Mon - January 21, 2008
Presidential Primary run-down
My take on all the candidates from
both sides of the aisle
This blog has been mostly politics free for a
little bit (well, its been post free, mostly) but I thought I would finally
weigh in on the presidential primaries. This is probably the most exciting
primary I've ever witnessed, as it is completely wide open on both sides. So
without further ado, here's my take on each of the major
candidates.
Democrats:
Obama: Like John Mark Reynolds, he is a Democrat that I want to want to vote for. He is a charismatic man with a compelling story who is obviously very bright. While I have major disagreements with him in policy (universal health care, likely larger taxes/government, and a withdrawal of our troops without finishing the job in Iraq), I wish I didn't so that I could vote for him. I think this makes him a rather formidable force in the general election, as the number of people who are going to object to these policy ideas is less than the number who will be excited about it. (Just to be clear, I think a large majority would object to larger government if anyone could articulate the ultimate consequences of that. On the Republican side, however, who can communicate that? Romney?). It is somehwat accurate to accuse Obama of being big on ideas and small on actual application, but - as Hillary is finding out - its hard to criticize someone who is so positive and charismatic. I also love rooting for Obama because I love nothing better than watching Hillary squirm.
Edwards: I love Edwards, but not for his policies or ideas, nor for his perfect hair. I love the entertainment he brings to the primaries. Edwards is like the kid in grade school who ran for student body president by promising he'd put Coke in all the drinking fountains. How comical is a the idea of a man who is so incomprehensibly rich running a campaign to help others with YOUR money? And how even more funny is it that no one calls him on it?
Clinton: Forget my strong objections to just about every one of her policies. Does anyone think that we need another 4 (or 8?!) years of the Clintons? My generation and those younger than me are already cynical enough - do we really need to have the Presidency controlled by only 2 families for close to 3 decades? I would say most of us are already convinced that we are ruled by an aristocracy of elites, protected by money and established media, such that we are only allowed to select from a few vetted candidates. But only 2 choices? Thats enough to dispirit a good chunk of young voters. This is particularly true sense her only road to victory lies in defeating a candidate that is overwhelmingly appealing to young voters.
Republicans:
Romney: Enough already with the idea that Romney is unappealing to Evangelicals because of his Mormon faith. Michael Medved pretty much put that rumor to rest with facts from the exit polls. I don't know what it is about Romney, but he just doesn't seem to close the deal. He's attractive, has good policy positions, is WELL funded, backed by almost every major pundit, debates well with a strong command of the facts, and yet even I am only half-heartedly thinking of voting for him (mostly by default). If I had to guess I think its due to two things. First, the fact that he has changed his positions since his 1994 run for Senate and, in some ways, since he was Governor. Second, there are some times in which he seems to define his message based on whats popular. For instance, he originally was running mostly as the Reagan conservative. Now, though thats still his main message, he's talking constantly about change now after the Obama/Huck victories. While I think people will grant its ok to alter strategy a bit here and there, Romney's strategy changes sometimes feel like they may indicate principle changes. Which, of course, only serves to raise eyebrows about the first problem I mentioned. Nonetheless, Romney right now is tentatively getting my vote because I think he is being honest in his positions, and he has extensive experience being a solid executive in both the private and public sector.
Huckabee: For a few weeks, Huckabee had overtaken Romney as my candidate. He is charming, has a sharp wit in the debates, and is solid on social conservative issues. The fact that he had the guts to actually make the Fair Tax a big part of his platform also was a big plus (I believe the Fair Tax to be by far the best system of taxation for a number of reasons). The problem is he has done a couple of things that I think are shifty in running for the nomination. For instance, his Clintonesque answers on past problems like the AIDS issue, and his "I think this ad is too negative to run.... but here, let me show it to all of you; there's no WAY it'll be all over TV for free." The other problem is that while he is a very sharp witted and capable debater, he has a real problem with gaffes and being caught without the facts. Part of it is understandable - he can't pay staffers to brief him on all the issues like major candidates can - but its still a major liability.
Ron Paul: Is it rather telling that in my first draft of this post I left Paul off the list? Ron Paul has a lot to like. Long before he was known on the national scene as a presidential candidate, he's been something of a celebrity to conservatives for his "Dr. No" votes against anything unconstitutional. When people see us signing treaties that aren't really treaties (and thus don't need ratification) in order to sort of end a war that isn't really a war (in order to escape a declaration of war), a man who's devotion to the constitution is never in question becomes appealing - to me as well. The problem with Paul, other than the obvious problems of his past racist remarks, is that he is so idealistic he loses grasp with reality. Would a gold standard be better than fiat money? Thats a decent academic debate, but if you think you'd ever get that passed, you're insane. It also seriously blinds him to the threat of islamofacism, which he seems to think will go away if we curl our military up into a North American fetal position and ask everyone to knock it off.
Thompson: To echo John Mark Reynolds, "Was there ever a candidate with more promise who did less than Fred Thompson?" Fred! was supposed to be the White Knight, riding in to save the party in our time of serious lack of candidates. Instead he sorta strode in late,. yawned, and said "sure, whatever... if you make me, I'll be president" The biggest disappointment to me was that he seemed to be someone who could communicate the ideas of Reaganism - being an actor like Reagan himself. But in the debates he hasn't mustered anything memorable and I think the only time I've seen him actually articulate something was when he was attacking Huck by reading off his cue cards. When will the ruling class of conservatives realize that Reaganism NEEDS to be communicated? You can't just argue who is most like Reagan, or who is not a "true" conservative - the younger generations need to be convinced that free market economics actually work and that smaller government is a good thing.
McCain: My favorite comment on McCain is Hughitt's suggestion the John McCain needs a neuralyzer (that cool gadget in Men In Black that erases peoples memories). To conservatives, the list of McCain betrayals is plenty long enough to disqualify him from office - the Gand of 14, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc. To some degree, its too bad, because he is a true war hero who is rock solid on pro-life issues and has made criticisms of the war tactics without ever casting doubt on those who serve. He is also staunchly for the war, while being just as resolute in condemning torture - a surprisingly difficult to find attribute at times (certainly among conservative punditry). But his past "maverick" actions indicate a man a little too eager for acceptance in the MSM, and his attacks in the debates and elsewhere show he is not temperamentally suited for president. I have no problem with negative ads or attacking someone's positions/record, but McCain seems to offer very little charity in disagreeing with people, using the same sort of incendiary slander-rhetoric against his own party that bombthrowers of the left employ.
Rudy: Having been to New York City for the first time in my life just recently, I can see the appeal of Rudy. We've all heard tales of the previous dark side of NYC, but they seem almost hard to imagine if you're there now. He is the only executive to actually have dealt with an Islamicist attack - and handled it so well it is reason enough for a lot of people to vote for him. But as much as that is true, Rudy is the Boromir candidate. Like Boromir, he is great on the war and good on little else. Giving him, and his authoritarian tendencies, the powers of presidency in time of war is much like the temptation of the Ring. He would simply have too much power, and his good intentions and strong will to fight might very well be used to awful means. If Rudy wins the nomination, I will have to do some serious soul searching to vote for him - right now, I'd stay home.
Democrats:
Obama: Like John Mark Reynolds, he is a Democrat that I want to want to vote for. He is a charismatic man with a compelling story who is obviously very bright. While I have major disagreements with him in policy (universal health care, likely larger taxes/government, and a withdrawal of our troops without finishing the job in Iraq), I wish I didn't so that I could vote for him. I think this makes him a rather formidable force in the general election, as the number of people who are going to object to these policy ideas is less than the number who will be excited about it. (Just to be clear, I think a large majority would object to larger government if anyone could articulate the ultimate consequences of that. On the Republican side, however, who can communicate that? Romney?). It is somehwat accurate to accuse Obama of being big on ideas and small on actual application, but - as Hillary is finding out - its hard to criticize someone who is so positive and charismatic. I also love rooting for Obama because I love nothing better than watching Hillary squirm.
Edwards: I love Edwards, but not for his policies or ideas, nor for his perfect hair. I love the entertainment he brings to the primaries. Edwards is like the kid in grade school who ran for student body president by promising he'd put Coke in all the drinking fountains. How comical is a the idea of a man who is so incomprehensibly rich running a campaign to help others with YOUR money? And how even more funny is it that no one calls him on it?
