The close 5-4 ruling in DC vs Heller goes to show how important judges are. The 4 left-wing judges on the court wanted to repeal the individual right to own a firearm without connection to a militia. The current election could help determine the composition of the Supreme Court considering the older justices on the bench:
Judge Stevens - 88, Ginsburg - 75, Kennedy - 72, Scalia - 72 and Breyer - 70
There’s a good chance the next president will be nominating replacements for 1 or 2 of them. Any of McCain’s nominees would be far superior to anyone Obama would put up. You might not like everyone about the McCain, but he sure looks good next to the alternative.
Read the entire dissent, starting on page 68, written by Stevens in DC vs Heller to be thoroughly disgusted. Here’s just a quick tidbit:
As used in the Second Amendment, the words “the people” do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well regulated militia.
That’s right, 45% of the Supreme Court doesn’t think you should be able defend yourself in your home with a handgun. Suzanna Hubb is a perfect example of what happens when law abiding citizens aren’t able to protect themselves. If you haven’t heard her story you must listen to her tell it:
Tagged with: constitution, election, guns, second amendment
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
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
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
PROP 91: TRANSPORTATION FUNDS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
The first proposition on next month’s ballot really doesn’t need to be there. Last year’s Proposition 1A took care of gasoline tax revenues being used for non-transportation purposes and it seems this measure was put on this ballot before 1A passed. Might as well go with the proponent’s suggestion to vote NO since the proposition is no longer needed.
Prop 91 - No
Tagged with: california, election
Posted under: Political Stuff
I came across one of Reagan’s speeches, A Time for Choosing, a while back and his words are still important and relevant today. I think I’m going to compare all the 2008 Republican candidates to Reagan and see how well they stand up. Anybody have fond memories of Reagan’s years in office (which I sadly missed) or think he’s the worst president ever (which is Carter actually) like my liberal American History professor in college?
Funny thing is my professor’s outright hatred of Reagan made me like Reagan even more. So much for indoctrination, but I know my classmates were eating it up like it was the Gospel which is sad.
Tagged with: election, history, reagan, speech
Posted under: Political Stuff
You’ve still got 2.25 hours to vote so get off your butt and get to your polling place. I don’t care what you vote for just go.
Tagged with: election
Posted under: Political Stuff
Prop 79 as far as I can tell has the same goal as Prop 78, reducing the cost of prescription drugs to Californians. It is debatable about which accomplishes this the best, so why not pass both and let the best bill prevail. This won’t directly help me but it can help others out. So heck, why not.
My Vote: Changed to No.
Tagged with: california, election
Posted under: Political Stuff
Previous Posts
