I had a small revelation the other day listening to some Michael Medved podcasts. It is not the job of government to pick winners and losers.

A common battle cry of Democrats is that Republicans are the party of the rich, but I’ve come to see what a downright lie that statement is. This was evident at the end of last year as they discussed extending the bush tax cuts. Republicans wanted them extended for all, while Democrats only wanted them extended for people making less than $250,000. So it’s pretty simple, Republicans want something for the rich, Democrats don’t, so Republicans are the party of the rich, right?

That’s the lie they want you to believe, but it’s false. For one group to be favored over another, there must be unequal treatment. When one ethnic group is given priority over another to meet an affirmative action quota, you have unequal treatment. When a teacher gives one student more time on an assignment than another student, you have unequal treatment.

The liberal lie that conservatives are the party of the rich is absolutely not true. Liberals might despise the rich and want to play robin hood with their money, but that says far more about liberals and their views on freedom than it does about conservatives and their treatment of the rich.

Bill Handel is making a point of saying his “voter guide” is not about how anyone else should vote, but about how he is voting. I like that idea. This is how I am voting. It’s not meant to say this is how anyone else should vote, because hopefully everyone is looking at the candidates and props and making their own decisions. If anything, this is an exercise for myself to figure out how I am voting.

State Candidates

Governor: Meg Whitman

Can’t say I’m super excited about Whitman, but I’d prefer her over Brown any day (he didn’t know what he was doing the first time anyways). First, the Governor doesn’t have much power over the budget to begin with, so when either of them talks about the economic mess in California, there isn’t a lot they can do. We can blame the Democrats in the Assembly for that (more on that in a minute). Whitman knows how to run a business successfully, and I think she’d do a decent job. She’s no Chris Christie, but better than Brown.

Lieutenant Governor: Abel Maldonado

Don’t particularly like him….sort of a turncoat. He’s voted a couple times now for horrible budgets instead of holding out like all the other Republicans for something that would be better for the state. But Newsom is a nut…ignorning laws because he likes gay marriage, universal healthcare in San Francisco, Kyoto Protocol…I’m guessing there’s nothing I agree with him on.

The rest of the ticket I’ll be voting straight Republican. This is especially important for the STATE ASSEMBLY and STATE SENATE (in my district, only the Assembly is up for a vote). They are the ones that create our budget. Democrats have controlled the Senate for the last 40 YEARS, and the assembly for 38 out of the last 40 YEARS. What the heck is wrong with our state? We’re in a terrible economic crises, yet they’ll probably continue to elect these morons. From 1995-2008, the state budget nearly TRIPLED. If our state is in such a bad mess, why elect the same people that got us here?

Congressional Representatives

Senator: Carly Fiorina

Anyone but Barbara Boxer! Where do I even start. She loves her government spending, whether it be healthcare or enviornment related. She loves to vote against Republican nominated supreme court judges like Roberts and Alito. She has no respect for our military leaders (or at the least thinks VERY highly of herself.) And she runs really dirty ads about people getting laid off from HP. Fiorina ran a company that had to make money. You mean someone got fired while she worked there?! Oh the humanity!

United States Representative: Larry S. Andre

Linda Sanchez is a loon. When Arizona passed State Senate Bill 1070 she said white supremacists were behind it. Would love for Larry Andre to help put the House back into Republican hands.

State Measures

Prop 19 – Marijuana Legalization
I am voting No

The first prop is also the one I’m most conflicted about. As a semi-libertarian, I like the idea that people should be allowed to do what they like in their own home. But there are a couple things about this prop that just rub me the wrong way. The first:

“No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301. Provided, however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.”

I think this will basically make drug tests for marijuana illegal, unless an employee appears to be impaired while on the job. In addition to that though, one of the main arguments for the bill is that it will stop criminalizing people who posses marijuana. In reality though, it still has a TON of restrictions. You can only have 1 oz, you can only grow up to 25 sq ft, you can’t sell or share it without a license. Why? People bring up the comparison to alcohol all the time, but it’s not illegal to share beer, or laws about how much of it you can have. This also makes it illegal to smoke in the presence of a minor (not true of alcohol). If marijuana is no big deal, why the limits?

It also seems to grow the size of government, because now we need regulators for the entire marijuana industry. It goes against federal law, so this will probably just lead a lawsuit, and it will have a minimal effect on drug cartels.

