mathoda.com

VOTING TIME!

Tuesday, November 7th, is voting day in California. I may be really wrong in my choices, and I readily admit that. I’m open to better arguments and different ways of looking at things, so if you have them, let me know. I’m abstaining from making some choices where I feel I have insufficient knowledge of the candidates or the issues. Here is what I am choosing:

ELECTED OFFICIALS

Governor: I’m voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is fiscally conservative but socially liberal on most issues. It wasn’t long ago that California was insolvent and the Democrat governor couldn’t get the Democrat dominated legislature to pass a budget. Arnold averted a debt crisis, got budgets passed, returned California to fiscal stability (enlisting Warren Buffett’s expertise and credibility, a great move), supports stem cell research, attempted to reform the redistricting process (it’s blatantly unfair now, favoring both political parties), has a great record on the environment, created and supported charter schools (bringing competition to the school system which should improve it), backed stronger power for the LA city mayor for schools (which I believe will create clearer accountability and better manageability), reformed California’s terrible workers compensation system, and smartly helped push the drug companies to lower drug prices without heavy handed legislation. It’s my understanding that in administering the state government he has appointed both Democrats and Republicans to administrative positions, choosing on merit rather then nepotism or party loyalty. My biggest disappointment in him was his veto of the gay marriage bill, which I believe abrogates a fundamental right of people to partner as they wish. Nonetheless, having a moderate Republican in the governorship and Democrats in the legislature creates a healthy conflict, providing significant scrutiny to increases in taxes and spending, while allowing for many social rights issues to be tackled. He isn’t perfect, but I choose him over Angiledes.

Insurance Commissioner: My choice is Steve Poizner, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who is backed by the LA Times, which points out he has an analytical approach and good ideas. More to the point, his challenger Cruz Bustamante has backed bills that insurance companies sought to help them avoid complying with Proposition 103, misused donations from Indian tribes and was heavily fined in a campaign for governor, and as a candidate for insurance commissioner accepted insurer contributions, then returned them when it became a campaign issue.

Secretary of State: I’m voting for Bruce McPherson. He’s done a very good job getting California’s voting process in order, by the accounts of most newspapers, including the LA Times. Both he and Debra Bowen support paper audit trails for touch screen voting systems, which is my biggest issue, so I don’t think it’s possible to go wrong either way.

Controller: John Chiang, Democrat, is a former tax lawyer for the Internal Revenue Service who previously served in the controller’s office as a tax attorney has my vote, due to his apparent edge in subject matter expertise.

US Senator / US Representative: I’m choosing Dianne Feinstein for Senate, and Henry A. Waxman for the House, because the Republicans in Congress have been corrupt, atrocious on social freedom issues (stem cells, right to trial if accused), have betrayed their fiscal conservatism principles (running up spending and the debt), and have not scrutinized the policies of the Bush administration sufficiently. The federal government really benefits when both parties don’t have complete control of all branches of the government. I expect subpoenas to start flying if Democrats take back either part of Congress (seems very likely).

California Judiciary: I’m supporting every Supreme Court Justice and Court of Appeal Justice candidate. None of them appear to be terrible and some are quite good.

Superior Court. Office 18: Daviann Mitchell appears well qualified. Office 102: I’m voting for Hayden Zacky, who appears to be a skilled prosecutor.

PROPOSITIONS

1A. It forces the legislature to use gas taxes on transportation improvements only, except twice in a 10 year period. I’m voting AGAINST it. I favor higher gax taxes if used to reflect the significant costs that gas has that are not reflected in market prices, and don’t like restricting the legislature’s power to distribute such proceeds as they see fit.

1B. This huge $20 billion bond measure would be used 57% to upgrade highways and local roads, 20% for rail and buses, 15% for improving movement of goods, and about 5% for safety improvements. Without this bond I fear traffic congestion will continue to worsen, and most analysts, the majority of the legislature, and the governor all point out California has significantly under-invested in its transport infrastructure for the last 3 decades. However, I despair that these funds will be well spent. In Los Angeles the government may need to move to a system of highway toll roads or build out rail transportation in order to really put a dent in congestion issues. I very reluctantly vote FOR this proposal.

