Author: Kyle Dickerson

CA Election 2010 – U.S. Senate

November 2, 2010 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.

CA Election 2010 – Proposition 26

9:16 am

Last proposition (since I covered 27 with 20).

This one changes which things can be considered “fees” (subject to simple majority votes) and which things can be considered “taxes” (subject to 2/3 majority votes). It’s rather nuanced and highly detailed. It’s not entirely clear how this change would affect things. So, let’s follow the money again.

(The following information is from Ballotpedia.org)

Donors in favor of proposition 26 (requiring certain fees be approved by 2/3 majority rather than simple majority):
Chevron ($3.75 m), Philip Morris ($1.75 m), Anheuser-Busch, Conoco Phillips, MillerCoors, Shell Oil, etc. A bunch of alcohol and oil companies—not exactly selfless saints.

Donors against proposition 26:
California Public Securities Association ($150 k), California School Employees Association ($30 k), California Association of Professional Scientists, California Association of Highway Patrolmen, California Professional Firefighters, California Federation of Teachers, etc.

I believe I’ll be voting against proposition 26.

CA Election 2010 – Proposition 25

9:12 am

Hoooo-weee. I better get on this since today is Election Day.

Proposition 25 changes the majority needed to pass a budget from 2/3 to simple. I think this is easily summed up with a quote from the provided analysis, “Given the current composition of each house, this would allow members of the Legislature’s majority political party to approve a budget bill without the support of any members of the minority party.”

The entire bill is centered around letting whichever party holds a simple majority do whatever the heck they want with the budget. That’s a big fat “NO” from me.

CA Election 2010 – Proposition 24

October 30, 2010 2:40 pm

This one had me stumped at first. Certain tax changes were agreed upon between the legislature and the governor in 2008. These changes included various ways for corporations to finagle their tax burdens. One method being to shift net-operating-losses to previous tax years and get refunds, another being to choose which formula gets used to calculate their taxes (however they want from year to year). Proposition 24 is to repeal those changes before they go into effect and keep the tax law as it was in 2009.

The analysis provided by the state didn’t give me any obvious arguments for or against. It ends up in the realm of nuanced business accounting. So I was having a hard time trying to form an opinion on the matter. The paid-for arguments were both sensationalist and lacking any real foundational evidence, so they were of no help.

The next step then, is to follow the money. And here is where the decision became easy.

The following data comes from ballotpedia.org.

In favor of proposition 24 means repealing the new tax laws which created more flexibility in corporations’ tax burden. This side has raised over $13 million with donations from such groups as the California Teachers Association, America’s Families First, National Education Association, Alliance for a Better California, and the California School Employees Association.

Against proposition 24 means keeping the new tax laws. This side has raised over $14 million with donations from such groups as Viacom, Cisco, Time Warner, Disney, Genentech, FOX, CBS, General Electric, DirecTV, and Pfizer. All groups respected for their selfless dedication to helping the average joe.

That pretty much sealed my vote. If it’s worth over $1 million a piece to these companies then I can only assume it’s because they each intend to benefit by more than that. And my experience is that the companies on that list (and pretty much all companies) have never sought to reduce their prices and help out their customers simply because they ended up with extra cash in their pockets.