Browsing Posts tagged la times

Prop 10 – ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

My Summary: From the LA Times: “Borrow $5 billion, most of it to be distributed as rebates to buyers of vehicles fueled by natural gas, hydrogen, electricity and other alternative fuels.”

My Opinion: This one is a no-brainer. Not only is it a lot of bonds, but they’re super stupid bonds too. This one is especially pointless now that gas is coming back down to Earth. I doubt people will be running out to buy any alternative fuel cars now.

The other main reason I’m against this, is that I think alternative fuels will only become a reality when economically feasible.  Just because some people desperately want alternative fuels doesn’t mean the government needs to drop $5 billion on it. If any of the car manufacturers think they can make a buck, they will.

Bottom Line: People that want alternative fuel cars can have them, but the government doesn’t need to pay for them.

I am voting NO on Prop 10.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 10.

Prop 7 – RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION

My Summary: From the LA TImes: “Require public and private utilities to obtain at least 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and 50% by 2025.”

My Opinion: This is probably one of the most dangerous measures on the ballot, because the unforeseen economic impact could be HUGE.

First, renewable energy sounds nice, but it will only work when it’s economically viable. I’ve actually read about installing solar panels on your house. There’s a big upfront cost, but in the long run it can actually be a good economic decision, and there are people that do it. That’s how renewable energy should grow and succeed…through private means, not a stupid ballot measure that forces it upon energy companies when it’s not even a good economic decision.

I don’t enjoy spending $200 during the summer when we run the air conditioner, and I sure as heck wouldn’t enjoy paying more because the stupid energy is coming from a windmill farm that is causing prices to soar. They’ve got to be joking when they say 50% by 2025, because it sure is making me laugh!

A good solution is building nuclear power plants, but even the proponents of this bill are trying to paint nuclear power as wrong. In their for arguments: “We can do better than dirty coal, nuclear power, and offshore drilling.” No, we really can’t right now…because if we could, someone would be doing it.

Bottom Line: Renewable energy will become a greater part of our energy plan as it makes sense economically. Let the private sector figure this out, and stay the heck away government.

I am voting NO on Prop 7.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 7.

Prop 4 – WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY

My Summary: From the LA Times summary: “Amend the state Constitution to bar abortions by unemancipated minors until 48 hours after a physician notifies the minor’s parent or legal guardian. Permit notification to certain adult relatives if a doctor reports the parent to law enforcement or a child protective services agency.”

My Opinion: I think this is common sense. A complex and potentially harmful procedure shouldn’t be done on someone’s underage child without the parent even knowing about it. I could go on and on about how I don’t think abortions should be available to minors at all, but that’s not even up for debate. What is being voted on is whether or not parent’s have the right to know if doctor’s are performing operations on their young daughters.

Of course the argument against this is that young pregnant women will fear their parents finding out, and then they will get a coat hanger and shove it up their wee wee and accidentally kill themselves. Or if they’re slightly more intelligent, they’ll find a guy named Smooth in the back of a tattoo parlor who will do it for them. Honestly though, and this might sound harsh, but if someone is stupid enough to do that, in the not too distant future they’ll probably end up getting themselves killed anyways do to sheer stupidity. Let’s see if that ruffles any feathers. (I’m giving it all I got!)

Bottom Line: If I have a daughter some day, and in the unfortunate event she became pregnant and went to try and get an abortion, I at least deserve to know. The government doesn’t get to make decisions for our families.

I am voting YES on Prop 4.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 4.

As the first in a series of posts, let me give you a little background on what we’re doing, and where I come from when I decide how to vote on ballot measures.

Everyday for the next 12 days Geeky Weekly and I will post about the props in order at right around 6 pm. Now I’ve got a baby, and I know Geeky Weekly has a life, so if they don’t come at precisely that time, you’ll have to forgive us. We’re posting these completely independent of each other, so it will be interesting to see if there are any differences of opinion.

Before I post about Prop 1A, let me give you a little background on my approach. For the most part, if a ballot measure has the word “bond” anywhere in it, I usually vote no. In case you don’t know how bonds work, it’s basically the government taking out a loan. They sell the bonds now at a certain price, and then pay them back later with interest. I’m not sure if all bonds are sold at the same promised interest rate, but as you’ll see in this post, the bond measure for Prop 1A costs twice as much as it should (because of interest). I understand that for some “big” projects it makes sense to take out a loan, much like a homeowner doesn’t usually buy a house outright, but takes a loan and makes payments. The problem with California selling more bonds, is that we’re broke! Until Sacramento makes healthy spending decisions, there is no way I can support a bond measure that will saddle us with moe debt in the future.