I’m also not convinced that people driving under the influence could be convicted of such. Unlike alcohol, THC can remain in your system for weeks and months. From some law firm site:

A skilled lawyer often has an easier task defending marijuana related DUI cases than cases where alcohol is involved.  In drunk driving prosecution, the defendant is presumptively guilty when the blood alcohol level is 0.08 percent or more.  By contrast, there is no set legal threshold – no “guilty” standard for the THC level detected in the defendant’s system – for when a person is presumptively impaired when using marijuana.  This lack of a bright line standard makes it more difficult for the prosecution to prove their case.

So yeah, I think this is a tough one, but my gut says no. It wouldn’t be a net positive for our society.

Prop 20 – Congressional Redistricting
I am voting Yes

This was started in 2008, and expands it to congressional districts. They’ve got a group of like 14 citizens to do it out of thousands of applicants, which is  MUCH better than letting the politicians do it. This should NOT be confused with Prop 27 (which was put on the ballot just to confuse people and fight Prop 20). Look at the 39th District….they are gerrymandered!

Prop 21 – State Parks
I am voting No

Imposes an $18 car registration tax to support state parks. NO. If the state parks need more money, that cost needs to shifted to the people that use the parks.

Prop 22 – Local Funds
I am voting Yes

“Would prohibit the state from taking funds from local governments and other local agencies, including regional transportation improvement projects.” (LA Times)

The LA Times goes on to say they’re against it, but anything to restore power to local governments is a good idea. This is yet another thing that will force the state to cutback and balance the budget for real, and not on the backs of local governments.

Prop 23 – Global Warming Act Suspension
I am voting Yes

From Jon and Ken: “Suspends Implementation of Air Pollution Control Law (AB 32) Requiring Major Sources of Emissions to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming, Until Unemployment Drops to 5.5 Percent or Less for Full Year.”

The liberal politicians don’t get to fight “global warming” (does anyone still believe in that?) when our state has over 12% unemployment. Not to mention our business tax environment is already 49th in nation. We don’t need this “green” bill making matters worse.

Prop 24 – Business Taxes
I am voting No

Another grab at more taxes, this time from businesses. The state budget is currently 2x what it was 15 years ago (yet our population has only increased from 31 million to 36 million). Make our state balance the budget and stop playing games.

Prop 25 – State Budget Voting
I am voting No

Proponents of the bill say they just want a simple majority to pass a budget, and this won’t do anything to change the 2/3 vote needed for higher taxes. There are a couple things in the measure that make this very shaky! Taken from this San Diego Tribune article:

It allows the Legislature to use simple majority votes to pass bills that lawmakers decree are “related to the budget in the budget bill.”

And….

In 2001, on a simple majority vote, Democratic lawmakers adopted a four-year, 96 percent increase in maximum unemployment benefits. But the bill to raise taxes on employers to cover the much higher cost of the benefit failed because it did not meet the two-thirds threshold for tax increases. The result, according to the state Finance Department, is that California is on track to have a $15.3 billion shortfall in its unemployment fund as of the end of this calendar year….future budget obligations being created without providing necessary funding.

Prop 26 – State Government Fees
I am voting Yes

Just because something is called a “fee” doesn’t mean it should need less than 2/3 of a vote. If it results in anyone paying more money, it’s a tax, and needs 2/3 approval.

Prop 27 – Redistricting Repeal
I am voting No

This was put on the ballot specifically to confused people with Prop 20. These people want the POLITICIANS to make the voting districts. Just read some of the reasons given by supporters of this prop:

We need to reject Proposition 20- a flawed measure that creates another unnecessary new bureaucracy.

and

Proposition 20 is a billionaire’s cynical attempt to remove the staunchest supporters of nurses and quality health care in Congress…No on 20 & Yes on 27.

Another new bureaucracy? That’s their argument? Democrats love bureaucracy when it comes to the environment, healthcare, etc., but now that it threatens their power, they’re against it. And look at the second one…that’s the California Nurses Association. They’re practically admitting that this prop will hurt the Democrats and their gerrymandered districts.

Prop Summation

Prop 19 – No
Prop 20 – Yes
Prop 21 – No
Prop 22 – Yes
Prop 23 – Yes
Prop 24 – No
Prop 25 – No
Prop 26 – Yes
Prop 27 – No

Well, that covers everything except the judicial appointments. If anyone has a good guide on that, let me know. Hope this is helpful in some way!