Clinton: Forget my strong objections to just about every one of her policies. Does anyone think that we need another 4 (or 8?!) years of the Clintons? My generation and those younger than me are already cynical enough - do we really need to have the Presidency controlled by only 2 families for close to 3 decades? I would say most of us are already convinced that we are ruled by an aristocracy of elites, protected by money and established media, such that we are only allowed to select from a few vetted candidates. But only 2 choices? Thats enough to dispirit a good chunk of young voters. This is particularly true sense her only road to victory lies in defeating a candidate that is overwhelmingly appealing to young voters.
Republicans:
Romney: Enough already with the idea that Romney is unappealing to Evangelicals because of his Mormon faith. Michael Medved pretty much put that rumor to rest with facts from the exit polls. I don't know what it is about Romney, but he just doesn't seem to close the deal. He's attractive, has good policy positions, is WELL funded, backed by almost every major pundit, debates well with a strong command of the facts, and yet even I am only half-heartedly thinking of voting for him (mostly by default). If I had to guess I think its due to two things. First, the fact that he has changed his positions since his 1994 run for Senate and, in some ways, since he was Governor. Second, there are some times in which he seems to define his message based on whats popular. For instance, he originally was running mostly as the Reagan conservative. Now, though thats still his main message, he's talking constantly about change now after the Obama/Huck victories. While I think people will grant its ok to alter strategy a bit here and there, Romney's strategy changes sometimes feel like they may indicate principle changes. Which, of course, only serves to raise eyebrows about the first problem I mentioned. Nonetheless, Romney right now is tentatively getting my vote because I think he is being honest in his positions, and he has extensive experience being a solid executive in both the private and public sector.
Huckabee: For a few weeks, Huckabee had overtaken Romney as my candidate. He is charming, has a sharp wit in the debates, and is solid on social conservative issues. The fact that he had the guts to actually make the Fair Tax a big part of his platform also was a big plus (I believe the Fair Tax to be by far the best system of taxation for a number of reasons). The problem is he has done a couple of things that I think are shifty in running for the nomination. For instance, his Clintonesque answers on past problems like the AIDS issue, and his "I think this ad is too negative to run.... but here, let me show it to all of you; there's no WAY it'll be all over TV for free." The other problem is that while he is a very sharp witted and capable debater, he has a real problem with gaffes and being caught without the facts. Part of it is understandable - he can't pay staffers to brief him on all the issues like major candidates can - but its still a major liability.
Ron Paul: Is it rather telling that in my first draft of this post I left Paul off the list? Ron Paul has a lot to like. Long before he was known on the national scene as a presidential candidate, he's been something of a celebrity to conservatives for his "Dr. No" votes against anything unconstitutional. When people see us signing treaties that aren't really treaties (and thus don't need ratification) in order to sort of end a war that isn't really a war (in order to escape a declaration of war), a man who's devotion to the constitution is never in question becomes appealing - to me as well. The problem with Paul, other than the obvious problems of his past racist remarks, is that he is so idealistic he loses grasp with reality. Would a gold standard be better than fiat money? Thats a decent academic debate, but if you think you'd ever get that passed, you're insane. It also seriously blinds him to the threat of islamofacism, which he seems to think will go away if we curl our military up into a North American fetal position and ask everyone to knock it off.
Thompson: To echo John Mark Reynolds, "Was there ever a candidate with more promise who did less than Fred Thompson?" Fred! was supposed to be the White Knight, riding in to save the party in our time of serious lack of candidates. Instead he sorta strode in late,. yawned, and said "sure, whatever... if you make me, I'll be president" The biggest disappointment to me was that he seemed to be someone who could communicate the ideas of Reaganism - being an actor like Reagan himself. But in the debates he hasn't mustered anything memorable and I think the only time I've seen him actually articulate something was when he was attacking Huck by reading off his cue cards. When will the ruling class of conservatives realize that Reaganism NEEDS to be communicated? You can't just argue who is most like Reagan, or who is not a "true" conservative - the younger generations need to be convinced that free market economics actually work and that smaller government is a good thing.
McCain: My favorite comment on McCain is Hughitt's suggestion the John McCain needs a neuralyzer (that cool gadget in Men In Black that erases peoples memories). To conservatives, the list of McCain betrayals is plenty long enough to disqualify him from office - the Gand of 14, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc. To some degree, its too bad, because he is a true war hero who is rock solid on pro-life issues and has made criticisms of the war tactics without ever casting doubt on those who serve. He is also staunchly for the war, while being just as resolute in condemning torture - a surprisingly difficult to find attribute at times (certainly among conservative punditry). But his past "maverick" actions indicate a man a little too eager for acceptance in the MSM, and his attacks in the debates and elsewhere show he is not temperamentally suited for president. I have no problem with negative ads or attacking someone's positions/record, but McCain seems to offer very little charity in disagreeing with people, using the same sort of incendiary slander-rhetoric against his own party that bombthrowers of the left employ.
Rudy: Having been to New York City for the first time in my life just recently, I can see the appeal of Rudy. We've all heard tales of the previous dark side of NYC, but they seem almost hard to imagine if you're there now. He is the only executive to actually have dealt with an Islamicist attack - and handled it so well it is reason enough for a lot of people to vote for him. But as much as that is true, Rudy is the Boromir candidate. Like Boromir, he is great on the war and good on little else. Giving him, and his authoritarian tendencies, the powers of presidency in time of war is much like the temptation of the Ring. He would simply have too much power, and his good intentions and strong will to fight might very well be used to awful means. If Rudy wins the nomination, I will have to do some serious soul searching to vote for him - right now, I'd stay home.
Posted at 11:35 AM | | Read More | | |
Tue - September 4, 2007
Another letter - this time from the House
Though on the same issue of SCHIP,
this letter from the House is far more encouraging
Last week or so I
had some rather harsh words for Republicans in general and my Senator
specifically. Thing are, apparently, a little better when it comes to the House
of Representatives.
I received a letter from Mr. David Davis, my representative in the House, which stated that he voted against the SCHIP bill that included a ridiculous tax increase on tobacco. He also goes on to state he "will vote to sustain the President's veto of this bill." I'm hoping that means that Bush will actually veto the bill after it makes it out of conference, but Bush sometimes seems to have misplaced his veto pen and can't be counted on to block things.
So while I still harbor serious doubts about the Republicans in general, I would definitely be remiss if I didn't solute one who got this issue absolutely right. Thank you, David Davis for voting against this awful piece of legislation.
I received a letter from Mr. David Davis, my representative in the House, which stated that he voted against the SCHIP bill that included a ridiculous tax increase on tobacco. He also goes on to state he "will vote to sustain the President's veto of this bill." I'm hoping that means that Bush will actually veto the bill after it makes it out of conference, but Bush sometimes seems to have misplaced his veto pen and can't be counted on to block things.
So while I still harbor serious doubts about the Republicans in general, I would definitely be remiss if I didn't solute one who got this issue absolutely right. Thank you, David Davis for voting against this awful piece of legislation.
Posted at 05:20 PM | | Read More | | |
Thu - August 23, 2007
A letter from my senator
I received a letter back from my
Senator - Bob Corker - on the Tobacco Tax issue
Thanks to Nathaniel and Van, I recently sent my senators and other
government officials a letter (very easy - please do it yourself) stating my
opposition to a rather disgusting tax on tobacco in the name of providing
healthcare to those who cannot afford it (fine print - this group is defined by
the bill up to as families who make high as $80k a year). The tax itself is
almost ridiculous enough to be parody - $10 per cigar in some cases, for
instance. Anyway, Senator Bob Corker wrote me back and explained his position -
rather unsatisfactorily to my mind. So I decided to write him a reply, and I
thought I'd post it here for all of you to join in the fun. His letter in blue,
and my response in black below it:
Dear Mr. DeBow,
Thank you for taking the time to
contact my office about the use of a cigarette excise tax to fund the State
Children's Health Program (SCHIP). Your input is important to me, and I
appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts.
On August 2, I voted to reauthorize and
fund SCHIP because I believe it has been an important and successful program and
because I made a commitment to Tennesseans to do all that I can to expand access
to affordable health insurance. While this reauthorization bill is far
from perfect, it does ensure that more low-income children in Tennessee and
across America will have health insurance. I believe this is our moral
obligation.
As you know, the Senate SCHIP
reauthorization bill is funded by an increase in the federal excise tax on
tobacco. I agree with you that this is an imperfect way to expand
SCHIP. During the debate on this issue, I supported an amendment that
would sunset this funding source after 5 years. Unfortunately, this
amendment was voted down.
