Saw this article on Drudge:
Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.
Pretty good read that illustrates the difference between America and the rest of the world. I’m grateful that the Constitution prevents our government from telling us what we can’t say, what not to think and what not to do. God forbid if that ever happens we’ll still have our guns to take back our country. Always remember that the Constitution does not grant us revocable privileges; our rights are there to protect us from the government.
The article ends with a good quote from Mark Steyn:
“What we’re learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins,” Steyn added. “Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.”
Tagged with: constitution, first amendment, free speech, government
Posted under: Political Stuff
Didn’t have a lot time to prepare for this election, but the two big things on the ballot are Propositions 98 and 99. Both deal with eminent domain. 98 seems stronger and has fewer exceptions than 99. 98 throws in rent control reform which I agree with, see this well written analysis of rent control to see why:
How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing
Important to remember that rent control is only phased out after a tenant vacates a property. Everyone’s poor little grandma won’t be affected by this. For the judicial nominations and supervisors I’ll just follow the Republican Party’s recommendation:
http://www.lagop.org/news.asp?artid=74
Tagged with: election, voting
Posted under: Political Stuff
The Wall Street Journal has a well written opinion piece about Obama’s gaffes and how the media’s bias is displayed by the coverage of those gaffes. More interesting is that Bush isn’t the first conservative to be depicted in a diminished intellectual light by the media. For the record I think Bush is a pretty smart guy; liberals must enjoy the illusion that their intellect is superior to that of the most powerful person in the world.
The Obama Gaffe Machine
Tagged with: bias, candidates, media
Posted under: Political Stuff
Back in college I made a speech about America’s obsession with race and why we aren’t allowed to simply identify ourselves as American. The details of the speech escape me, but I feel the same now as I did then. Fill out a form with a question about ethnic origin and you’ll probably be presented with the following options (taken from the CDC):
- White
- Black or African American
- Latino
- Asian
- Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
- American Indian or Alaska Native
The CDC has a reason to want to know ethnic background, but what about employment applications or practically every other form we have to fill out. The definition of each group is a little strange too. White is defined as everyone originating from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. This must be a double standard developed by bureaucrats in a politically correct stupor that allows “whites” to be identified by their skin color, but everyone else is off limits (Black is acceptable since it is tied to cultural identity). Why can’t we just combine those last four groups into “Brown”? Would that be any less racist than pigeonholing someone as white?
My skin happens to be white, but I don’t trace my origins to Europe. That identification ended when my ancestors came to America. I’m not even sure who my ancestors were that came over here or where they came from (The Blarg knows though). The only country and origin I identify with is America.
This ultimately comes down to recognizing that American itself is a valid race/ethnicity. Wasn’t America suppose to be a huge melting pot of race, ethnicity and culture? Wouldn’t the product of that mixture be a new, unique American ethnicity that its participants could identify with? My skin might be white, but I’m an American damnit and don’t try to label me any other way.
Tagged with: ethnicity, government, rant, skin color
Posted under: Political Stuff
SIKE!
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Looks like Global Warming fears are being further debunked and there’s more than enough data to back up the idea that we are actually cooling down. The data shows that warming from the past century has been wiped out in one year. I wonder how long it will take for politicians and the media to acknowledge we’re at the mercy of the Sun’s solar activity so we can put this climate change garbage behind us. Seriously though, the Earth’s climate has been and will be in constant flux. One thing is certain though: climate change will end when the Sun burns itself out in a few billion years. If humans are still around and we haven’t been wiped out by an asteroid or some disease, I don’t think they’ll be arguing about carbon dioxide’s affect on global temperature.
Tagged with: global warming
Posted under: Political Stuff
Right now in Downey, Councilmembers can serve two 4 year terms and then that’s it. 8 years is a long time to serve in a relatively unimportant local position. This measure would allow 3 consecutive terms followed by a 2 year waiting period. After that waiting period, an individual could serve another 3 consecutive terms. So how should you vote on this one? I don’t really care.
We voted in 1993 to change term limits to the way they are right now and seriously Downey hasn’t done too bad in the past 14 years with these rules. The city isn’t falling apart because of the lack of experience on the city council. My gut says to vote no; in a city this large there are plenty of people willing to use their talents and time to serve the community. We don’t need to “reform” term limits, but we do need the occasional injection of fresh political blood and the new perspectives that come with it.
