Another year, another election.

In the past several elections, I've usually posted my own "(un)Official Voter Information Guide." This year I failed - not because there weren't props I didn't care about, but partly because the entire political system has me more depressed than ever.

If you care how I did vote - I voted no on every proposition with two exceptions. I left prop 4 blank, because while I support parental notification for abortion, I just didn't feel comfortable enough with the bill this year (since I hadn't read the text). And I voted yes on prop 5, which was a last minute change of my mind. This marks the first time I've ever voted for something that increased spending (shock!) - though it did at the same time reduce costs. I almost voted no, but at the last minute I noticed that former LP candidate for Senate Judge Jim Gray was a supporter; I've met him, and I liked him. Also - while on libertarian grounds the bill is extremely iffy, I ultimately decided that the benefit in terms of human freedom outweighed the negatives of the particular bill. I don't think it will pass, anyway- but I feel okay with my decision to vote for it.

I cared a lot about proposition 8, of course, but that almost goes without saying.

Anyway, to my ennui. As you can tell from some of my more recent posts, I've been particularly irritated at all the Obama worship. Yes, I hate McCain just as much, and I've had shouting arguments with my father over that - but at least my dad and most other McCain supporters don't regard him as some savior. He's just another politician to them, and they recognize that they're voting for a "lesser evil". This is a contrast with Obama supporters, many of whom positively seem to think they're voting for Jesus Christ Himself, come to save us from all the evils of the Bush administration. As both an anarchist and a religious person, I find any kind of worship of a politician to be profoundly disturbing. Honestly, every time I see that picture of Obama with the word "Hope" or "Change" under it, I want to scream.

The truth is that, when it comes down to it, there's a dime's worth of difference between the two candidates. McCain is a mealy-mouthed liberal of a Republican, and Obama is a junior senator who most people really don't know (he abstains so often, how could anyone really know what he believes?). He's not even a paragon of Leftism that conservatives make him out to be, either; his health care plan isn't truly "universal", he voted for FISA and to reauthorize the Patriot Act, he's postured about invading Iran and Pakistan, he voted for the bailout to Wall Street...I could go on. Essentially, both candidates are moderate Republicrats, both of whom are willing and eager to lie, cheat, and hide their records in order to obtain the highest offices in the land.

As an anarchist I could go even farther, but I'll leave it at that. The real truth is that you might as well have flipped a coin today when voting for President. The only substantive difference between the two is the speed with which they might draw down troops in Iraq, and the degree to which their policy proposals will be approved by Congress. Obama, as a Democrat, will have an easier time - and that is unfortunate, because I prefer an adversarial system with one party in the executive and the other in the legislative. Even better if the Senate and Congress can't agree. So, purely strategically - and only as long as the Democrats have control of the Congress - a Republican president might be preferable. But it's so weak that I wouldn't even vote if Obama and McCain were the only choices.

Today, I wrote in Ron Paul.

Tags: politics, rant, voter information guide
Current Mood: discontent

Another year, another (u)VIG, this time for a primary election. I read the ballot so you don't have to! I realize I am horribly late with this one - hell, I didn't start this till 2am on Super Tuesday morning. But maybe some of you will see it and care before you go to the polls, or at least it might provide some interesting post-election wrap-up for you. On we go!

So the first question on the ballot, of course, would be - who are you voting for as your party's candidate for President? Well, let's look at these choices...

Oh. God help us.

Well, it isn't all bad. I see Ron Paul on the Republican ticket, that's who I'll be voting for, of course. And Mike Gravel on the Democrat ticket, he's pretty cool. But the rest of them... Well, let's just say I'm not very excited about the prospects for who will actually be the next "leader of the 'free' world". I hate to say it, but of the front-runners, Obama seems the least evil; but (as we all know) when you vote for the lesser evil, you still get evil. He's not nearly as hip and exciting as many of my peers seem to think he is; just another re-packaged mainstream candidate, champing at the bit to deliver you more of the same.

So with a heavy heart, I turn to my favorite part - the propositions. Let's see what we have here...