The SCHIP reauthorization is only a
short-term and partial solution to a much larger crisis facing our country: the
45 million Americans, including 800,000 Tennesseans, who lack adequate health
insurance. Beyond the chaos for our healthcare system and the economy, the
health and emotional toll is enormous.
As a first step towards comprehensively
addressing this crisis, I, along with Senator Burr (R-NC) and others introduced
the Every American Insured Health Act, S.1886, a proposal that ensures all
Americans have access to affordable healthcare coverage without contributing to
our ballooning national debt. This proposal is meant to be a starting point of a
larger debate aimed at addressing a healthcare crisis facing Americas across our
country and I look forward to pursuing this important issue.
Thank you again for your letter.
I hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me over the next six
years.
Sincerely,
Bob Corker
United States Senator
Sen. Corker,
I'm sorry to see that we have such a fundamental disagreement on the nature and scope of the federal government. I'd like to say that your views are not representative of the Republican party, but sadly it seems that Republicans - who long stood for responsible, constitutional government - have become infatuated with increasing the size and scope of the Federal government. I have no idea where in the constitution you think it authorizes you, let alone instructs you, to ensure that Americans have health insurance and I'm especially perturbed that you only see such a punitive and targeted tax as an "imperfect" funding mechanism.
I have never voted anything other than Republican in national elections , yet it is for decisions like this that I no longer consider myself a Republican. It is because of these issues that you will see your ever shrinking minority status continue in the Senate - because your base hasn't lost its ideals of small government and the people looking for handouts know the Democrats will always give it out faster. On issue after issue, Republicans have sided with larger taxes, more government, and less opportunity for the not already rich. And every time they argue, as you did in this letter, that they've somehow fought the good fight because the Democrats would be worse. I understand that politics is the battle of the possible, not the ideal. I'm a patient man who believes in compromising on certain positions, while staying never compromising principles. But I'm tired of second-worst. I'm sick of Republicans who's only idea of vision consists of doing bad things mildly slower than the opposition.
I recently moved to Tennessee from California and I have to say - when I see the same response from Bob Corker as I would have expected from Diane Feinstein, I think we can safely assume the Republican party is in big trouble.
Thank you,
Brant E. DeBow
UPDATE: I just received an email saying my reply to Sen. Corker bounced. How awesome is that? "Thank you again for your letter. I hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me over the next six years." - and yet he doesn't have a valid reply-to on his email? Nice touch.
Sincerely,
Bob Corker
United States Senator
Sen. Corker,
I'm sorry to see that we have such a fundamental disagreement on the nature and scope of the federal government. I'd like to say that your views are not representative of the Republican party, but sadly it seems that Republicans - who long stood for responsible, constitutional government - have become infatuated with increasing the size and scope of the Federal government. I have no idea where in the constitution you think it authorizes you, let alone instructs you, to ensure that Americans have health insurance and I'm especially perturbed that you only see such a punitive and targeted tax as an "imperfect" funding mechanism.
I have never voted anything other than Republican in national elections , yet it is for decisions like this that I no longer consider myself a Republican. It is because of these issues that you will see your ever shrinking minority status continue in the Senate - because your base hasn't lost its ideals of small government and the people looking for handouts know the Democrats will always give it out faster. On issue after issue, Republicans have sided with larger taxes, more government, and less opportunity for the not already rich. And every time they argue, as you did in this letter, that they've somehow fought the good fight because the Democrats would be worse. I understand that politics is the battle of the possible, not the ideal. I'm a patient man who believes in compromising on certain positions, while staying never compromising principles. But I'm tired of second-worst. I'm sick of Republicans who's only idea of vision consists of doing bad things mildly slower than the opposition.
I recently moved to Tennessee from California and I have to say - when I see the same response from Bob Corker as I would have expected from Diane Feinstein, I think we can safely assume the Republican party is in big trouble.
Thank you,
Brant E. DeBow
UPDATE: I just received an email saying my reply to Sen. Corker bounced. How awesome is that? "Thank you again for your letter. I hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me over the next six years." - and yet he doesn't have a valid reply-to on his email? Nice touch.
Posted at 12:29 PM | | Read More | | |
Wed - August 15, 2007
How do you say PWN3d in Arabic?
The AP shows it has no clue how a gun
actually works
From my buddy Heath, maker of JarJar
hilarity (seriously, he made JarJar funny, thats rad), come this
link:
AP News photo:
Nothing wrong with that so far..... but look at the caption. This woman apparently claims these bullets "hit her house following an early coalition forces raid" in Sadr City. For those who share the AP's ignorance of firearms, those rounds she is holding are just that - full fledged rounds. Slug, casing, powder, etc. When you shoot something, only the top part of that, the bullet, actually comes out of the gun (see this helpful diagram).
To sum up, the only way those could have "hit her house" is if someone threw them at it. Ahhh, the joys of having those "multiple layers of checks and balances."
AP News photo:
Nothing wrong with that so far..... but look at the caption. This woman apparently claims these bullets "hit her house following an early coalition forces raid" in Sadr City. For those who share the AP's ignorance of firearms, those rounds she is holding are just that - full fledged rounds. Slug, casing, powder, etc. When you shoot something, only the top part of that, the bullet, actually comes out of the gun (see this helpful diagram).
To sum up, the only way those could have "hit her house" is if someone threw them at it. Ahhh, the joys of having those "multiple layers of checks and balances."
Posted at 06:19 PM | | Read More | | |
Fri - July 27, 2007
The great YouTube debate
Hughitt and his co-blogger Patrick
Ruffini are currently on opposite sides of whether or not the GOP should attend
the Cnn/YouTube debate
Not THAT YouTube debate, the debate about whether
the debate should happen. For those of you not up to speed, CNN hosted a
YouTube debate for the Democratic candidates last week. It featured
CNN-selected questions from YouTube submissions (including, infamously, a
question from a snowman about global warming) instead of questions from a
moderator. The idea is to shake up the questions, new media it up, power to the
people, and all that. The truth is that its name is most accurate - the
CNN/YouTube debate. In other words, CNN comes before anything actually found on
YouTube because they have the power of selecting which questions get heard. It
was also a bit more embarrassing than it was liberating, and it seems to be just
what the "freedom equals licentiousness" crowd
ordered.
So the big question facing the Republican candidates is do they take part in a debate that will feature below the belt shots selected by CNN? Hugh Hewitt argues that all of the front-runners should skip what is clearly an old media ambushed dressed up and hiding behind a new media veil. Patrick Ruffini argues that the Republican party already is completely losing the internet generation and ducking the debate will be seen as being afraid to answer real questions from real voters and just as callous as the Democrats ducking Fox News.
First off, I think both of them, and all of us, can agree that there is nothing new media about the debates. The simple way to make these debates new media is to add a voting mechanism on YouTube to allow the good questions to bubble up. That would take the editorial process out of the hands of unnamed people at CNN and place it in the hands of the internet. True, it would be susceptible to Kos or some other big lefty blogger asking people to go and dump a ton of votes on a hit piece question, but as long as the voting mechanism is not subject to cheating, then the same could be said for bubbling up friendly softball questions the candidates can really knock out of the park. That comes with the territory in new media. The new media is all about the meritocracy - its about letting the good writers, ideas, etc bubble up to the top because people agree that they are good. It also means that the community will have differing ideas and several "goods" will bubble up that are ideologically driven. As long as no one is shut out and the voting is fair, then alls well.
In fact, YouTube could possibly even do this idea now, by using the existing most viewed feature - but it would wrest editorial control away from CNN, and as I said, its the CNN/YouTube debate and not the YouTube debate on CNN.
But the next question is how should the Republicans act, knowing this is going to be dangerous (at best). While I agree wholeheartedly with Hughitt that this while be a litany of cheap shot questions (quick, what's the over-under on someone asking about Thompson's "trophy wife"?), I also think Patrick is right in how it will be perceived. Most of the people of my generation will have no qualms about people looking presidential as they will have misconceptions about the political elite dodging questions that are uncomfortable. Like it or not, its been very cleverly branded as YouTube and it will look like YouTube, and backing out on it will have the appearance of backing out on YouTubers. I can safely say that I can anticipate that, were I still in an office, the watercooler straw poll would go decidedly against candidates who skipped.
