Props 13 (yes) and 16 (no) were fairly easy for me to decide.
I generally lean "no" as a default position. In the case of Prop 15, I was leaning that way and upon further reflection, I remain a "no" vote.
Prop 15 provides for public financing and campaign spending limits for the next two elections of the Secretary of State. However, it appears the agenda of the proposition is to eventually open the door to public financing for other races became clear in this KPCC Air Talk segment featuring both sides.
I believe the best way to finance campaigns is for people who support the candidate to donate money to the candidate. The idea of public financing goes against this basic premise. Even though tax payer dollars aren’t involved in this proposal because the matching fund is supported by registration fees on lobbyists, the idea of candidates receiving funds only from the people who support them is violated.
Campaign spending limits in exchange for public financing in the abstract sounds good but in higher profile races they are meaningless. If a candidate knows they can raise more money, they will opt out of the spending limits. Candidate Obama initially said he would abide by spending limits for the 2008 campaign. However, when he realized he could raise more money, he opted out.
Additionally, there is also a point of diminishing returns with campaign spending. For instance, are there going to be people who will NOT vote for Meg Whitman because she has spent so much money on the governor's race? Certainly, it is always better to have more money than less. However, at some point, if a candidate spends too much, there is voter backlash as some will feel that the candidate is trying to buy the office.
In smaller races, almost all candidates would opt for public financing because they could never raise enough money on their own such that opting out is in their campaign's interest. I think the decisive question is whether the voters want public financing of political campaigns. The theory is that the candidates would be less beholden to donors (special interests) who support their campaigns and races could be more competitive. Would this be actually true in practice?
I suspect that minimizing gerrymandered districts would have a greater impact on the competitiveness of elections.
As for being beholden to special interests, just how "blank a slate" is a politician? I think anyone who would go through the hoops needed to run for office have fairly formed views on the issues they will face. If you like their views, you vote for them. If you don't like their views, you think they are beholden to special interests and won't vote for them.
No on Prop 15.
Politics: No on Prop 16
Prop 16 provides that if a government (city or county level) wants to enter into the electricity business, a 2/3 vote of the affected populations would be needed to approve the plan.
In California, residents get their electricity through investor-owned utilities like PG&E (the major backer of this proposition), city owned utilities like DWP or electrical service providers which I believe are companies that buy electricity off the market from various generators and provide it for their customers.
Some city and county governments are looking into running their own versions of electrical service providers called community choice aggregations.
PG&E, the largest utility in California, recognizes that they could lose business to these government run entities and have placed this measure on the ballot to make it more difficult for such entities to be formed.
As a general rule, I prefer investor-owned companies because theoretically, even in highly regulated industries like electricity, they make their decisions on financial considerations and market forces yielding a price that matches the product while government run entities are subject to political pressures.
However, PG&E has hurt the positive case (giving the public the right to vote on government entry into the electric business) for this initiative by making the barrier so high (2/3 vote) and other restrictions that this goes beyond giving the people the right to vote to using the ballot box to defend their market share. PG&E should win more business by offering superior service at a good price not by stiff-arming competition at the ballot box.
No on Prop 16.
In California, residents get their electricity through investor-owned utilities like PG&E (the major backer of this proposition), city owned utilities like DWP or electrical service providers which I believe are companies that buy electricity off the market from various generators and provide it for their customers.
Some city and county governments are looking into running their own versions of electrical service providers called community choice aggregations.
PG&E, the largest utility in California, recognizes that they could lose business to these government run entities and have placed this measure on the ballot to make it more difficult for such entities to be formed.
As a general rule, I prefer investor-owned companies because theoretically, even in highly regulated industries like electricity, they make their decisions on financial considerations and market forces yielding a price that matches the product while government run entities are subject to political pressures.
However, PG&E has hurt the positive case (giving the public the right to vote on government entry into the electric business) for this initiative by making the barrier so high (2/3 vote) and other restrictions that this goes beyond giving the people the right to vote to using the ballot box to defend their market share. PG&E should win more business by offering superior service at a good price not by stiff-arming competition at the ballot box.
No on Prop 16.
Politics: Yes on 13
Will get the easy one out of the way first!
Prop 13 makes an adjustment to property tax rules to make it easier to do earthquake retrofitting. This passed the California Legislature without objection, there is no organized opposition to this proposition and most newspapers and organizations are supporting it.
Yes on Prop 13.