Beyond bond measures, most propositions are either social issues or “fluff.” For the social issues, I of course lean to the conservative side, so you won’t be surprised there. For the “fluff” factor, anybody and their mother can get a proposition on the ballot, and I can’t remember seeing one in the last eight years that makes government bureaucracy smaller. So unless something about it strikes me as an important issue, I’m probably a no on anything that just adds to the size of government because some self-interest felt it needed to be on the ballot.

With all of that being said, here are the main places I’m looking to for how to vote. A great resource for a conservative point of view is Tom McClintock. You can also read the pro and con arguments in the Voter Guide. I’m even looking at the LA Times, but mainly because it lists a lot of donors, which can be a good indicator of whether or not I agree.

Now on to the props!

Prop 1A – SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT

My Summary: This would authorize the sale of $10 billion dollars in bonds to help fund a bullet train between Orange County and San Francisco. The estimated cost of the actual train is $45 billion.

My Opinion: There are a couple problems with this, the first being that it’s a bond measure. The $10 billion dollars in bonds will end up costing $20 billion. As a state we already have over $100 billion in bond debt, so should we really approve more? My other problem is, do we really need this? Like many in So Cal I’m stuck thinking about how far I want to live from work because the freeways are so congested, but instead of fixing that issue we’re trying to spend money on a bullet train? Are there that many people that need to commute between San Fran and LA? I highly doubt it. My last big problem is, I can’t find where the other $35 billion dollars is supposed to come from. From the voter guide: “Section 8(e) says the bond funds are “. . . intended to encourage the federal government and the private sector to make a significant contribution toward the construction…” So they want they state to go further into debt, when they don’t even have the rest of the money to complete the project? The whole thing sounds like a joke.

Bottom Line: This is a prime example of why the government is so pathetic at accomplishing anything. Until Sacramento can balance the books, I refuse to support bond measures. The proponents of the prop claim that it won’t raise taxes, but don’t be fooled. If it weren’t for the $100 billion in debt we are right now, there would be no budget crisis. The ballot measure itself might not raise taxes, but when it saddles the state with debt, someone will have to pay for it. Right now I don’t trust the politicians in Sacramento to cut anything, and when push comes to shove, the only alternative is to raise taxes.

I am voting NO on Prop 1A.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 1A.

California Election 2006

Comments off

I’ve completed my review of all the propositions on the ballot. If you look closely, it also makes a very neat pattern. We’ll see what I get to in regards to candidates.

Congressional Positions
State Positions
Judicial Positions
Prop 1A – YES
Prop 1B – NO
Prop 1C – NO
Prop 1D – NO
Prop 1E – NO

Prop 83 – YES
Prop 84 – NO
Prop 85 – YES
Prop 86 – NO
Prop 87 – NO
Prop 88 – NO
Prop 89 – NO
Prop 90 – YES

Resources

LA Times Proposition Summaries
State Voter Guide
Tom McClintock’s Positions
California Taxpayer Protection Committee
John and Ken’s Voter Guide
Eagle Forum of Sacramento
Robyn Nordell
California Republican Assembly
California Pro-Life Council

It’s almost election time here in California, and it was a lot of fun posting about and researching the propositions last time. I think Andrew started it last time, but I jumped on the bandwagon.

I’ll start by posting about the propositions, and if I have time, we’ll get to the people. Most of my information will be coming from the LA Times Proposition Summaries, the State Voter Guide, Tom McClintock’s Positions, and a letter the teacher’s union sent me.

To let you know where I stand (in case you’re thick as a brick and can’t tell), I’m very conservative. I’m technically a Republican, but I’m a conservative first and foremost (yes, there’s a difference). When it comes to propositions I will vote against them 99% of the time if they have ANYTHING to do with bonds and government bureacracy.

So I don’t have to explain it again, bonds are what bankrupted the state under Gray Davis. Instead of the state coming up with a budget they can live with, politicians like to put bonds on the ballot and run up our debt. The government should live within it’s means. It’s idiotic to pay for fundamental infrastructure with debt. Something that important to us as a state should be part of our yearly budget. Bonds also should only be used for projects that will still be around when it’s done being paid off. Nobody takes out a 30 year loan to buy a cell phone. You take out loans like that for a house that will still be around and useful in 30 years. Most proposition bonds though will be spent on day to day stuff that should be handled in a budget.

As for government bureacracy, most propositions do nothing more than make government bigger and more bloated. As a conservative, smaller government is something very important to me (see, there is a difference between Republicans and conservatives) . With these two key pieces of info to look for, on to the propositions!

Prop 1A – Transportation Funding Protection

My Summary: Taxes on gasoline are easily used for non-transportation projects. Under this proposition it would make borrowing money from this fund for non-transportation uses much more difficult.

My Opinion: I think taxes should have a specific purpose, and it makes sense that gas taxes should go to pay for transportation expenses. I don’t want some Senator with a pet project borrowing this money for something else I might not agree with. This prop probably won’t change much, but let’s use gas taxes to make the crowded roads better.