While my gut reaction to the first YouTube debate was a sickening realization of how undignified and silly it made our electoral process look, I don't think the office of President is anymore revered in our culture - sad, but true. We had 8 years of Clinton chasing skirts and lying under oath, and then another 7 years of Bush refusing to make the case for the war (which I agree with) and relying on his own obstinate will to hold the country on track against Islamofacism (I admire the president's resolve and willingness to say "I'm the President and its my call", but he'd help himself out so much more if he could just explain it - not to mention how little he has exercised that position when it comes time to veto something truly dreadful). Add into the mix issues like illegal immigration which illustrate in stark contrast just how out of touch with voters the politicians are (something like 80-90% agree on it, yet the remaining 10% are all Senators), and you've got a powderkeg just waiting to explode.
Perhaps one of the frontrunners could get away with missing it, and perhaps it could be handled well, but there's slim chance that only one of the big 3 will pull out. If the Republicans leave this debate wholesale, or only Ron Paul and McCain show up (both have officially committed), we all know what the talking points will be for the media. I think it will dog the candidates throughout the process, and probably even be an election issue. Imagine if Obama - being heralded as the people's candidate and Washington outsider - said in one of the debates "but thats why I agreed to answer questions from the people about 'not being black enough' and you ducked out - I represent the people and you represent special interests." Something along those lines could very well prove to be a decisive "I paid for this mic" moment.
So while I agree with Hugh that its not prudent and could potentially be a slanderfest, I don't see that there is any alternative for the Republicans. Even if someone has stacked the deck, you can still only play the hand you're dealt.
UPDATE: Joe Carter has become a co-sponsor of the SaveTheDebate movement.
I also wanted to add the following thought - anyone who really believes that being presidential wins elections should think about two words: Bob Dole. Dole was clearly the most presidential candidate and yet a man who has a great sense of humor and was known for his wit came off as one of the most wooden candidates of recent memory.
So the big question facing the Republican candidates is do they take part in a debate that will feature below the belt shots selected by CNN? Hugh Hewitt argues that all of the front-runners should skip what is clearly an old media ambushed dressed up and hiding behind a new media veil. Patrick Ruffini argues that the Republican party already is completely losing the internet generation and ducking the debate will be seen as being afraid to answer real questions from real voters and just as callous as the Democrats ducking Fox News.
First off, I think both of them, and all of us, can agree that there is nothing new media about the debates. The simple way to make these debates new media is to add a voting mechanism on YouTube to allow the good questions to bubble up. That would take the editorial process out of the hands of unnamed people at CNN and place it in the hands of the internet. True, it would be susceptible to Kos or some other big lefty blogger asking people to go and dump a ton of votes on a hit piece question, but as long as the voting mechanism is not subject to cheating, then the same could be said for bubbling up friendly softball questions the candidates can really knock out of the park. That comes with the territory in new media. The new media is all about the meritocracy - its about letting the good writers, ideas, etc bubble up to the top because people agree that they are good. It also means that the community will have differing ideas and several "goods" will bubble up that are ideologically driven. As long as no one is shut out and the voting is fair, then alls well.
In fact, YouTube could possibly even do this idea now, by using the existing most viewed feature - but it would wrest editorial control away from CNN, and as I said, its the CNN/YouTube debate and not the YouTube debate on CNN.
But the next question is how should the Republicans act, knowing this is going to be dangerous (at best). While I agree wholeheartedly with Hughitt that this while be a litany of cheap shot questions (quick, what's the over-under on someone asking about Thompson's "trophy wife"?), I also think Patrick is right in how it will be perceived. Most of the people of my generation will have no qualms about people looking presidential as they will have misconceptions about the political elite dodging questions that are uncomfortable. Like it or not, its been very cleverly branded as YouTube and it will look like YouTube, and backing out on it will have the appearance of backing out on YouTubers. I can safely say that I can anticipate that, were I still in an office, the watercooler straw poll would go decidedly against candidates who skipped.
While my gut reaction to the first YouTube debate was a sickening realization of how undignified and silly it made our electoral process look, I don't think the office of President is anymore revered in our culture - sad, but true. We had 8 years of Clinton chasing skirts and lying under oath, and then another 7 years of Bush refusing to make the case for the war (which I agree with) and relying on his own obstinate will to hold the country on track against Islamofacism (I admire the president's resolve and willingness to say "I'm the President and its my call", but he'd help himself out so much more if he could just explain it - not to mention how little he has exercised that position when it comes time to veto something truly dreadful). Add into the mix issues like illegal immigration which illustrate in stark contrast just how out of touch with voters the politicians are (something like 80-90% agree on it, yet the remaining 10% are all Senators), and you've got a powderkeg just waiting to explode.
Perhaps one of the frontrunners could get away with missing it, and perhaps it could be handled well, but there's slim chance that only one of the big 3 will pull out. If the Republicans leave this debate wholesale, or only Ron Paul and McCain show up (both have officially committed), we all know what the talking points will be for the media. I think it will dog the candidates throughout the process, and probably even be an election issue. Imagine if Obama - being heralded as the people's candidate and Washington outsider - said in one of the debates "but thats why I agreed to answer questions from the people about 'not being black enough' and you ducked out - I represent the people and you represent special interests." Something along those lines could very well prove to be a decisive "I paid for this mic" moment.
So while I agree with Hugh that its not prudent and could potentially be a slanderfest, I don't see that there is any alternative for the Republicans. Even if someone has stacked the deck, you can still only play the hand you're dealt.
UPDATE: Joe Carter has become a co-sponsor of the SaveTheDebate movement.
I also wanted to add the following thought - anyone who really believes that being presidential wins elections should think about two words: Bob Dole. Dole was clearly the most presidential candidate and yet a man who has a great sense of humor and was known for his wit came off as one of the most wooden candidates of recent memory.
Posted at 03:29 PM | | Read More | | |
Fri - July 20, 2007
Airport (in)security
An article and some observations on
airport screening
I've been meaning to blog for some time on
airport screening, but an article that Lileks
highlighted this morning finally nudged me into posting something.
The article states that the TSA is no longer going to be confiscating lighters
anymore as part of the process because, as one official eloquently put it,
"Taking lighters away is security theater. It trivializes the security process."
Indeed.
But could the security process be anymore trivialized? We've heard countless people bemoan the fact that we don't do any profiling whatsoever and we randomly pull old grandmas out of the line for in depth screening while anyone remotely fitting the profile of a terrorist is whisked through so people don't feel like they are culturally insensitive. Yes its true that terrorists can, and probably will, change their tactics and start recruiting people that would fly under the radar of profiling but there are two important considerations. First, which do you think is easier for a terrorist organization to find and recruit for a suicide bombing mission - a young, male, Middle Eastern man traveling on an expired visa, or an 80 year old, American citizen, grandmother of 3, living in Kansas? Second, profiling is not the be all end all security tactic. Just because someone doesn't fit a profile doesn't mean we have to whisk them through the screening if there are other suspicions.
But my biggest pet peeve with airport security screenings is the fact that if we only find out about a plot at the point where the terrorists are in the airport, we've lost the fight. Look at all of the terrorist plots that have been disrupted lately and the most successful busts were done before the plot got to the airport (or other target). When we have agents tracking and following actual real terrorists before they get to the airport, we're going to have a much higher chance of preventing it. For example, the two idiots who wanted to drive their SUV into the airport in the UK recently - had they simply walked in with a bomb instead of driving a car, we'd have no way to stop them. Had we known about the plot before they got in the car, they have no chance.
So it may be that this topic is a little too close to my heart recently - seeing as I'm just now finishing up a business trip in which I've flown maybe 7-8 flights - but I think that, a lot of the time, a big portion of the screening process is "security theater." My 18 month old daughter has to take her shoes off - does anyone think that makes them safer? Do we really have a "credible threat" that 18 month olds from Tennessee have been turning in droves into Al Qaeda operatives?
As Lileks writes: "But please don’t stop requiring people to remove their shoes; that simple obligation combines the loss of control, safety and dignity in a unique way that helps passengers bond together."
But could the security process be anymore trivialized? We've heard countless people bemoan the fact that we don't do any profiling whatsoever and we randomly pull old grandmas out of the line for in depth screening while anyone remotely fitting the profile of a terrorist is whisked through so people don't feel like they are culturally insensitive. Yes its true that terrorists can, and probably will, change their tactics and start recruiting people that would fly under the radar of profiling but there are two important considerations. First, which do you think is easier for a terrorist organization to find and recruit for a suicide bombing mission - a young, male, Middle Eastern man traveling on an expired visa, or an 80 year old, American citizen, grandmother of 3, living in Kansas? Second, profiling is not the be all end all security tactic. Just because someone doesn't fit a profile doesn't mean we have to whisk them through the screening if there are other suspicions.