Other Resources Used and Not Specifically Cited:

Jon and Ken Voter Guide
Tom McClintock on the Props
LA Times Ballot Info

Quite late in the game. Nothing has me all riled up, so I haven’t been paying a ton of attention. I’m looking at Tom McClintock and Jon and Ken’s voter guides, and they agree on all the props.

As for the big ones, Governor and Senate, I’m not super excited about anyone. Poizner and Whitman have both run pretty crappy campaigns. In most respects, I think Whitman is fairly liberal, but the idea of her being successful in business has me semi-hopeful she can help out the state. Poizner seems semi-better, but lots of it seems like primary shuffling just to look more conservative than Whitman. Meh. Whitman has a better chance of beating Brown, so I might give her the nod just for that. Social issues continue to be a far less important part of California’s problems, so I’m thinking of going with the businesswoman.

For the Senate, it sounds like Devore might be more up my alley, but Fiorinia is winning by a TON, so vote for whoever you want, but it probably won’t matter. haha.

Have fun!

It amazes me how quick people have been to blame Israel for the entire confrontation over the weekend. Here’s some info you might not have seen or heard to balance out the Israel haters:

Some info about the people that funded the “peaceful activists.”

Some great pictures from the IDF on what they found on the boat. Gas masks? Metal poles? Sling shots? I thought they were peaceful activists who only wanted to deliver goods to Gaza?

Or the more likely scenario is that they WANTED to run the blockade, and force the IDF to board them. And they got what they wanted. People that hate Israel have even more reason now. Those evil brutes…protecting their homeland from the constant terrorist attacks they live through every day.

If I was Israel, I would have done the same thing. When people in Gaza are trying to attack me on a daily basis, I’m not letting any ship in there until I truly know what’s on board.

But the big question is, if they were ONLY interested in delivering supplies, why are they busy ATTACKING soldiers as they repel down? Why not simply let them on board, and comply with the IDF procedures?

So much for being tired of arguing.

Update

Here’s another good video showing the innocent peace activists preparing to be boarded. Don’t seem very interested in peace, do they?

I’m not sure I’d call myself a tea party member, simply because I’m not involved in it. However, everything I’ve heard about the movement (smaller government) I support.

Yet for some reason, just because it’s a conservative movement it gets bashed. But those I hear bashing it aren’t even debating the size of government, but that the mere presence of tea party members is “scary.” I heard a talkshow host saying how the media and the left are just waiting for someone to screw up so they can denounce the entire movement.

And this leads to an even bigger gripe I have with people and their understanding of politics. Just like “gotcha journalism,” there is gotcha politics. Just because Glenn Beck says something outrageous and you post a link to it, it doesn’t mean you’ve engaged in a meaningful discussion.

But engaging in meaningful political discussions is a difficult task. I posted on Facebook regarding how many people don’t pay federal income tax, and whether or not we as a society should be concerned that those same people get to vote for the representatives that decide tax policy.

Not a single response. Personally I think that’s because most people have a very shallow understanding of their political beliefs. They know what they’re for or against, but when required to defend them and engage in a meaningful discussion, well, that gets difficult.

I’m voting no on all of them. Tom McClintock has his thoughts, Kurtis has his, and John and Ken.

My main reason is…I don’t want higher taxes for the next two years. Screw the state government. Our state budget has DOUBLED since the late 90′s…and for what? What the crap are we getting now that we weren’t 10 years ago? Jack squat. Those idiots in Sacramento can LOWER the budget, and LOWER my taxes thank you very much.

Here are a couple good links about Obama’s spending bill. Neither is by a famous econ professor, but they’re both good reads.

Just because it creates a job, doesn’t mean it was worth creating…

Link 1 – Ben Shapiro

Link 2 – John Stossel

Before the election I saw a lot of posts about how Christians don’t have to be Republicans, and maybe Obama really can change the world. Usually those people never debated the issues at all…it was like voting for President was a popularity contest. It’s much easier to post a long winded letter written by someone else about how they are smitten with Obama than it is to detail how his liberal policies would be good for America.

Now that Obama has been successful on his first major goal (spending even more of our money), I was wondering how those people above feel now? Did you expect Obama to spend nearly a trillion of our dollars, a move that will most certainly prolong our recession? Do you feel $300 million for electronic golf carts is a good way to stimulate the economy? Do you feel Obama’s rhetoric that Republicans want to do nothing is fulfilling his promise of bipartisanship?

There are a LOT of stupid things in this “stimulus” bill. Let’s list them!