Prop 13 makes an adjustment to property tax rules to make it easier to do earthquake retrofitting. This passed the California Legislature without objection, there is no organized opposition to this proposition and most newspapers and organizations are supporting it.
Yes on Prop 13.
Politics: Cal Ballot Measures - the Endorsements
Los Angeles Times
Mercury News
San Francisco Chronicle:
Yes on 13, 14, 15
No on 16, 17
Orange County Register
Yes on 13, 16, 17
No on 14, 15
Sacramento Bee
Yes on 13, 14
No on 15, 16, 17
California Libertarian Party
Yes 13, 17
No 14, 15
California Green Party
Yes 15
No 14, 16, 17
California Democratic Party
Yes 13, 15
No 14, 16, 17
California Republican Party
Yes 13, 16, 17
No 14, 15
A Google search yielded this handy table summarizing the endorsements of newspapers and organizations in California.
Between endorsements and my reading of the voter book, I hope to make votes in the next few days.
RR recommends:
Yes on 13
No on 16
No on 15
Yes on 17
Yes on 14
What are your thoughts?
Mercury News
San Francisco Chronicle:
Yes on 13, 14, 15
No on 16, 17
Orange County Register
Yes on 13, 16, 17
No on 14, 15
Sacramento Bee
Yes on 13, 14
No on 15, 16, 17
California Libertarian Party
Yes 13, 17
No 14, 15
California Green Party
Yes 15
No 14, 16, 17
California Democratic Party
Yes 13, 15
No 14, 16, 17
California Republican Party
Yes 13, 16, 17
No 14, 15
A Google search yielded this handy table summarizing the endorsements of newspapers and organizations in California.
Between endorsements and my reading of the voter book, I hope to make votes in the next few days.
RR recommends:
Yes on 13
No on 16
No on 15
Yes on 17
Yes on 14
What are your thoughts?
Politics: Arizona Law and 1200 More National Guard Troops
To be surprised that politicians play "politics" with issues is to be shocked that gambling is taking place in Las Vegas.
Arizona passed a law pertaining to illegal immigrants that was widely criticized.
The problem with the law is that it will undermine the relationship between people in the community and law enforcement: people who are here legally would be questioned wrongly and illegals would be hesitant to report crimes for fear of deportation.
Nonetheless, perhaps, as a result of the law, the Feds have sent in additional troops to the border.
Would this have happened without the uproar caused by the Arizona law?
Is it an admission that the Feds haven't done enough about the borders which is one of the major complaints that led to the Arizona law?
Interestingly, the article reports that as of a month ago, the administration believed they have control over the borders. Excerpt:
The move comes a month after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a Senate committee that the U.S.-Mexico border "is as secure as it has ever been" and pointed out that crime rates on the U.S. side had declined, despite a spate of drug-related violence on the Mexico side.
Arizona Senator McCain, however, thinks that 1200 isn't enough to make a difference. Excerpt:
"It's simply not enough. We need 6,000," McCain said Tuesday on the Senate floor. "The situation on the border [has] greatly deteriorated during the last 18 months."
If the Administration has now concluded the borders aren't under control, they would have sent more?
Thus, since their stated view is that the borders are under control, they are sending the 1200 to give the appearance of being responsive to the Arizona concerns?
Arizona passed a law pertaining to illegal immigrants that was widely criticized.
The problem with the law is that it will undermine the relationship between people in the community and law enforcement: people who are here legally would be questioned wrongly and illegals would be hesitant to report crimes for fear of deportation.
Nonetheless, perhaps, as a result of the law, the Feds have sent in additional troops to the border.
Would this have happened without the uproar caused by the Arizona law?
Is it an admission that the Feds haven't done enough about the borders which is one of the major complaints that led to the Arizona law?
Interestingly, the article reports that as of a month ago, the administration believed they have control over the borders. Excerpt:
The move comes a month after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a Senate committee that the U.S.-Mexico border "is as secure as it has ever been" and pointed out that crime rates on the U.S. side had declined, despite a spate of drug-related violence on the Mexico side.
Arizona Senator McCain, however, thinks that 1200 isn't enough to make a difference. Excerpt:
"It's simply not enough. We need 6,000," McCain said Tuesday on the Senate floor. "The situation on the border [has] greatly deteriorated during the last 18 months."
If the Administration has now concluded the borders aren't under control, they would have sent more?