But my biggest pet peeve with airport security screenings is the fact that if we only find out about a plot at the point where the terrorists are in the airport, we've lost the fight. Look at all of the terrorist plots that have been disrupted lately and the most successful busts were done before the plot got to the airport (or other target). When we have agents tracking and following actual real terrorists before they get to the airport, we're going to have a much higher chance of preventing it. For example, the two idiots who wanted to drive their SUV into the airport in the UK recently - had they simply walked in with a bomb instead of driving a car, we'd have no way to stop them. Had we known about the plot before they got in the car, they have no chance.
So it may be that this topic is a little too close to my heart recently - seeing as I'm just now finishing up a business trip in which I've flown maybe 7-8 flights - but I think that, a lot of the time, a big portion of the screening process is "security theater." My 18 month old daughter has to take her shoes off - does anyone think that makes them safer? Do we really have a "credible threat" that 18 month olds from Tennessee have been turning in droves into Al Qaeda operatives?
As Lileks writes: "But please don’t stop requiring people to remove their shoes; that simple obligation combines the loss of control, safety and dignity in a unique way that helps passengers bond together."
Posted at 02:12 PM | | Read More | | |
Thu - June 14, 2007
Quick, and distrubing, note
A scary plot to kill people at an
Illinois mall around Christmas was thankfully stopped
This morning, Hughitt linked to this PDF file describing a plot to detonate
grenades in a shopping mall in Illinois Thanks to the efforts of the FBI the
plot was stopped. Nonetheless, this is a great example of what we probably have
to fear most here on American soul - so called "home grown jihadists." But my
main reason for posting this morning was to point out the following excerpt from
the report, because it strikes me as both surreal and
scary:
In Shareef’s words, he was seeking to target “any place that’s crowded.” Further, responding to the CS’ suggestion that they “disrupt Christmas,” Shareef commented, “Oh hell yeah, the mall is where it’s at.”
Here we have a jihadist muslim, so dedicated to his 'faith' that he is willing to commit suicide and multiple homicide describing his plans in the vernacular of american pop culture. "Where its at" juxtaposed against jihad and allah - American slang and pop culture meets ages old violent hatred and misguided religion.
Mark Steyn was making a point on the radio today that we had better fill American young men with the American ethos, because particularly young men will be filled with something. When we are too afraid or ambivalent about American ideals to teach them to our young people, we leave a void that gangs, radical islam, etc are not afraid of filling. We had better get serious about just what the threat is out there, and we had better stop thinking these people are just in backwards countries or too poor or insane. Here's an example of a young man, completely familiar with American culture as evidenced by his knowledge of slang, shopping malls and Christmas, who logically follows out his Islamist beliefs by devising a plan to kill as many people as he can. He's something of a bold refutation of Western misconceptions - he's so thoroughly suffused with American pop culture he uses our slang in describing how to kill us.
In Shareef’s words, he was seeking to target “any place that’s crowded.” Further, responding to the CS’ suggestion that they “disrupt Christmas,” Shareef commented, “Oh hell yeah, the mall is where it’s at.”
Here we have a jihadist muslim, so dedicated to his 'faith' that he is willing to commit suicide and multiple homicide describing his plans in the vernacular of american pop culture. "Where its at" juxtaposed against jihad and allah - American slang and pop culture meets ages old violent hatred and misguided religion.
Mark Steyn was making a point on the radio today that we had better fill American young men with the American ethos, because particularly young men will be filled with something. When we are too afraid or ambivalent about American ideals to teach them to our young people, we leave a void that gangs, radical islam, etc are not afraid of filling. We had better get serious about just what the threat is out there, and we had better stop thinking these people are just in backwards countries or too poor or insane. Here's an example of a young man, completely familiar with American culture as evidenced by his knowledge of slang, shopping malls and Christmas, who logically follows out his Islamist beliefs by devising a plan to kill as many people as he can. He's something of a bold refutation of Western misconceptions - he's so thoroughly suffused with American pop culture he uses our slang in describing how to kill us.
Posted at 09:46 AM | | Read More | | |
Tue - November 7, 2006
Proposition 85 - Yes
Please give parents the right to know
if their daughter is having an abortion
This is part of my ongoing series of posts on
each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the
original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my
scorecard and links to each of my
arguments.
Proposition 85 - Yes
Summary - This measure would make it mandatory for the parent's of a minor child to be informed prior to her having an abortion.
Commentary - This measure is largely similar to Proposition 73, which was narrowly defeated in the last election. My take is basically the same as what I wrote last year, and so I would ask you to simply read those comments for my argument.
The basic gist is this - abortion is a major, life changing event and there is no reason not to let the parents know. For any other "medical procedure" we would require consent and this is only asking for notification. It also provides for a way out for minors who think their parents would react violently, so it doesn't put anyone in danger. Regardless of one's position on abortion, this measure should be a no brainer - its only asking for consent. But please read the whole post from last election, and please vote yes.
Proposition 85 - Yes
Summary - This measure would make it mandatory for the parent's of a minor child to be informed prior to her having an abortion.
Commentary - This measure is largely similar to Proposition 73, which was narrowly defeated in the last election. My take is basically the same as what I wrote last year, and so I would ask you to simply read those comments for my argument.
The basic gist is this - abortion is a major, life changing event and there is no reason not to let the parents know. For any other "medical procedure" we would require consent and this is only asking for notification. It also provides for a way out for minors who think their parents would react violently, so it doesn't put anyone in danger. Regardless of one's position on abortion, this measure should be a no brainer - its only asking for consent. But please read the whole post from last election, and please vote yes.
Posted at 10:21 AM | | Read More | | |
Proposition 83 - No
AbstractHere
This is part of my ongoing series of posts on
each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the
original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my
scorecard and links to each of my
arguments.
Proposition 83 - No
Summary - This measure would increase penalties for sex offenders and place stricter residency requirements, including requiring them to wear a GPS unit for life.
Commentary - I was planning on voting yes on this measure with a bit of hesitation, but I came across this OC Register article that suggests most of the provisions regarding penalties have been passed by the legislature.
My initial hesitation was mainly due to the GPS monitoring and residency restrictions - not because I have any sympathy for child molesters, but because I worry how vague the title of "sex offender" would be. I'm also a bit unsure if the residency restrictions wouldn't have unintended consequences - like forcing sex offenders to congregate in rural areas, where they might do even more damage. The other unintended consequence of both of these might just be to force more sex offenders into hiding from the law, whereas we may have had a better knowledge of them had we not been so prohibitive.
I think the easiest way to deal with sex offenders is probably to have some sort of life imprisonment in a community without children. They don't need to be locked up in prison, just sort of quarantined away from any children. We certainly have precedent for life imprisonment (even for drug addicts) and child molesters are a very serious threat to a stable and normal society. The wounds they inflict are profound and lasting, and destroy other's ability to create stable and happy families - or worse, they drive their victims to victimize others in the same way.
While this will probably never be enacted because of a powerful lobby of defense attorneys and organizations like the ACLU, stricter punishments are always welcome to me. So given that the punishment part of this law seems to have been passed, I think I am voting no on this one, though somewhat tentatively. I certainly wouldn't be too depressed if it passed, but rule #1 means that if we're not totally convinced of a yes, it gets a no.
Proposition 83 - No
Summary - This measure would increase penalties for sex offenders and place stricter residency requirements, including requiring them to wear a GPS unit for life.
Commentary - I was planning on voting yes on this measure with a bit of hesitation, but I came across this OC Register article that suggests most of the provisions regarding penalties have been passed by the legislature.
My initial hesitation was mainly due to the GPS monitoring and residency restrictions - not because I have any sympathy for child molesters, but because I worry how vague the title of "sex offender" would be. I'm also a bit unsure if the residency restrictions wouldn't have unintended consequences - like forcing sex offenders to congregate in rural areas, where they might do even more damage. The other unintended consequence of both of these might just be to force more sex offenders into hiding from the law, whereas we may have had a better knowledge of them had we not been so prohibitive.
I think the easiest way to deal with sex offenders is probably to have some sort of life imprisonment in a community without children. They don't need to be locked up in prison, just sort of quarantined away from any children. We certainly have precedent for life imprisonment (even for drug addicts) and child molesters are a very serious threat to a stable and normal society. The wounds they inflict are profound and lasting, and destroy other's ability to create stable and happy families - or worse, they drive their victims to victimize others in the same way.