Proposition	Vote	Why? (summary)
91	NO	Don't bother to vote yes on this one, we passed it in 2006 when it was called "1A" - but for some convoluted procedural reasons it got added to the ballot again this year. If you're interested, I favored a weak yes vote on 1A.
92	NO	HAHAHA. New spending on schools. I guess you can guess how I'm voting in this lovely, but it doesn't matter what I say, because California is going to gladly pass it anyway. We love spending more money on the broken California school system, just hoping against hope that throwing money at the problem will make it go away SOME day. To get into specifics about this prop, while it doesn't pass any new bonds (that's a nice change), it does create a lovely, ginormous new bureaucracy so that community colleges can be administrated from the state level. BAD. Taking control out of local hands is ridiculous, no matter how much autonomy they claim they'll be granted. Local Boarrds of Trustees are the right way to manage local public schools. The other thing that this prop does is reduce fees from $20/unit to $15/unit. Now, I know, I know, you college students are thinking...great! 25% discount for me. (I know, I'm assuming selfish voting, which is not necessarily the case) But hear me out. Lower fees means more money taken from the general fund, especially under the new spending plan that the proposition establishes. The proponents of the proposition say it "does not raise taxes", but come on - how is this new spending going to be paid for in the long haul? We can't keep borrowing ourselves into prosperity forever. Community colleges should be less expensive than normal college, but they should still be essentially user-fee based unless you're on public assistence (which roughly 25% of community college attendees are anyway).
93	NO	This is a silly scheme for certain legislators who would've been term-limited out to hold onto their seats. It says it "reduces" term limits, but because of the way the system works, it actually increases them for most people who actually serve. If you vote yes on this, you're a sucker.
94	MAYBE	Now THESE are actually a little tricky for me on libertarian grounds. On the one hand, I'm all for increased freedom. That's the standard libertarian in me. These tribes want to put in more slot machines? Awesome! Why should I give a crap? The more the merrier. On the other hand, it increases taxes on the casinos, and I never vote for new tax increases. Decisions, decisions. Another issue is that of monopoly/oligopoly. Not only does this only apply to Indian tribes, it's only a handful of them. This is essentially a boon for a special interest group. Is that something we want to be supporting? In the end, I'm not sure how I want to vote on these. I'd like expanded gambling in California - hell, what I actually want is free gaming all across the state, not just on the land of a few Indian tribes. And the new taxes aren't that bad a deal for the casinos, given the vast quantities of increased revenues they'd be capable of. I also have a sore spot at the Indian tribes for campaigning for Cruz Bustamante during the recall campaign. Though of course I'd never vote based on that alone, it does give me pause about the "special interest group" issue. I hate State-legislated oligopolies in all their other forms, so why should Indian gaming be different? In the end, I think I'm going to vote no on these. But it's not a strong no. I'd say I'm open to arguments, but...I'll be voting in about six hours.
95	MAYBE
96	MAYBE
97	MAYBE

Tags: california, politics, voter information guide
Current Mood: tired

Alright, I know some people have been asking for this for a while, and I'm already later than I said I'd be...but here we go:This year I'm doing something different, though.  I noticed the existence of a (very Web2.0-ey) website called theballot.org which was created expressly for the purpose of creating voter information guides.  And so, I have posted my guide on their site this year!  To view it, click here.

As a quick overview, I will be voting yes on propositions 1A, 85, and 90 and no on all the rest.  If you vote with me on only one proposition this year, please make it 90.  Eminent domain abuse has to stop.

Oh, and aside from the usual commentary on my positions (which I know some of you disagree with), I also welcome input on the whole theballot.org experience.  Do you prefer it or not to my previous format?  It's a little easier to edit since it doesn't require me to write all the HTML myself, and it provides a (very) few community features - though I doubt I'll use them.  It also should prove much more printer-friendly than my old guides.  But, comments and criticism are always welcome.

Some previous (u)VIGs and related posts:

• 2006 primaries
• 2005 (with clarification)
• California school bonds (1984-1998)
• 2004 (with update and post-election rant)
• 2004 recall*

* For what it's worth, I now disagree with some of the economic reasoning in this post, especially since the current budget deficit has ballooned out of all proportion.  I no longer even pretend to defend most of Bush's economic policies, and simply gawk in amazement.

Tags: california, politics, voter information guide
Current Mood: busy

Update: Missed Orange County's Measure A.

Alright, everybody - a bit late this year, and I'm sure it doesn't matter for those of you who vote absentee, but by popular request: My annual voter information guide for this year's primary election!

