Month: November 2010

Sorry if the facts contradict your propaganda

November 4, 2010 9:44 pm

Apparently a lot of people believe that everything wrong with the economy right now is the fault of the Democrats. In particular many people believe that the economic stimulus plan was entirely the Democrats' (and President Obama's) idea. And that if we could just get all the Democrats out of office things would be better. And if Republicans had been in control the bailout would never have happened.

As much as I enjoy bashing politicians, unfortunately this issue needs some factual correction. I now refer you to H.R. 1424, better known as the law that created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the main body of the economic stimulus plan, a.k.a. the bailout. Most importantly I'd like to draw your attention to the votes in both the House and the Senate, as well as the signature of the president who signed the bill into law.

Senate Vote On Passage: H.R. 1424 [110th]: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008:
Democrats: 40 Y - 9 N
Republicans: 33 Y - 15 N

On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments: H R 1424 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008:
Democrats: 172 Y - 63 N
Republicans: 91 Y - 108 N

President Signs H.R. 1424 into law:
George H. W. Bush

Also important to note to those that believe the Democrats are to blame is that the Democrats didn't have even a chance of overriding a presidential veto. You need 2/3 in both the House and Senate. In the House Democrats had 172 yes votes of 435 seats (less than 40%). In the Senate Democrats had 40 yes votes of 100 (exactly 40%). President Bush could have vetoed the bill and then it would have simply died.

Now, to be clear. The idea of bailing out the major financial institutions that created the housing mess didn't sit well with me either. But I'm under no delusion that it was the Democrats' fault.

(I promise I'll try to be done with political posts for awhile.)

Good Times for All!

5:11 pm

Kyle and I went to see Natalie MacMaster and Donnell Leahy play last night. It was billed as "Masters of the Fiddle: Two of the World's Most Celebrated Fiddlers," and it was right here in Livermore. And it was excellent! They're a married couple that both play the fiddle (though normally they tour with their own separate bands) and they were accompanied by two awesome pianists whose names I can't remember. It was so much fun! They do a lot of hopping and stomping and dancing while they play, and the audience was clapping along for a good portion of the show. I found it particularly amazing that she does all this while 7 months pregnant with their fourth child! They have their kids on tour with them, and at one point, while Donnell was talking about something or other, we heard one of them call out to her daddy from the wings. It was cute.

If you want to hear some of their music, click here to watch a TED talk they gave several years ago.

Anyway. We had a great time, so I'm glad we went!

Next to the washing machine

November 2, 2010 5:18 pm

OK, I'll be honest. I didn't vote for positions like Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, or Livermore Area Recreation & Park District Directors. I'd already spent hours trying to make informed decisions about all the other items on the ballot and I just couldn't bring myself to care about those positions.

Anyway. I went to my polling location to vote. Turns out my polling location for this election was some person's garage. Yup, like attached to their house. I found it kind of strange to be filling out a ballot next to a washing machine, and below a shelf holding sleeping bags.

And now, I've voted, participated in the democratic process, and ready to be annoyed at all the screw-ups awaiting us in the next 2 years.

CA Election 2010 - U.S. Senate

1:34 pm

There is no voluntary spending limit for U.S. Senate seats, so I can't use that as an easy way to rule out candidates, however the VoteSmart.org Political Courage Test still applies and thus the Democratic, Republican, and American Independent candidates are tossed for not bothering to state their positions.

The remaining candidates include:

Marsha Feinland (Peace and Freedom) - I find myself agreeing with many of her positions. Though I have a problem with her support for eliminating funding for intelligence operations within the defense budget. When we do successfully stop terrorist plots it's through the efforts of intelligence operations (evidence). Eliminating all funding for intelligence gathering would most likely actually increase our risk of being attacked (returning airport security checks to pre-9/11/01 levels would be just fine though). She also opposes nuclear energy, which is unfortunate.

Gail Lightfoot (Libertarian) - Sorry, not going to be voting for this one. She supports eliminating all federal funding for agriculture, arts, education, environment, international aid, medical research, scientific research, and welfare. She believes privatizing each of those areas would be better. She does, however support nuclear energy, but lives in a fantasy world where the private sector will build these facilities without government backing or indemnity.

Duane Roberts (Green) - I like the vast majority of his stated positions. Unfortunately, he doesn't support nuclear power; but I can live with that and the other issues I don't entirely agree on.

I'll probably be voting for Roberts.

CA Election 2010 - Governor

9:33 am

I've decided it's time to start taking stands on issues that I'm concerned about and stop playing the games of who's "electable". To that end I've decided the amount of money spent on political campaigns is obscene. With that in mind I've decided I'll only be supporting candidates who have agreed to the voluntary spending limits. In the gubernatorial race this eliminates the Democrat and Republican candidates as neither agreed to the voluntary spending limits, with Whitman (R) spending over $140 million of her personal fortune (the voluntary limit is just under $13 million). I'm tired of politicians that simply buy their way in to office by out-spending the opposition. Politics should be about policy not wealth.

Also on this subject, I've decided I'm only going to vote for candidates with the guts to fill out the VoteSmart.org Political Courage Test. It's an unbiased (as much as possible) questionnaire designed to elicit direct responses of positions on important issues. If you won't answer a non-partisan survey about your political positions I will assume it is because you want to play political games and tell different groups different things based on what they want to hear.

So let's look at the candidates that still remain in my race.
Carlos Alvarez (Peace and Freedom) - I disagree with his plans to increase spending on pretty much everything but also reducing taxes on pretty much everything. There's just no rational way that this works. You get increased funding or decreased taxes, not both. He's against merit-based pay for teachers which I'm in favor of (I get evaluated on my job performance, shouldn't teachers?). However he does support putting money into infrastructure upgrades, which I agree with.

Chelene Nightingale (American Independent) - Goal is to decrease all taxes and eliminate all income taxes. I don't see this as remotely rational. However, some of her responses actually show thought and consideration. Unfortunately, she also seems to believe the government shouldn't enact any regulations (environmental in particular) over businesses, and I think that would lead to epic abuses.

Dale F. Ogden (Libertarian) - Well, I can at least say he couples his slashing of funding with slashing of taxes as well. However, "greatly reducing" funding of K-12 education is not a step in the right direction in my opinion. He also believes that SWAT teams shouldn't exist. Now, you can argue all day about if SWAT teams are over-used, but I think their existence is necessary (sadly). He also seems to believe that the government shouldn't be regulating industries (environmentally in particular) and I've already responded to that in Nightingale's writeup.

So, those are the primary-winning candidates who agreed to voluntary spending limits and filled out the Political Courage Test. And this is what annoys me about politics, it always seems to be about trying to pick the person who will cause the least amount of damage (in one's own opinion, of course) than picking the person who could do the most good.

I don't know who I'll vote for in this race. I will probably end up purposefully not voting for anyone.