Ok, this isn't necessarily a down-the-line Democratic/Progressive proposition guide, it's how I'm voting on the propositions. I'll do my best, however, to explain why I'm voting the way I am, so hopefully it'll end up being pretty transparent.
Prop 19: Legalize Marijuana. Yes.
I've never smoked marijuana, but seriously, come on. Being illegal isn't stopping anyone from getting it. Tax it, quit locking people up, and let's get on with the damn future.
Prop 20: Citizen Panel for Redistricting. Yes.
Previously, voters ok'd a citizen panel to handle redistricting for state offices. this approves a citizen panel for federal offices. Without a citizen panel, you have legislators gerrymandering the place for their individual and party benefit, at the expense of the people. I don't care what your party affiliation is, you gotta believe that everyone's voice should be heard.
Prop 21: $18 Surcharge for State Parks. No.
When the budget crunch came, folks got upset that the state would have to close parks. Thing is, parks hardly cost anything, and the legislators did it to try to get people's attention, which they did. But taking the parks out of the budget so citizens can bury their heads about the hard choices of budgeting? No thanks.
Prop 22: State Can't Borrow Local Funds. No.
It's hard enough as is to get a budget passed, this just makes everything more complicated. Also, there is powerful political pressure to minimize the state taking from local governments already.
Prop 23: Suspend Greenhouse Gas Law until Unemployment below 5.5%. No.
This effectively kills CA's attempts to turn away from fossil fuels and become a center for next-gen energy. Will some companies turn away from CA? They already have. Will new companies with great growth potential arrive? Perhaps not in gross numbers as large, but yes. Mostly, I'm just tired of people throwing up roadblocks for trying to deal with global warming.
Prop 24: Repeal Business Tax Breaks from Legislature. No.
On principle, I'm against propositions. Especially propositions to overturn things the legislature has done. It's not about whether I'm for the tax breaks, the fact is, I don't really know the impact of these tax breaks and I gotta trust my legislators to figure it out. If we would get rid of propositions entirely, I'd be perfectly happy.
Prop 25: Pass a budget with Simple Majority instead of Two-Thirds. Yes.
It's a democracy, folks. The most basic thing -- passing a budget -- and we can't just have a damn majority to take care of it. You may fear the tyrrany of the middle, but that's a lot less of a problem than the tyrrany of the minority.
Prop 26: Fees Require 2/3 approval. No.
This is an attempt to choke off spending. Do we have too much spending? Perhaps. Should we tie our hands to make it impossible to raise taxes? I'm for the process, and this throws a giant wrench in that process.
Prop 27: Put Legislators Back in Charge of Redistricting. No.
This one is the opposite of 20 -- it returns gerrymandering power to legislators. Screw that.
Monday, November 01, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
CA 2010 Progressive Democratic Voter Guide
I was deciding how to vote in the upcoming California election, and I had a pretty easy time until I got down into the details of some of the lower-profile races. What the hell are all of these judges doing on my ballot?
Basically, the governor appoints judges, who must be approved by the voters. Those that get approved serve 12-year terms and then have to go back on the ballot.
I started hunting around for information about the judges, and the first place I landed was the very helpful www.judgevoterguide.com. It's a conservative site that opposes "actvist" judges and supports "constructionist" judges.
I kept looking around but couldn't find anything that amounted to a progressive/liberal voting guide. I read some other articles on the three Supreme Court judges, but it's pretty slim pickings for the rest. I came to learn that all of the district judges I would be voting on had been appointed by Republican governors. I also came to learn that the GOP has a nationwide effort to get conservative judges in the courts.
So, I don't have infinite time, and I wish I were much better informed. So what am I doing? Voting the opposite of www.judgevoterguide.com. If they rate the judge as a '4' or less, I'm voting for them. Otherwise, I'm voting no.
Perhaps I should just not vote, perhaps that is a more moral thing to do. But I've decided to go all partisan and shit and here goes:
Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Yes. She's a moderate Republican, but no one seems to have a big problem with her. You can also vote 'No' if you think Jerry Brown will win and appoint someone more progressive.
Ming Chin: No. Voted in support of the constitutionality of Prop 8. On the whole, a very conservative judge.