Measure G - No
Tagged with: california, election
Posted under: Political Stuff
The Indian Gaming propositions on the ballot have received more exposure than any of the others and for good reason; there’s lots of money at stake. The four tribes that negotiated these new compacts with the Governer would be able to expand their operations by tripling their slot machines and pay increased taxes on the new slots. Las Vegas casinos, racetracks, card clubs and other Indian tribe’s who are not included in these exclusive compacts are threatened with an increase in competition. To further throw a wrench in the situation these propositions weren’t meant for voter review. These compacts were negotiated behind closed doors and only through a campaign by other casinos and racetracks were enough signatures gathered to force these changes to be voted on by us.
I have to break my analysis of these propositions up into two portions: how it will affect the state financially and how morals play into the situation. The morals involved in the situation are much simpler than the financials. I am personally opposed to gambling engineered to part people from their money. You can’t prevent people from making bad decisions with their money, but games like slots are programmed to pay out certain amounts and the odds are always in the casino’s favor. I guess the the casinos are providing some sort of service by giving a player a feeling of satisfaction while they lose their money. No matter how you feel though, a yes vote will allow expansion of Indian gaming operations in California and a no vote keeps things where they are.
I normally don’t base decisions solely on feelings or emotions so the financial impacts are an important factor for these propositions. Both sides have been pouring millions of dollars into TV ads and we all know how truthful political TV ads are. In these ads, both sides have been lying through their teeth and blowing the consequences of a yes or no vote completely out of proportion. Let’s look at some facts:
- Just for perspective, in 2006 all Californian Indian Casinos took in a between $5 billion and $7.7 billion
- Currently tribal casinos pay $0 into the General Fund, instead the tribes pay into special funds
- These 4 tribes pay $74 million into the Special Distribution Fund (SDF) which covers costs associated with Indian gaming and $2 million into the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF) which pays $1.1 million to about 70 other tribes with small or no casinos
- Payments to SDF would end, shortfalls in RSTF made up from SDF then from money going to General Fund
- 17,000 new slots for 4 tribes (for comparison, MGM Grand in Vegas has about 3,400)
- Initial payment increase would start at $122 million and then grow as more slots are added, predicted to grow to $400-$500 million a year if all 17,000 slots installed (15% rate for first 1000-2000 slots or so and then 25% for the last ones)
- As casinos expand about $140 million in tax revenues could be shifted from racetracks and other casinos which could also grow as more slots are installed and business shifted to Indian casinos
The tribes would also make some concessions on environmental and state regulations and open up employees to unionization, but these are pretty minor points. Right off the bat, the shift of funding from RSTF to the General Fund will lead to a deficit and money will get pulled back in to cover shortfalls. So that $122 million in initial payments to the General Fund is more like $50 million. As slots numbers grow this payment will increase, but here comes the biggest fallacy of the whole situation: tax revenue does not grow linearly with the number of slot machines. The main reason for this is that there is a finite supply of gamblers and money to gamble away. Adding 17,000 slots will not create 17,000 new gamblers, a portion of any growth will be shifted from other gambling venues which means tax revenues are also just shifted around. The estimates I saw for this shifting tax revenue were around $140 million, reducing the actual gains being touted by these propositions even further.
I think it is fair to say that the claims of the 4 tribes that would benefit from these compacts are grossly exaggerated. The state will probably end up getting more money each year and it might add up to a few billion over the next 20 years, but this is hardly a solution to our budget problems. You also have to consider the costs of such expansion and whether encouraging people to gamble is healthy for our society. The fact that these deals are unfair to other tribes also bothers me; I would probably consider supporting a deal like this if it applied to all the tribal casinos and evenly distributed the increase in slot machines among them. On top of all this the number of slots is downright unsettling considering these propositions would add the slot machine equivalent of 5 MGM Grands to California.
Oh and here’s a little gem hidden away in the propositions:
Tribal Payments to State May Decline in Certain Instances. Under the compact amendment, if the state allows a nontribal entity to operate slot machines or certain card games in nearby areas, the tribe’s required payments to the state would be significantly reduced or eliminated.
Props 94, 95, 96, 97 - No
Tagged with: california, election
Posted under: Political Stuff
Stunning jump in foreclosures
The Fed cuts interest rates by 0.75%, markets around the globe take big hits over night and Heath Ledger dies; what else could possibly go wrong? How about a 421.2% increase in the number of foreclosures in California over last year during the 4th quarter. Default notices were up too. Some might argue we have already cannon-balled into the recession swimming pool and haven’t realized it, but I think we’ve got our feet in and are just waiting to jump in all the way. Things might turn around, but looking at the housing situation I’m not optimistic for this year. Mortgage resets peak later this Spring and until the bad loans get cleaned out of the system there’s no way to know when and how low the bottom will hit. All I know is I’m going to start saving so I can buy a house when that time arrives.