While this will probably never be enacted because of a powerful lobby of defense attorneys and organizations like the ACLU, stricter punishments are always welcome to me. So given that the punishment part of this law seems to have been passed, I think I am voting no on this one, though somewhat tentatively. I certainly wouldn't be too depressed if it passed, but rule #1 means that if we're not totally convinced of a yes, it gets a no.
Posted at 10:20 AM | | Read More | | |
Mon - November 6, 2006
Proposition 1E - No
AbstractHere
This is part of my ongoing series of posts on
each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the
original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my
scorecard and links to each of my
arguments.
Proposition 1E - No
Summary - This measure would borrow roughly $4 Billion through bonds to rebuild and repair CA's flood control and drinking supply system.
Commentary - While some notable conservatives' (such as Chuck DeVore and Tom McClintock) support of this measure gives me pause, I think it ultimately fails the test and gets a no vote. The reason why lies in its failure on both Rule #2 and #4.
First objection is rule #2 - it is a bond measure, and therefore unduly expensive. It will, like all the other bond measures, end up costing us twice the actual money spent because of the great expense in servicing the debt. For every dollar we get in repairs, we spend two to fund it. That is simply wasteful, especially when dealing with something so vital to public safety.
Which brings me to the second objection - rule #4. Drinking water is a very vital service and public safety concern here in CA. Most of us live in a desert that would shrivel and dry up if you turn the water off. Flood prevention is another key area, as most of our soil doesn't soak up a lot of water and can be prone to flooding easily. Put these two together and you have a very compelling reason for governmental involvement due to public safety and health concerns.
So ask yourself, why haven't they done this? Why are they asking us to bail them out with an extremely costly bond measure? What special interests have bribed the cash out of the general budget for this? As I've said with the other bond measures, if you bail out legislators with these bond measures then you give them license to continue wasting money in the general fund with little or no oversight. CA is not in good shape financially, and will not be for a long time. Now is not the time for us to be slack on our financial spending, and the best way to ensure that is to give the legislature no way out when it comes to vital services.
Proposition 1E - No
Summary - This measure would borrow roughly $4 Billion through bonds to rebuild and repair CA's flood control and drinking supply system.
Commentary - While some notable conservatives' (such as Chuck DeVore and Tom McClintock) support of this measure gives me pause, I think it ultimately fails the test and gets a no vote. The reason why lies in its failure on both Rule #2 and #4.
First objection is rule #2 - it is a bond measure, and therefore unduly expensive. It will, like all the other bond measures, end up costing us twice the actual money spent because of the great expense in servicing the debt. For every dollar we get in repairs, we spend two to fund it. That is simply wasteful, especially when dealing with something so vital to public safety.
Which brings me to the second objection - rule #4. Drinking water is a very vital service and public safety concern here in CA. Most of us live in a desert that would shrivel and dry up if you turn the water off. Flood prevention is another key area, as most of our soil doesn't soak up a lot of water and can be prone to flooding easily. Put these two together and you have a very compelling reason for governmental involvement due to public safety and health concerns.
So ask yourself, why haven't they done this? Why are they asking us to bail them out with an extremely costly bond measure? What special interests have bribed the cash out of the general budget for this? As I've said with the other bond measures, if you bail out legislators with these bond measures then you give them license to continue wasting money in the general fund with little or no oversight. CA is not in good shape financially, and will not be for a long time. Now is not the time for us to be slack on our financial spending, and the best way to ensure that is to give the legislature no way out when it comes to vital services.
Posted at 11:19 PM | | Read More | | |
Proposition 90 - Yes
Restrain the government's ability to
steal from us
This is part of my ongoing series of posts on
each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the
original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my
scorecard and links to each of my
arguments.
Proposition 90 - Yes
Summary - This measure is aimed at stemming the power given to States in the infamous Kelo Supreme Court decision. It would limit the state and local government's ability to condemn and seize property through imminent domain. It would also define what just compensation is, and place some penalties on government for placing undue restrictions on business and home owners.
Commentary - The Kelo decision overturned one of the most sacred rights in American history - the right of private property. In fact, I have heard it said that a common chant amongst the colonists was Life, Liberty, Property and that was almost the phrase used in the Declaration of Independence because it was such a part of the common vernacular. Ultimately it was left out because property is not directly God-given - although it is definitely morally wrong for a government to take from someone.
Private property rights undergird every part of a free society. If a government is able to take away your land for no reason, there is no telling how corrupt it can become. What is the point of title insurance and property deeds if someone can simply go bribe a friend in high places and take your property? Or how can a person stand up to a government if they know they will lose everything they own?
The other main target for this legislation is something that has grown out of control here in CA. We have several undue restrictions put on homeowners and builders that are unreasonable and punitive. The zealots in governments that require these things pay nothing for them, but the people the inflict on their whim can suffer huge costs. Thomas Sowell writes about some of the unintended consequences these restrictions can have.
This measure would put some penalties and restrictions in place so that if government wants to make these restrictions, it will only be for public health and safety. This goes hand in hand with the above considerations. If government can make your life miserable, or your house so expensive you can't afford it, then they have almost the same power of simply taking it from you. The government does have an interest in public health and safety, but we need to make sure they are wielding that power carefully and responsibly.
Proposition 90 - Yes
Summary - This measure is aimed at stemming the power given to States in the infamous Kelo Supreme Court decision. It would limit the state and local government's ability to condemn and seize property through imminent domain. It would also define what just compensation is, and place some penalties on government for placing undue restrictions on business and home owners.
Commentary - The Kelo decision overturned one of the most sacred rights in American history - the right of private property. In fact, I have heard it said that a common chant amongst the colonists was Life, Liberty, Property and that was almost the phrase used in the Declaration of Independence because it was such a part of the common vernacular. Ultimately it was left out because property is not directly God-given - although it is definitely morally wrong for a government to take from someone.
Private property rights undergird every part of a free society. If a government is able to take away your land for no reason, there is no telling how corrupt it can become. What is the point of title insurance and property deeds if someone can simply go bribe a friend in high places and take your property? Or how can a person stand up to a government if they know they will lose everything they own?
The other main target for this legislation is something that has grown out of control here in CA. We have several undue restrictions put on homeowners and builders that are unreasonable and punitive. The zealots in governments that require these things pay nothing for them, but the people the inflict on their whim can suffer huge costs. Thomas Sowell writes about some of the unintended consequences these restrictions can have.
This measure would put some penalties and restrictions in place so that if government wants to make these restrictions, it will only be for public health and safety. This goes hand in hand with the above considerations. If government can make your life miserable, or your house so expensive you can't afford it, then they have almost the same power of simply taking it from you. The government does have an interest in public health and safety, but we need to make sure they are wielding that power carefully and responsibly.
Posted at 10:24 PM | | Read More | | |
Sun - November 5, 2006
Proposition 1D - No
Another bad idea for the state, funded
by large credit card-style debt
This is part of my ongoing series of posts on
each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the
original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my
scorecard and links to each of my
arguments.
Proposition 1D - No
Summary - This measure would take out approximately 10.5 Billion in bond money to pay for class size reduction in public schools, as well as renovations for older schools.
Commentary - I feel like a broken record, but all of these bond measures seem to be similarly flawed. This is another case in which we are funding something completely backwards. Education is a huge portion of CA's budget - mandated to be so by the Prop 98 constitutional amendment, passed in 1988 - and yet we are looking to borrow yet more sums of money to pay for this measure. If we are already setting aside large sums of money each year, why do we have such a deficiency in education? Where is the money we are already spending going, and why do we need to borrow more at such a great cost?
Once again, the cost of financing this money far outweighs the returns we will see on it. We are getting roughly 10.5 Billion, but we are spending almost as much in interest costs just to get it. As I've said before, that means when we spend one dollar of prop 1D money, it is actually costing us almost two. That is simply unwise use of funds, regardless of how good the intended recipient is.
Another problem is rule #4 - this measure is borrowing money to spend on something that nearly everyone agrees on. Politicians of all stripes love to trumpet their support for education, because it plays very well with voters. So you have to ask yourself, what are they actually allocating money to elsewhere that they are covering up with this measure. If the money we need for education isn't there, who spent it and what unpopular thing did they spend it on? If you simply vote to borrow money for popular issues like education, you are giving in to the politicians' shell game with the general fund money.