1C. This bond measure raises $2.8 billion, which according to the LA Times is primarily to fund development programs, provide subsidies and grants to developers, and provide some housing assistance and renter’s assistance to poor or first time home buyers. It’s couched as providing support for battered women and children, but it seems this is a very small proportion of the overall use of the funds. I’m therefore voting AGAINST this, despite its noble goals, because I don’t think bond funded subsidies that go primarily to developers are the appropriate method to help people buy housing. I do favor tax credits to the poor, who can use such funds for house buying, rent, or whatever else makes the best sense for them instead. We live in a terribly inflated housing market, which in my estimation is largely because of everyone taking on loans on bad terms they can ill afford. When interest rates finally rise, the LA market should have prices drop rather fast. This measure will do little to solve such a large scale issue and may encourage people to take loans they (or the state) will in the future have a hard time affording.

1D. This $10.4 billion bond is to address significant school overcrowding. I hate bond measures. I hate kids having to deal with overcrowded schools. So I’m torn. I think this is probably much more appropriate for a legislature to handle. I’m voting NO.

1E. This bond measure to prepare for disasters and prevent floods is something that should be paid from the general fund if it’s necessary, not as a bond measure that the average California voter is in no position to evaluate the need for. I’m voting NO.

83. This measure creates significant increases in penalties for sex offenders, including lifetime GPS tracking. This proposition appears rather complicated, and I think would be better considered by the legislature after hearings, then as a proposition. I’m voting NO.

84. This measure is a bond related to water and drinking quality. While I’m not against safe drinking water, I am against asking voters to evaluate complex programs through a proposition. This is better proposed as a law to the legislature. I’m voting NO.

85. Parental notification of abortion. I’m generally in favor of good parent child communication, but think this provision is written in an overbroad manner, since notifying all parents may not always be wise. I’m voting NO.

86. Taxes cigarettes, with funds going to health care. I think smoking should be permitted in a free society, but that it does create significant costs for society, which are not recouped sufficiently. I’m fine with taxing cigarettes more and using the proceeds to fund health care. Therefore I’m voting YES.

87. This proposition taxes oil producers domestic to California, and uses the funds for research, creating an ecosystem for alternate fuels, and venture capital. I think it’s taxing the wrong people (it should be a general gas tax, or a tax on foreign oil, not a tax on domestic producers, when domestic production has much less problems in terms of funding terrorism or national security then foreign oil production). I don’t think it will have any measurable effect on gas prices. I also don’t think the government is particularly good at spending such funds or that the agency used to set it up has enough oversight. Finally, if alternate fuels are viable, one would expect significant private capital to chase opportunities. I do however really support the message that the proposition sends that gas has a social cost that should be avoided by discovering alternatives, and I do favor funding the ecosystem that will support alternative fuels. However, I can’t support this way of doing it. It was a close call, but I’m voting NO.

88. This $50 per parcel property tax funds educational programs, distributing funds on a per pupil basis. It increases funding per pupil by a relatively minor amount (no more than $500) but is administratively complex to administer. I am therefore voting NO.

89. Taxes corporations and financial institutions to pay for political campaigns of politicians that choose to rely on public funds for their campaigns rather than raise money privately. It does not tax labor unions, homeowners associations, or other special interest groups. It also provides much more funding to major party candidates than candidates from other parties. There’s something undemocratic about requiring certain types of institutions (but not everyone) to fund political campaigns and then to provide extra financing to the major party’s candidates. Therefore I’m voting NO.

90. A combination of reasonable restrictions on the government’s power to seize private property, and some unreasonable limitations on government’s power to regulate or re-zone properties. Therefore I’m voting NO.

Prop H. A bond funded by property taxes to finance affordable rental housing, including for the homeless. I think this is better decided by the legislature, and shouldn’t be done as a bond. I’m voting NO.

Prop J. Allows fire departments to build on separate parcels. I’m voting YES.

Prop R. Extends term limits to 3 terms for LA council members, and creates bigger hurdles for lobbyists. I think if voters want someone for a third term, they should have that choice. Term limits tend to just shift power to the parties and I think they sometimes therefore do more harm then good. I’m voting YES.

This entry has been filed under issues, political.