Now, there's only two state props this year, and since they're a bond measure and a tax (respectively) they're both easy votes for me: No and no.  But let's have a little more analysis (further detail in the "Notes" cut below):

Proposition	Vote	Why? (summary)
81	NO	Further debt for our children, in an already bankrupt state with $50 billion in bond debt?  No thanks.  Another $1.2 billion cost for this state is an unnecessary extravagance - particularly when applied to libraries, an institution that is rapidly being obsoleted by technology.
82	NO	Rob Reiner's precious preschool initiative, which further taxes an already over-taxed minority in order to pay for - what?  An increase in preschool attendance of less than 5%?  Turning a largely private institution into a government-run school (and we all see how well THOSE are working)?  No way.  Preschools are fine the way they are.  California does not need yet another tool of State indoctrination.
A	YES	(Orange County only) A restriction on eminent domain? Hell yes. I shouldn't even have to expound on this.

( Notes )
( A rationale for my fellow anarchists )

Tags: california, politics, voter information guide

Alright.  You all know where I stand, and the election is tomorrow.  You know what to do - if you are well-informed, have read your voter information guide(s), and feel confident of your choices, please go vote.  If you are ill-informed or otherwise poorly equipped to vote, please stay home rather than sully the ballot box with your ignorance. Thank you.

Remember: You have no right to vote. You should do your best to earn the privilege.

Proposition	Vote
73	Your Conscience*
74	Yes
75	Yes
76	Yes
77	Yes
78	No
79	No
80	No
B	No
C	No
D	No
E	No
F	No
G	No

If you vote with me on any one proposition, please make it 75. I know public union employees that it affects who are desperate for it - they work in an industry where they are the minority and have no control over how their dues are spent. Along with 76, it is to my mind one of the most important initiatives on the ballot.

About B through E: These are all Orange County propositions that are being clamored for by over-funded special interests. Please vote no, we don't need to subsidise public welfare queens any more than we are.

F and G may not be on your ballot, they may only apply to Newport-Mesa USD and to La Habra (respectively). If you're in those districts, I recommend voting no - but that's just me.

* I understand both sides of the issue on 73. Personally, I am in favor of it on parental rights grounds - but either way it is not an especially important proposition to me, personally. Vote the way that you feel you would prefer the law as a parent or future parent.

Tags: events, politics, voter information guide
Current Mood: contemplative

And once again, it's Uncle Garthnak's California Voter Information Guide, 2005 edition!  Are you ready, kids? Let's go.

Proposition	Vote	Why? (summary)
73	YES	Parental rights.  I don't want my daughter to undertake elective surgery without my knowledge, at the very least.
74	YES	Nobody deserves tenure after only two years of employment, teachers or otherwise.  74 will help districts screen their teachers more appropriately and thoroughly.  That can't really be bad.
75	YES	Stop forcing teachers to pay for political causes they do not support.  Unions are not political parties; their job is to negotiate with their employers.  If members wish to donate to their union, that is their decision - and it should not be the union's right to forcefully extract campaign contributions.  And the unions' reaction to this is absolutely disgusting.  I urge you to post a comment if you believe the uion's arguments against are at all defensible. Besides, the argument in favor was penned in part by Uncle Milty!  How can we go wrong? ;-)
76	YES	California is still bankrupt, in part because the governor is being a weanie to the special interest groups (though no more than any other politician), but also because he can not cut funding in certain areas that take up most of the budget, like education.  76 fixes that, forces legislators to be slightly more careful about spending, and gives the governor more latitude to do his job.
77	YES	Redistricting in the hands of judges instead of politicians.  I like it.  Let's cut the "ribbon of shame".
78	NO	Legislated drug discounts?  You have got to be kidding me.  Both 78 and 79 (though particularly 79) are band-aid solutions to a problem created by the government to begin with - ridculous restrictions on the healthcare industry.  Why are drugs so costly?  Is it because the evil pharmaceutical companies are trying to squeeze every penny out of seniors and the disabled?  No.  It's because the government already assumes pharmaceutical companies are evil, and forces them to jump through a billion hoops to get drug approval.  To cover their costs, they have to charge high prices. Prices are set the way they are by the marketplace, not by the drug companies.  The marketplace is telling us something - drugs are expensive.  A discount card program will inevitably lead to price controls, which will lead to higher costs in the long-run and shortages right away.  There is no way to get around this. Want to fix healthcare?  Want to help seniors?  End socialized healthcare in the US rather than expanding it.  It really sucks.
79	NO
80	NO	California's "deregulation" of the energy industry was indeed disastrous.  But that was because it was only "deregulation" rather than, you know, actual deregulation.  The State still negotiated the deals, still controlled the transmission, and screwed everything up.  That's why we removed Davis, remember? The solution is not reregulation.  Deregulation is a fine idea, as long as you  actually deregulate.  We still haven't done so in California.  What we need to do is expand deregulation - not turn back the clock to the nightmare of central planning that it used to be.