But there is one last argument against this prop. It requires matching dollars from the local school district. That means if you are a small, poor school district who are most likely in need of renovations, you'll still have to cough up half of the cash for your project. But if you are small and poor, you're unlikely to have anywhere near have of the renovation costs - meaning that the likely recipient of all this money is going to be wealthy school districts that have some older buildings they'd like to pretty up on the cheap. Once again, CA taxpayers foot the bill thinking they're helping poor kids get an education, and the money simply gets re-routed to the rich and powerful. Don't let them fool you this time.
Proposition 1D - No
Summary - This measure would take out approximately 10.5 Billion in bond money to pay for class size reduction in public schools, as well as renovations for older schools.
Commentary - I feel like a broken record, but all of these bond measures seem to be similarly flawed. This is another case in which we are funding something completely backwards. Education is a huge portion of CA's budget - mandated to be so by the Prop 98 constitutional amendment, passed in 1988 - and yet we are looking to borrow yet more sums of money to pay for this measure. If we are already setting aside large sums of money each year, why do we have such a deficiency in education? Where is the money we are already spending going, and why do we need to borrow more at such a great cost?
Once again, the cost of financing this money far outweighs the returns we will see on it. We are getting roughly 10.5 Billion, but we are spending almost as much in interest costs just to get it. As I've said before, that means when we spend one dollar of prop 1D money, it is actually costing us almost two. That is simply unwise use of funds, regardless of how good the intended recipient is.
Another problem is rule #4 - this measure is borrowing money to spend on something that nearly everyone agrees on. Politicians of all stripes love to trumpet their support for education, because it plays very well with voters. So you have to ask yourself, what are they actually allocating money to elsewhere that they are covering up with this measure. If the money we need for education isn't there, who spent it and what unpopular thing did they spend it on? If you simply vote to borrow money for popular issues like education, you are giving in to the politicians' shell game with the general fund money.
But there is one last argument against this prop. It requires matching dollars from the local school district. That means if you are a small, poor school district who are most likely in need of renovations, you'll still have to cough up half of the cash for your project. But if you are small and poor, you're unlikely to have anywhere near have of the renovation costs - meaning that the likely recipient of all this money is going to be wealthy school districts that have some older buildings they'd like to pretty up on the cheap. Once again, CA taxpayers foot the bill thinking they're helping poor kids get an education, and the money simply gets re-routed to the rich and powerful. Don't let them fool you this time.
Posted at 12:45 PM | | Read More | | |
Proposition 1C - No
Say No to another batch of credit card
funding
This is part of my ongoing series of posts on
each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the
original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my
scorecard and links to each of my
arguments.
Proposition 1C - No
Summary - This measure would authorize the state to take out a little under $3 Billion to build shelters for battered women and low income families and provide housing assistance to veterans, disabled people and low income families.
Commentary - This is another bond measure and another bad idea. My first and foremost objection is that government should not be in the business of providing charity. It should allow charities to do their job and take care of the less fortunate. For anyone who disagrees, how many times have you heard people speak positively of the projects? The projects are an excellent example of what happens when people use government to exercise compassion.
Government is bureaucratic and cold, it is not able to human enough to care for people because its too busy asking them to fill out forms. Charities, on the other hand, are staffed with volunteers who's primary concern is making sure that the people they are helping are actually better off. Of course, this is not universally true of either, but is true more often than not.
But even if you disagree with me on that point, the funding for this proposition should move you into the No column. If you believe this bill is a good idea, then what you should do is take out $20,000 from your credit cards and give it to the OC Rescue Mission. "But where will I find the extra $500 a month it will cost to pay for the credit card bills for the next 30 years? I want to be compassionate, but I don't want to sink myself in the process" Exactly. If you are uncomfortable doing that with your own money, you should be uncomfortable doing that with the state's money.
This bill will provide just under 3 Billion dollars for the shelters and assistance, and yet it will cost 3.3 BILLION dollars in interest. That means for every dollar we spend helping the needy and less fortunate, it actually costs us MORE than 2 dollars. If you believe that we should do the work of charity with the office of government, then why don't we at least fund the money more intelligently? Why not simply devote the couple hundred million we'll be paying each year in debt to helping people, and spend the entire 6 Billion on the people, rather than on the bonds?
Proposition 1C - No
Summary - This measure would authorize the state to take out a little under $3 Billion to build shelters for battered women and low income families and provide housing assistance to veterans, disabled people and low income families.
Commentary - This is another bond measure and another bad idea. My first and foremost objection is that government should not be in the business of providing charity. It should allow charities to do their job and take care of the less fortunate. For anyone who disagrees, how many times have you heard people speak positively of the projects? The projects are an excellent example of what happens when people use government to exercise compassion.
Government is bureaucratic and cold, it is not able to human enough to care for people because its too busy asking them to fill out forms. Charities, on the other hand, are staffed with volunteers who's primary concern is making sure that the people they are helping are actually better off. Of course, this is not universally true of either, but is true more often than not.
But even if you disagree with me on that point, the funding for this proposition should move you into the No column. If you believe this bill is a good idea, then what you should do is take out $20,000 from your credit cards and give it to the OC Rescue Mission. "But where will I find the extra $500 a month it will cost to pay for the credit card bills for the next 30 years? I want to be compassionate, but I don't want to sink myself in the process" Exactly. If you are uncomfortable doing that with your own money, you should be uncomfortable doing that with the state's money.
This bill will provide just under 3 Billion dollars for the shelters and assistance, and yet it will cost 3.3 BILLION dollars in interest. That means for every dollar we spend helping the needy and less fortunate, it actually costs us MORE than 2 dollars. If you believe that we should do the work of charity with the office of government, then why don't we at least fund the money more intelligently? Why not simply devote the couple hundred million we'll be paying each year in debt to helping people, and spend the entire 6 Billion on the people, rather than on the bonds?
Posted at 12:28 PM | | Read More | | |
Proposition 1B - No
Say No to running up the state's
credit cards in order to pay for meaningless programs
This is part of my ongoing series of posts on
each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the
original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my
scorecard and links to each of my
arguments.
Proposition 1B - No
Summary - Authorizes the state to take out roughly $20 Billion in bond debt to pay for transportation related projects. Projects would range from safety improvements and earthquake retro-fitting to expanding public transportation and carpool lanes.
Commentary - This measure can be eliminated almost by default when considering it against the rules. Rule #2 is that bond measures are highly suspect. This proposition is a good example of why this rule is in place. We will be paying about $40 Billion for these transportation improvements. About half of that will be going to the actual improvements themselves, and the other half - a whopping 19+ BILLION dollars - will be going to just the debt service. That means for every dollar we spend on transportation, it costs us two dollars. Why wouldn't we simply dedicated the money in the budget to transportation, rather than running up the state's credit cards to pay for something that should be taken care of?
The answer is, as Prop 1A shows, that legislators would rather raid the transportation funds for other pet projects of theirs. They don't think transportation is a big deal, and are obviously counting on the voters of CA to pick up the tab and bail them out with a bond. But if Prop 1A shows us anything, its that legislators cannot be trusted with transportation money. Prop 1A is on the ballot because they ignored prop 42 that said they couldn't raid the transportation funds and let our freeways slowly choke to death. What's to say that they won't take this $20 Billion and pocket it like they've done in the past?
The other major reason for Rule #2 is that bond measures create budget nightmares. Passing this measure means that we add $1.3 Billion dollars a year to the state's budget for the next THIRTY years. In other words, we will have to find over a BILLION dollars a year just to balance our budget - and the legislators in Sacramento don't seem to be capable of balancing a budget without us adding another Billion to the cost side.
The final reason to vote no on this proposition, if you aren't convinced so far, is that it allocates to the real problem all of us face. We all want less traffic. We all want to be able to commute to our jobs at a normal hour without sitting in a slow moving parking lot that is labeled as a freeway. This proposition aims to solve that by.... more carpool lanes and more public transportation. Has traffic decreased at all since the introduction of the carpool lanes? Has it changed anyone's behavior and actually reduced the number of cars on the freeway? Has public transportation been used by any Californians who can afford to drive a car?
The answer to all of these is obviously no - Californians are mostly set in their ways and they need a car to get around. Even as traffic has continued to loom as a larger and larger problem, most Californians have done little to alter their behavior when it comes to driving. We (writ large) simply do not want to take the train to work, or the hassles of carpooling with coworkers. It is a short sided and unrealistic approach to simply assume that pouring more money (very high cost bond money at that) into a failing plan will suddenly turn it into a success.