Thus, since their stated view is that the borders are under control, they are sending the 1200 to give the appearance of being responsive to the Arizona concerns?
Non-Profit of the Month: May 2010 - California State Parks Foundation
In the era of tight budgets, the role of non-profits that support our parks have truly stepped up.
Please consider supporting the Parks Foundation for you state.
As for me, I've become a member of the California State Parks Foundation.
Christianity 101: Part II, In the beginning God ...
The incredibly obvious place to start, of course, is at the beginning! 8-)
Genesis 1:1
Within the "no god perspective" there is the stronger claim (atheism) and the weaker claim (agnosticism).
Within the "there is a god perspective," one could broadly designate those who believe god is in the creation (pantheism) and those who believe god is separate from the creation (theism).
Genesis One tells us that God approached creating in a fairly systematic way and is separate from it.
There is a long running argument about whether aspects of evolution are compatible with Genesis. I think trying to read Genesis One as a scientific textbook is not necessary and not the original intent. I think of the creation account of Genesis as an impressionist painting. There are limits to using analogies but I do find the idea of this analogy helpful.
image source: http://www.toffsworld.com/art_artists_painters/impressionist_impressionism_art_movement.htm
One could have a photograph of the same scene. But in the case of the painting, the details are important only up to a certain point; there are enough details for the viewer to know what the scene is about in a general sense. But beyond those details, the painting hints at mood, emotion, beauty and narrative ... various, if you will, pun intended, "impressions" about the scene.
And so one impression we can pick up from Genesis One is that God is orderly as each day something happens.
There is a current mode of thinking that places science and religion on opposing sides. However, upon reflection, the theological premise of God creating the physical world in an orderly manner may have driven the rise of science. This idea is explored in one of sociologist Rodney Stark's best selling books.
The other idea we can gain from Genesis One is that the physical world is good from the refrain (verses 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) "God saw that it was good."
Whenever I get the chance to stop and contemplate the wonders of the natural world ...
hearing birds sing
observing the color of flowers
reflecting on the ginormousness of whales
marveling at the intricacy of the molecular biology and biochemistry happening in each cell
enjoying the taste of fruits
add your own favorite experiences here ...
I recognize the goodness of God and the power of God in the extravagant beauty in the creation of the physical world.
Finally, we find out from Genesis 1:27 that humans have a special relationship to God.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.The world view options are: there is a god and there is no god.
Within the "no god perspective" there is the stronger claim (atheism) and the weaker claim (agnosticism).
Within the "there is a god perspective," one could broadly designate those who believe god is in the creation (pantheism) and those who believe god is separate from the creation (theism).
Genesis One tells us that God approached creating in a fairly systematic way and is separate from it.
There is a long running argument about whether aspects of evolution are compatible with Genesis. I think trying to read Genesis One as a scientific textbook is not necessary and not the original intent. I think of the creation account of Genesis as an impressionist painting. There are limits to using analogies but I do find the idea of this analogy helpful.
image source: http://www.toffsworld.com/art_artists_painters/impressionist_impressionism_art_movement.htm
One could have a photograph of the same scene. But in the case of the painting, the details are important only up to a certain point; there are enough details for the viewer to know what the scene is about in a general sense. But beyond those details, the painting hints at mood, emotion, beauty and narrative ... various, if you will, pun intended, "impressions" about the scene.
And so one impression we can pick up from Genesis One is that God is orderly as each day something happens.
There is a current mode of thinking that places science and religion on opposing sides. However, upon reflection, the theological premise of God creating the physical world in an orderly manner may have driven the rise of science. This idea is explored in one of sociologist Rodney Stark's best selling books.
The other idea we can gain from Genesis One is that the physical world is good from the refrain (verses 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) "God saw that it was good."
Whenever I get the chance to stop and contemplate the wonders of the natural world ...
hearing birds sing
observing the color of flowers
reflecting on the ginormousness of whales
marveling at the intricacy of the molecular biology and biochemistry happening in each cell
enjoying the taste of fruits
add your own favorite experiences here ...
I recognize the goodness of God and the power of God in the extravagant beauty in the creation of the physical world.
Finally, we find out from Genesis 1:27 that humans have a special relationship to God.
So God created human beings in his own image,The restoration of this special bond runs as a thread throughout the story of the Scriptures and is the heart of the Christian faith. This bond was broken in Genesis Three. The various dramatic stories of the Bible thereafter are about the efforts of God to reconcile us to himself.
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)