( Notes )

Tags: california, politics, voter information guide
Current Mood: busy

Via Econlog, a couple of articles comparing government to food selection, both very good.  First, Chris Dillow from Stumbling and Mumbling:

I’ve got an idea that would revolutionize the way we do our weekly shopping.

Every few years, we all vote for our favourite supermarket company. The one that gets more votes across the country than any other then gets to deliver our shopping every week to all of us, regardless of whom we voted for. It delivers goods of its own choosing, at prices that it sets. It will make us buy Pedigree Chum even if we don’t have a dog. If we refuse to pay, the supermarket can throw us into prison. And if we try to buy food from other shops, we will still have to pay the winning supermarket.

After a few years, at a time of the supermarket’s choosing, we get to hold another vote. This is the only say we get about the prices we’re charged or the food we get.

Now, this is probably the stupidest idea you’ve ever heard. But it’s exactly how we buy our political services.

A related story from Reason by Wil Wilkinson:

Imagine you live in a town where you are required to pay several thousand dollars of taxes each year into a public fund that is used to buy food for the entire community. There is a publicly elected “Menu Board” that determines each year’s offerings. You wanted rye this year? Sorry! The Board voted for Wonder Bread. Again! You could, in principle, opt out of the public food system and buy rye, pumpernickel, or seven grain oat-nut crunch at a fancy private store. But you’ve already paid thousands in taxes, and can’t afford to pay twice for everything you eat. The Menu Board picks it. You eat it.

Imagine the controversy. Vegetarians (“You’ll get lentil loaf and like it!”) will lock horns with the Atkins lobby (“You can have my bacon when you pry it from my dead cold fingers!”) to wrest control of the Menu Board. The kosher set will fight against shrimp-lovers; Mormons will rail against the Starbucks crowd; Hindus will agitate against the forces of barbeque.

Public school boards and curriculum committees are like menu boards for our children’s minds. Isn’t what we teach our children more important than what we feed them? Bitter and divisive conflict over curriculum is inevitable. Miller and Levine’s Biology is to creationists what pork is to Muslims. Getting a Cobb County sticker with your biology book is like getting a little note with your pork chop: “Warning: Not Halal.”

And, via a commenter on the Dillow article above, "What If Supermarkets were Run like Schools?" by Mark Harrison.

I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that our children are in dire straits if something is not done quickly (ie, within the next 10 years) about the public school situation.  Public schools are not cutting it, and throwing more money at the problem* is not helping.  Why do we have so much choice for supermarkets to provide food, which is vital - but so very little choice for schools, which are just as vital?  Why is this inefficient bureaucratized monopoly allowed to persist in spite of all of its shortcomings?  Have people really been so fully indoctrinated that they can not possibly imagine a world without public schools, that they believe something so necessary would be allowed to die if it were not provided by the State?  I just don't buy it.

School vouchers are probably our best bet right now - anything to put the fire to the feet of the people who are currently failing our children and demanding more money at the same time.  While I realise some people (*cough*public school teachers*cough*) find the idea just horrible, it seems to me the reasons are generally more of ignorance or stubbornness than of legitimate and fair consideration.  Talk about "reactionary" thinking - if you mention the word "voucher" around some teachers, they seem ready to bite your head off.  Who knew teachers were so..."conservative"?

* Updated: Since apparently the UC Hastings proposition search link was just for my session, it timed out. I have added below a table of education ballot propositions that have passed over the last 20 years.