Proposition 1B - No
Summary - Authorizes the state to take out roughly $20 Billion in bond debt to pay for transportation related projects. Projects would range from safety improvements and earthquake retro-fitting to expanding public transportation and carpool lanes.
Commentary - This measure can be eliminated almost by default when considering it against the rules. Rule #2 is that bond measures are highly suspect. This proposition is a good example of why this rule is in place. We will be paying about $40 Billion for these transportation improvements. About half of that will be going to the actual improvements themselves, and the other half - a whopping 19+ BILLION dollars - will be going to just the debt service. That means for every dollar we spend on transportation, it costs us two dollars. Why wouldn't we simply dedicated the money in the budget to transportation, rather than running up the state's credit cards to pay for something that should be taken care of?
The answer is, as Prop 1A shows, that legislators would rather raid the transportation funds for other pet projects of theirs. They don't think transportation is a big deal, and are obviously counting on the voters of CA to pick up the tab and bail them out with a bond. But if Prop 1A shows us anything, its that legislators cannot be trusted with transportation money. Prop 1A is on the ballot because they ignored prop 42 that said they couldn't raid the transportation funds and let our freeways slowly choke to death. What's to say that they won't take this $20 Billion and pocket it like they've done in the past?
The other major reason for Rule #2 is that bond measures create budget nightmares. Passing this measure means that we add $1.3 Billion dollars a year to the state's budget for the next THIRTY years. In other words, we will have to find over a BILLION dollars a year just to balance our budget - and the legislators in Sacramento don't seem to be capable of balancing a budget without us adding another Billion to the cost side.
The final reason to vote no on this proposition, if you aren't convinced so far, is that it allocates to the real problem all of us face. We all want less traffic. We all want to be able to commute to our jobs at a normal hour without sitting in a slow moving parking lot that is labeled as a freeway. This proposition aims to solve that by.... more carpool lanes and more public transportation. Has traffic decreased at all since the introduction of the carpool lanes? Has it changed anyone's behavior and actually reduced the number of cars on the freeway? Has public transportation been used by any Californians who can afford to drive a car?
The answer to all of these is obviously no - Californians are mostly set in their ways and they need a car to get around. Even as traffic has continued to loom as a larger and larger problem, most Californians have done little to alter their behavior when it comes to driving. We (writ large) simply do not want to take the train to work, or the hassles of carpooling with coworkers. It is a short sided and unrealistic approach to simply assume that pouring more money (very high cost bond money at that) into a failing plan will suddenly turn it into a success.
Posted at 12:18 PM | | Read More | | |
Tue - October 24, 2006
Proposition 1A - Yes
Is protecting the gas tax funds worth
putting more of the CA budget on autopilot? My opinion on Prop
1A
This is part of my ongoing series of posts on
each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the
original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my
scorecard and links to each of my
arguments.
Proposition 1A - Yes
Summary - CA collects a ton of tax revenue off of gas taxes that is supposed to be used only for transportation projects. This proposition would attempt to enforce that more strictly by prohibiting the use of that tax money for anything other than transportation and traffic de-congestion.
Commentary - For a long time now, governors on both side of the political aisle (if you count Glass Jaw Ahnold as being on a side other than Davis) have raided the transportation funds. The budgets have been tight in CA, and we've had a lot of debt, so they made a pretty nice target. It's even somewhat understandable if you overlook the monetary silliness that got us in trouble in the first place - imagine running up a ton of credit card debt, and then looking over and seeing a nice savings account that you swore you'd only use for your next car; wouldn't you smash that piggy bank to save yourself some serious debt problems?
As it turns out, the voters of CA have not been too happy with this. Rising gas prices have only underscored the amount of money we pay at the pump, supposedly for transportation projects. When you jump on the freeway after having refueled and find its moving at about 5 mph, it doesn't sit well. So this proposition comes in promising to save the weary driver of CA - but does it do the trick?
I'm a bit torn on this one. CA voters approved proposition 42, which supposedly already protected gas taxes, and that has proved to be easily circumvented by the legislature. In addition, CA's traffic problems are bad and getting worse. We seem to be destined to watch commute times grow and grow with little or no real effort towards fixing the problem. Furthermore, it just gets under my skin when I'm being taxed (rather heavily) for a specific reason, and yet that money isn't going to that reason. If the gas tax worked as its supposed to, those who drive more and put more strain on our freeways, would be forced to pay more of their own share.
On the other hand, we have a real problem with ballot measures controlling the budget. In the past, we've had financial crises hit, and we're stuck being forced to allocate a fix percentage of our revenue to education because of propositional restraints. On a related note, allocating money to a problem doesn't actually fix it. Most of the time it just means some special interest gets fat by sucking lucrative contracts off of legislators with well concealed bribes.
Ultimately, I think this one comes down to keeping the legislature honest. If you're going to justify some tax by appealing to something we all agree on (less traffic), then you don't get to divert it to some pet project of yours (lavish pensions for unions and buddies). It also irks me that the legislature has been thumbing their nose at the people's decision on prop 42. So I'm voting yes in order to protect against future shell games with taxes. Ultimately, its not the people putting CA's budget on autopilot (like other props were), it is the people insisting that they get what they pay for.
Proposition 1A - Yes
Summary - CA collects a ton of tax revenue off of gas taxes that is supposed to be used only for transportation projects. This proposition would attempt to enforce that more strictly by prohibiting the use of that tax money for anything other than transportation and traffic de-congestion.
Commentary - For a long time now, governors on both side of the political aisle (if you count Glass Jaw Ahnold as being on a side other than Davis) have raided the transportation funds. The budgets have been tight in CA, and we've had a lot of debt, so they made a pretty nice target. It's even somewhat understandable if you overlook the monetary silliness that got us in trouble in the first place - imagine running up a ton of credit card debt, and then looking over and seeing a nice savings account that you swore you'd only use for your next car; wouldn't you smash that piggy bank to save yourself some serious debt problems?
As it turns out, the voters of CA have not been too happy with this. Rising gas prices have only underscored the amount of money we pay at the pump, supposedly for transportation projects. When you jump on the freeway after having refueled and find its moving at about 5 mph, it doesn't sit well. So this proposition comes in promising to save the weary driver of CA - but does it do the trick?
I'm a bit torn on this one. CA voters approved proposition 42, which supposedly already protected gas taxes, and that has proved to be easily circumvented by the legislature. In addition, CA's traffic problems are bad and getting worse. We seem to be destined to watch commute times grow and grow with little or no real effort towards fixing the problem. Furthermore, it just gets under my skin when I'm being taxed (rather heavily) for a specific reason, and yet that money isn't going to that reason. If the gas tax worked as its supposed to, those who drive more and put more strain on our freeways, would be forced to pay more of their own share.
On the other hand, we have a real problem with ballot measures controlling the budget. In the past, we've had financial crises hit, and we're stuck being forced to allocate a fix percentage of our revenue to education because of propositional restraints. On a related note, allocating money to a problem doesn't actually fix it. Most of the time it just means some special interest gets fat by sucking lucrative contracts off of legislators with well concealed bribes.
Ultimately, I think this one comes down to keeping the legislature honest. If you're going to justify some tax by appealing to something we all agree on (less traffic), then you don't get to divert it to some pet project of yours (lavish pensions for unions and buddies). It also irks me that the legislature has been thumbing their nose at the people's decision on prop 42. So I'm voting yes in order to protect against future shell games with taxes. Ultimately, its not the people putting CA's budget on autopilot (like other props were), it is the people insisting that they get what they pay for.
Posted at 10:17 PM | | Read More | | |
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Highlighted posts
Blogs of interest
The Moviegoer
Anesthetic Smoke
Scots Wha Hae!
Applied Semiotics
Odelay!
The Adagio County Independent
A Firm Nail
Eidos : Dr. John Mark Reynolds
Mere Orthodoxy
A Voice in the Wilderness
Jollyblogger
Squiblog
Beyond the Rim
ESV Bible blog
My Tobacco Cellar
Anesthetic Smoke
Scots Wha Hae!
Applied Semiotics
Odelay!
The Adagio County Independent
A Firm Nail
Eidos : Dr. John Mark Reynolds
Mere Orthodoxy
A Voice in the Wilderness
Jollyblogger
Squiblog
Beyond the Rim
ESV Bible blog
My Tobacco Cellar
Brought to you by
The Church Directory
Counters provided by
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 21, 2008 01:27 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 21, 2008 01:27 PM
Search
The Tip Jar
Counter provided by
Brought to you by