I might base my Presidential vote on which candidate has the best grasp of what is going on with the economy and what they plan to do about it.
Tagged with: economy
Posted under: Political Stuff
PROP 93: LIMITS ON LEGISLATORS’ TERMS IN OFFICE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Right now an individual can serve six years in the Assembly (three two-year terms) and eight years in the Senate (two four-year terms) for a total of 14 years. The proposition would eliminate those restrictions and allow a representative to serve in either house for a total of 12 years.
Proponents are pushing this proposition as a way to keep experience in our state government. Opponents are saying it is a deceitful attempt to prolong the political careers of 42 incumbent representatives. The proclaimed goal of this proposition sounds great, but there’s more than meets the eye with this one. Let’s take a look at why we have term limits.
I think term limits, especially at the state and local levels, are a good idea. I’m sorry, but things going on at this level of government isn’t exactly rocket science. We don’t need career politicians at the state level; we need smart, successful people willing to put their life on hold and serve their communities as best as possible. Limiting the length of time someone can serve keeps their service from becoming a career and forgetting who they are ultimately responsible to.
So how does reducing the total time someone can serve from 14 to 12 years keep experience in our Legislature? It doesn’t. Hidden in the proposition is the condition that current representatives get to serve a total of 12 years in the house they belong to when the change goes into effect. Which means certain representatives currently in office will be able to serve more than the original 14 years.
Say a representative has served 8 years in the Senate and is in their second year in the Assembly. Prop 93 passes and they can now serve a total of 12 years in the Assembly. Well wait a second, what about those 8 years in the Senate? Doesn’t matter. The representative in this scenario would be able to serve for a total of 20 years, 6 more than the original 14 and 8 more than the new limit of 12. The true goal of this proposition is to circumvent term limits and allow current representatives to serve longer than they were suppose to.
It’s because of the loophole for current representatives that I’m opposing this proposition.
Prop. 93 - No
Tagged with: california, election
Posted under: Political Stuff
PROP 92: COMMUNITY COLLEGES. FUNDING. GOVERNANCE. FEES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
Before I start talking about the proposition I’ll get my feelings about Community College out in the open; CC is really just grades 13 and 14. In fact the state recognizes this by lumping CC together with K-12 in what it calls “K-14″. The folks running things at California Community Colleges think they can do a better job if their little proposition passes. Lets see what exactly it does:
- Set fees to $15 per unit
- Need a 2/3 vote in both houses to increase fees
- Shift funding increases from K-12 to CC as young adult population increases (minimum 40% of state revenue for K-14 still in effect)
- Limits annual fee increases to the lower of 10% or percentage change of annual personal income (historical average of 4%)
- Fee increases rounded down to the nearest dollar
- Increases size of Board of Governors by 2 to 19
- Transfers financial oversight from the Governor to the BOG (including executive officer compensation and administrative expenses)
Now for some miscellaneous facts to put the current situation into perspective:
- 2.5 million students at 109 schools in 72 districts
- $8 billion spent annually on CC (2/3 from General Fund, 1/3 from fees and federal funding)
- Student fees totaled about $285 million in 2007
- Fees waived for 1/4 of students because of income
Do a little math magic and you get 3%, that’s roughly how much a CC student’s fee covers the cost of their education. So where does that other 97% come from? Your pocket through federal or state income taxes. And the big kicker is, even if the house wanted to increase fees it would remain at $15 practically forever because of the rounding down to the nearest dollar (there would have to be a 7% annual income increase which I don’t think has ever happened).
While I was in school I took a few classes at Cerritos to get some GEs out of the way and seriously it might as well just be free (like it was before 1986). For about the same price as a semester parking permit at CSULB I took 2 classes over the summer. If a student doesn’t qualify for the fee waiver, they shouldn’t have any problem paying their 3%. Here’s a novel idea: get rid of student fees and eliminate all the spending required to support financial aid programs, payment processing and the like. I might be completely wrong, but knowing government efficiency the cost of physically accepting fees is probably more than the fees being collected.
So back to the proposition. Is a $5 cut in student fees needed? No. Is reducing the accountability of a government bureaucracy spending tax payer money a good idea? No. Do we need to amend our state constitution to further burden tax payers? No.
Prop. 92 - No
Tagged with: california, election
Posted under: Political Stuff
Next Posts
Previous Posts