Click here and search for "education and bond" and check "Passed". Over the last 20 years, I find no fewer than 14 spending propositions:

Year	Prop #	Name	Bond issue	Estimated Cost w/Interest
1984	26	State School Building Lease-Purchase Bond Law of 1984	$450,000,000	$922,000,000
1986	53	Green-Hughes Shool Builging Lease-Purchase Bond Law Of 1986	$800,000,000	$1,200,000,000
1986	56	Higher Education Facilities Bond Act Of 1986	$400,000,000	$700,000,000
1988	75	School Facilities Bond Act Of 1988	$800,000,000	$1,430,000,000
1988	78	Higher Education Facilities Bond Act Of 1988	$600,000,000	$1,000,000,000
1988	79	1988 School Facilities Bond Act	$800,000,000	$1,430,000,000
1990	121	Higher Education Facilities Bond Act Of June 1990	$450,000,000	$905,000,000
1990	123	1990 School Facilities Bond Act	$800,000,000	$1,430,000,000
1990	146	School Facilities Bond Act Of 1990	$800,000,000	$1,430,000,000
1992	152	School Facilities Bond Act of 1992	$1,900,000,000	$3,300,000,000
1992	153	Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of June 1992	$900,000,000	$1,560,000,000
1992	155	1992 School Facilities Bond Act	$900,000,000	$1,560,000,000
1996	203	Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1996	$3,000,000,000	$5,210,000,000
1998	1A	Class Size Reduction Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998	$9,200,000,000	$15,200,000,000
Total:			$21,800,000,000	$37,277,000,000

You may notice that some of these appear to be identical, except for a slightly different name and a different number - but they are in the same year. This is not a duplication - the voters passed two bond measures in both elections of the same year, at least thrice. In addition to this, note that in California public education facilities are allocated fully 40% of the annual state General Fund budget.

Tags: california, economics, politics, voter information guide
Current Mood: contemplative

Note: Updated 10/30/04

Guess what time it is, kids? That's RIIIIIGHT, it's Uncle Garthnak's Voter Information Guide. I offer decisions on the current line of California propositions, so you don't have to read that pesky 168 page document from the secretary of state.*

Proposition	Vote	Why?
59	YES	Open government is a good thing. This gives us access to information about things we're already paying for.
60	YES	Cancels out the most harmful provisions of Prop 62 - the limitation to two candidates on the general election ballot. PLEASE vote yes on this!
60a	YES	I support this weakly. All it does is help pay off our bond debt (which is ginormous) with money received from sales of surplus state property. If it actually forced the state to sell surplus property, then I'd be all over it - but it doesn't. Guess you can't have everything.
61	NO	This is one of those "warm-fuzzies" proposition - people will vote for it, because who doesn't want to pay for hospitals for sick kids? The problem with it is many-fold - not only is this not the proper function of government, it's even MORE bond debt piled on after we passed those huge bonds last year. Our state is in dire fiscal straits right now - we don't need more expenses, no matter how much "warm-fuzzies" you get from voting for it.
62	NO	FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY, VOTE NO. This would effectively eliminate third parties from the election process by striking them down at the primaries - they would not even be able to get to the general election. You could even end up voting between two people of the same party! You Republicans probably don't want to choose between two Democrats, and you Democrats probably don't want to choose between two Republicans, so please vote NO on this.
63	NO	Again, more "warm-fuzzies" legislation. Same analysis as Prop 61 - except that this one ALSO adds more taxes! Forget it. I'm done piling on debt for my children and driving business out of California.
64	YES	A limitation on trivial lawsuits. A good thing - this is a shameful tactic, often used by big businesses on smaller ones and by bully organizations on small businesses. All this bill does is limit the abuse that some people can wronfully visit on other people. I'm in favor of less wrongful abuse.
65	NO	Look in your supplemental book for this one. It's basically being replaced by prop 1A.
1A	MAYBE	While I like a lot of proposition 1A - keeping funds with local government is a good thing - I do not like that it locks local sales tax rates into the California constitution, and makes the legislature unable to lower them. In all honesty, I need to think about this one a little more.
66	MAYBE	While this measure has some unfortunate consequences - ie, it could let a lot of existing criminals out of jail retroactively - it is, I think, a net benefit to the law. As the three strikes law stands, non-violent criminals convicted of victimless crimes can potentially be put away for a 25-year minimum sentence. That is not only an egregiously overbearing sentence for certain crimes - it is also mandated with zero judicial discretion. The three strikes law has had a good long time to be evaluated, and this is a much-needed change. Update: Changed from "Yes" to "Maybe". While I do like portions of this bill, I do have a fear that it may go too far and let out some criminals prematurely. All I'm going to say now is, vote your conscience.
67	NO	For the love of god, we don't need any more taxes. My bills are high enough without another one on my phone. These things may need to be funded, but another way needs to be found.
68	NO	This reduces some restrictions on gambling (a good thing!) but also gives some rights of monopoly to race tracks and card clubs (boo.). In the end, maybe we should just stick with Arnie's agreement with the Indians rather than passing this. I'm still on the fence, though. Update: Changed from "Maybe" to "No". More gambling is not worth the other negative provisions of this bill, and I more-or-less trust Arnie to deal with the tribes.
69	NO	Ugh. Can anyone say, "blatant invasion of privacy"? I don't want to have my DNA on file with the State just because I was arrested for a crime I may not even be guilty of. We already have a DNA database for convicted violent criminals and sex criminals, and I'm inclined to think that's good enough. Please vote no on this.
70	NO	More gambling monopolies for the Indians. I don't think so. Personally, I believe we should have more legalized gambling all over the state - not just on tribal land.
71	NO	Let me first say - I'm not against stem cell research. But this is just more and more bond debt. Similar analysis to Prop 61. Not only is funding stem cell research not a proper function of government, it's MORE bond debt for our already-bankrupted state. Please vote no on this. It's just a very politicized piece of legislation.
72	NO	Ouch. Want to see more unemployment and more part-time (rather than full-time) workers? Then vote for this baby. Oh, you DON'T want that to happen? Then vote no. Regardless, this bill will just mask health care costs and allow them to skyrocket ever higher - it will NOT reduce our helth care burden. This is too much power for bureaucrats and not enough power for people and employers. Please vote NO if you value your future employment.

