
Prop 86: A new tobacco tax, this one a whopping 13 cents per cigarette -- $2.60 per pack. My informal research shows that cigarettes currently go for about $3-5 per pack, so that’s a pretty substantial price increase. I am very much an anti-smoker. I have voted for higher cigarette taxes in the past. And I really dislike voting the way the tobacco companies want me to. But I have some hesitation about this one. Since tobacco use rates tend to be higher amongst minorities and the poor, this amounts to a huge and very regressive tax. Someone who smokes a pack a day ends up paying $950 a year in extra taxes. For someone who makes a couple of hundred thousand dollars, that may seem trivial, but for someone making, say, $15-20,000, that’s a pretty big chunk of their income. Sure, it’s easy to say they can avoid it merely by giving up smoking. But that’s not so easy. I’ve never smoked, so I don’t really know how difficult it is – but I find my own bad habits pretty hard to break, even without the factor of being physically addictive. Raising taxes on these people makes me feel a little bit like a heroin dealer who doubles the price on his customers once they’re hooked.
But…
Proponents claim that studies show the tax will reduce and prevent smoking; that half a million Californians who smoke will quit; that hundreds of thousands of kids who haven’t yet started, won’t; that those who do smoke will smoke less. I’m not sure I believe all their numbers – but even if you cut them in half, that’s still one hell of an incentive to vote for this. Plus the money goes to some good places that need it badly.
(As an aside, I’m trying to not be overly influenced by the horrendous piece of mathematical manipulation the opponents have been using. Under current state law, you see, 40% of any new tax revenue must go to education. But this proposition, expected to raise about $2 billion, exempts itself from that requirement. So, the opponents say, passing it will TAKE $800 MILLION AWAY FROM THE SCHOOLS!!!! …never mind that it’s money that won’t exist unless the proposition is passed. I laughed out loud when I first read that one, but I wonder how many people will buy it.)
I’m still a bit torn. But I think I have to vote YES.
Prop 87: A tax on oil production, from 1.5-6.0%, depending on the market price per barrel, with the funds going to assorted alternative energy projects. The ads from the opponents on this one make it sound like it will be applied directly at the pump, which it will not. On the other hand, I have to shake my head at the law’s provision that the tax can’t be passed along to consumers – the way gas prices go up and down for no apparent reason, how the hell would they ever prove it? However, the legislative analyst points out it may be self-administering, since if the tax pushes the price of California-produced oil higher than other sources, refineries will just buy the oil from elsewhere.
In any case, even if it *were* being applied at the pump, I’d pay a few extra cents per gallon for alternative energy programs. And I drive a lot. I’m voting YES.
Prop 88: An extra property tax of $50 per parcel, set to go to education funding. Interestingly, the local Democratic party is recommending a no vote on this one, calling it “the wrong solution.” I do think it’s a sort of inadequate attempt to make up for the under-taxation on property created by Prop 13. Maybe some money is better than none, but I’m inclined to go NO unless someone persuades me otherwise.
Prop 89: An interesting one; a small tax on corporations (0.2%) to provide public campaign funding. I’ve come to believe that public financing of election campaigns is a good idea. It won’t eliminate all corruption or the influence of moneyed special interest in politics, no – but nothing will. It’s a step in the right direction. True, candidates don’t have to accept the public financing, and assorted restrictions it places on them. However, for those who don’t, the measure introduces stricter donation limits, including on donations directly from political parties; and it provides that the publicly financed candidates get funding that matches theirs, dollar for dollar, up to a pretty generous limit. That means that every dollar any moneyed interest pours into a race assists both sides equally – creating a built-in disincentive for spending too much.
I don’t think the measure is perfect. Funding it from corporate taxes seems a bit arbitrary. I’d rather it was financed by individual taxes, but then it probably would never pass – even though it seems very likely that it will save taxpayers a great deal of money in the long run, through “payoffs” from politicians to donors that would never happen. And I’m not so sure about the way it tries to limit spending on ballot measures, as opposed to candidates; and I’m not convinced it’s necessarily constitutional.
However, I think I’m willing to vote YES on it anyhow, and let the chips fall.
Prop 90: They’re trying to sell this one as a measure to stop the abuse of the eminent domain law – something I’m not convinced is that substantial a problem. But they threw in a bit that requires government to “pay property owners for substantial economic losses resulting from some new laws and rules,” which seems to me to be opening the door for God only knows how many lawsuits. NO.
Local Measures: for me, that’s San Diego County and City.
SD County Prop A: An advisory vote, asking if the airport authority should work to try to obtain some use of land at MCAS Miramar for a commercial airport. Almost certainly pointless, as the Marines have made it pretty clear they’re not moving and are not interested in a joint-use proposal. I will probably vote YES anyway because I think it makes by far the most sense as a location for a bigger airport. But maybe it would be better to tell them to forget it so they can go about finding another solution.
City Prop B: Would require the voters to approve increases in city employee’s retirement benefits (other than for cost of living). I am trying to imagine voters ever actually doing that, no matter how well merited. Considering we already underpay some of our city employees (police, for instance) this strikes me as a bad idea. NO.
City Prop C: Would allow for some services currently provided by city employees to be contracted out, if doing so is more economical and maintains at least equal quality of service. I’m apprehensive (so often, private companies appear to offer cheaper and better services, but in the long run do not; and of course it opens the doors for assorted kinds of abuse), and inclined to vote NO, but I’m not sure I’m right.
SD Community College District, Prop N: a local bond measure for assorted upgrades to local community colleges. I’d have been inclined to support this anyway, but when I read the argument against, I came across the sentence, “There is no reason for community colleges to be so much cheaper than state colleges such as SDSU.” If people who think that way are the only ones they could find to oppose the measure, it must be good. YES.
And that would seem to be that for my sample ballot. Let the debate begin!