Carlos Moreno: Yes. He's the only identifiably progressive judge on the whole list, and he was in consideration to replace SCOTUS Justice Souter last year.
Kathleen Banke: No
Robert Dondero: No
James Lambden: No (another commenter -- see below -- votes Yes)
Martin Jenkins: No
Peter Siggins: Yes
Timothy Reardon: No
Henry Needham, Jr.: No
Terence Bruiniers: No
Basically, the governor appoints judges, who must be approved by the voters. Those that get approved serve 12-year terms and then have to go back on the ballot.
I started hunting around for information about the judges, and the first place I landed was the very helpful www.judgevoterguide.com. It's a conservative site that opposes "actvist" judges and supports "constructionist" judges.
I kept looking around but couldn't find anything that amounted to a progressive/liberal voting guide. I read some other articles on the three Supreme Court judges, but it's pretty slim pickings for the rest. I came to learn that all of the district judges I would be voting on had been appointed by Republican governors. I also came to learn that the GOP has a nationwide effort to get conservative judges in the courts.
So, I don't have infinite time, and I wish I were much better informed. So what am I doing? Voting the opposite of www.judgevoterguide.com. If they rate the judge as a '4' or less, I'm voting for them. Otherwise, I'm voting no.
Perhaps I should just not vote, perhaps that is a more moral thing to do. But I've decided to go all partisan and shit and here goes:
Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Yes. She's a moderate Republican, but no one seems to have a big problem with her. You can also vote 'No' if you think Jerry Brown will win and appoint someone more progressive.
Ming Chin: No. Voted in support of the constitutionality of Prop 8. On the whole, a very conservative judge.
Carlos Moreno: Yes. He's the only identifiably progressive judge on the whole list, and he was in consideration to replace SCOTUS Justice Souter last year.
Kathleen Banke: No
Robert Dondero: No
James Lambden: No (another commenter -- see below -- votes Yes)
Martin Jenkins: No
Peter Siggins: Yes
Timothy Reardon: No
Henry Needham, Jr.: No
Terence Bruiniers: No
Thursday, April 01, 2010
A Tea Party Test
The issue of financial reform is finally making its way onto the legislature's docket. I think this will make for an interesting test of the fundamental values of the new Tea Party movement.
With financial reform, I expect that the Democrats will put forth a bill that has new regulations intended to minimize the chances of Wall Street triggering another financial panic. I also expect that the Republicans will oppose the bill because it goes too far, fearing that the unintended consequences and market distortions stemming from the regulations will reduce growth and prosperity more than the regulations will protect the economy from a new disaster.
The Tea Party is a populist movement; almost by definition, populist movements don't like the elites who control power. But the finance issue pits two major elites against each other: a distrust of the rich elite (Wall Street) and a distrust of the government elite (the current elites, at least).
Will there be any debate in the Tea Party movement? If the Democratic reform agenda is really just Republican-lite, it will be easy to cast both the Democrats and Republicans as being snugly in bed with Wall Street, in which case, the Tea Partiers would likely side with the Republicans.
I believe that the presence of active debate within the movement will indicate whether the Tea Party is just an element of the Republican party or whether it is a movement unto itself.
With financial reform, I expect that the Democrats will put forth a bill that has new regulations intended to minimize the chances of Wall Street triggering another financial panic. I also expect that the Republicans will oppose the bill because it goes too far, fearing that the unintended consequences and market distortions stemming from the regulations will reduce growth and prosperity more than the regulations will protect the economy from a new disaster.
The Tea Party is a populist movement; almost by definition, populist movements don't like the elites who control power. But the finance issue pits two major elites against each other: a distrust of the rich elite (Wall Street) and a distrust of the government elite (the current elites, at least).
Will there be any debate in the Tea Party movement? If the Democratic reform agenda is really just Republican-lite, it will be easy to cast both the Democrats and Republicans as being snugly in bed with Wall Street, in which case, the Tea Partiers would likely side with the Republicans.
I believe that the presence of active debate within the movement will indicate whether the Tea Party is just an element of the Republican party or whether it is a movement unto itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)