*Note: Please read your voter information guide. This is just a guideline, and I'm being facetious when I suggest you don't have to read it. I still stand by all my voting decisions, however.

Tags: politics, voter information guide
Current Mood: determined

Just because people are beginning to irritate me with their talk of the "huge deficit" of over 500 billion dollars, I'm going to post some actual facts.  You have to realize that "500 billion dollars" is just an arbitrary figure outside of context.  What is the context of a deficit in a nation, then?  Gross Domestic Product (GDP).


(Source)

Clearly, we are not really worse off than we were in most of Clinton's term.  The current "high deficit" is a political bogeyman, so I would appreciate it if people would please stop citing it as some sort of magical battlecry.

Edit: Another chart

That said, I hate Bush's spending policies, mostly because they are the same as any Democrat's spending policies (minus any saving graces).  Bush is turning the "fiscal responsibility" party on it's head, and I do not appreciate that in the slightest.  But trust me, if you think the deficit is bad now, wait till you see what it's like with truly socialized health care.  The money has to come from somewhere - either the deficit, or they raise all our taxes again.  Either way is the wrong solution.  And Bush is looking even worse than his dad.

Oh, and while I'm on the issue of politics, let's take a look at propositions on the California ballot for March:

• Prop 55 - Bad idea. 12.3 billion dollar bond for education. Education is already half of the California state budget, and we are already in serious financial trouble. This will just drive more businesses out of the state as the burden is shifted onto them.  How about we wait till we're not bankrupt, huh? VOTE NO
• Prop 56 - Bad idea. Let's the legislature pass tax increases with only a 55% vote instead of 2/3rds.  Keeping the need for agreement high is a GOOD thing, especially when we're dealing with expanding an already enormous government. See here for more info. VOTE NO
  
• Prop 57 - Jury's still out. On the one hand, I want to support Arny's bid at bringing the deficit back around.  On the other hand, this is a huge bond measure which is inevitably going to have to be paid off through taxes.  I probably won't decide on this till I'm in the voting booth.  VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE
  
• Prop 58 - Good idea. Supposedly forces a balanced budget, though I haven't read the text of the law yet.  The arguments against seem specious.  VOTE YES

Tags: california, politics, voter information guide