Bottom Line: Use gas taxes for the roads!

I am voting YES on Prop 1A.

Prop 1B – Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006

My Summary: Roads are clogged, people don’t think the air is clean enough, and our ports need better security. This prop would sell almost $20 billion dollars in bonds to pay for stuff like better roads, upgrade school busses so they don’t stink, and make the ports safer.

My Opinion: I bet you can already guess my opinion because they used a four letter word….BOND! These bonds would end up costing the state another $20 billion dollars in interest ($40 billion total). This is why government is so ineffective. Instead of forcing state officials to make difficult choices about where money should go, tax payers just throw bond money at them, and then they don’t have to decide.

Bottom Line: Bonds are the devil.

I am voting NO on Prop 1B.

Prop 1C - Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006

My Summary: I’ll cheat and give you the LA Times summary: "The measure would authorize $2.9 billion in bonds to build urban parks, provide low-interest loans and grants for affordable housing, farm-worker housing and homeless shelters."

My Opinion: I was getting nauseous reading this one. Not only are they bonds, but they’re for urban parks and farm worker housing. What the crap?! Who is wasting their time in Sacramento trying to find ways to spur farm worker housing? Stop screwing with the economy you (insert bad words here).

Bottom Line: Not only are bonds the devil, but also whichever moron wrote this prop.

I am voting NO on Prop 1C.

Prop 1D – Kindergarten – University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006

My Summary: Bonds of $10 billion dollars would be sold to pay for various school related projects. Interest would cost another $10 billion dollars.

My Opinion: More bonds! Schools have waaaay too much money already. We pay for lunch for kids, we have millions of dollars earmarked for poor kids, and guess what? Our schools still suck. I don’t care if I had a bazillion dollars for my classroom, it wouldn’t matter. The students who receive no support at home, their parents are losers, or they don’t care about learning English…it won’t matter for them. It’s not about money! Stop throwing money at the education problem, it’s just making it worse.

Bottom Line: More money = less responsibility.

I am voting NO on Prop 1D.

Prop 1E - Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006

My Summary: It sells $4 billion in bonds to help pay for levee improvements and flood control/prevention.

My Opinion: Tom McClintock said yes to this bond measure, so I really looked into it. While I’ll agree with him that it’s important to protect our water, it’s still ridiculous to pay for it with bonds. Some other stuff I read said there are 2,000 miles of levees to maintain, but this is only enough money for 25 miles.

Bottom Line: Again, if this is SO important, stop sending the morons next to my parents welfare checks and get on this important task of improving the levees.

I am voting NO on Prop 1E (Sorry Tom).

Sorry this post was so long, but I had to tackle all the "1" props or I’d never find the motivation again. I’m putting up a special 2006 California Election page to the right to keep track of all these posts. Bookmark it!

This story is quite old, but I’d never heard it, so I figure many of you have not. In August of 2003 US forces found Iraq’s Air Force buried in the desert. We’re talking a real jet fighter, buried in the sand.

Naturally this leads to a question of whether or not WMDs could be buried in Iraq, but we have no way of knowing. What I think this example does though is show the reality of Iraq, something that few Americans grasp. People watch their TV and read their newspapers, and it all seems so easy. There is no human element to even concern themselves with. If WMDs were there, they should have been found. Nevermind that they could be buried like these jets, or flown to Syria. Nevermind that Bill Clinton, Jacques Chirac, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Al Gore, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, and many others said prior to the war that Saddam Hussein had WMDs (here and here). Their TV news and newspaper haven’t had a picture of a barrel with "WMD" on the side, and that’s all that matters. People are so quick to forget the names mentioned above and label the President a liar.

I found an exceptional Op-Ed piece at a very unlikely location: the LA Times. The writer, Jonah Goldberg, says "The fact that Hussein turned out to be bluffing about WMD isn’t a mark against Bush’s decision. If you’re a cop and a man pulls out a gun and points it at you, you’re within your rights to shoot him, particularly if the man in question is a known criminal who’s shot people before. If it turns out afterward that the gun wasn’t loaded, that’s not the cop’s fault." Excellent analogy showing that the burden of proof was on Saddam Hussein, not the President. Read the whole thing, not too long but very enlightening.

Are your beliefs about the war in Iraq based on facts or rhetoric? Determination or emotion? Strength or pacifism? Body counts or lives liberated? I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

Dodgers Do What’s Right

Comments off

Thankfully, whether it was DePodesta’s choice or not, the Dodgers pulled the plug on a huge 10-player deal. There’s an article over at the LA Times sight with some good commentary.

Powered by WordPress Web Design by SRS Solutions © 2012 The Blarg Design by SRS Solutions