The Stimulus – I hope I’m Wrong

So I figure I’ll post on the stimulus package being signed soon by President Obama (aka the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act”).  It begins at $787 billion dollars and is certain to cost over a trillion dollars once everything is taken into account.  I have a few problems with this bill and think it is going to make things worse, not better.  I hope I’m wrong, but I’m afraid I’m not. 

I don’t think government spending is the right way to get the economy out of a depression.  Keynesian Economics follows the principle that when an economy hits a downturn one of the chief ways for the Government to stimulate the economy is to increase spending.  In this way the Government is supposed to be creating demand that the consumers aren’t creating, thus keeping business in business and keeping people employed.

While FDR gets a lot of credit as one of our greatest Presidents, no serious historian or economist argues that the New Deal is what got the U.S. out of the Great Depression.  For those of you who don’t remember your U.S. History, the New Deal is the name for the unprecedented Federal spending undertaken by FDR in an attempt to get the U.S. out of the Great Depression in the 1930’s.  He started all kinds of Government agencies, instituted Social Security, and greatly expanded the role of the Federal Government.  We take it for granted today that many things are the responsibility of the Government that used to be the responsibility of individuals.  That’s a whole different post – but it appears to me that when massive Government programs have been tried in the past to rescue the U.S. from a depression, they have not worked.  In fact, a recent study led many economists to believe that the New Deal actually had the opposite effect and prolonged the Great Depression.

What makes this so difficult for people like us is that we have “expert” economists telling us opposite things.  Some say this massive stimulus package is necessary and others say it is not.  They all have lots of degrees and knowledge and whatever else that is supposed to make them know more than us…but they have totally divergent points of view on whether this will work or not.  It seems to me if you’re going to borrow and spend around a trillion dollars you should have a pretty powerful consensus that it’s going to work.  I’ve heard those in favor of this bill saying that “doing something is better than doing nothing.”

That may be true – but if that something is an unprecedented amount of spending and taxes foisted upon our children and their children – spending money we do not have – I’m not sure this something is better than nothing.  From where I stand the burden of proof is on those calling for this gargantuan spending and I don’t think they’ve met it.  Especially when you consider the historical context and the failure of the New Deal to get us out of the Depression.

There is all kinds of spending in this bill that seems to have very little with “stimulus” in the form of creating jobs and is more in line with a bunch of government programs that people have wanted to get passed and now they have the chance under the guise of “saving the economy.”  I understand there is a genuine philosophical difference – for some any government spending qualifies as “stimulus” (therefore “waste” doesn’t matter because you’re not spending for product, you’re spending just to spend because that by its very nature is supposed to be stimulative – a la this article) but I don’t think it’s controversial to question the stimulative value of much of the crap in this bill.  It’s telling that those in favor of the bill would actually argue that inefficient use of money doesn’t really matter as long as we’re spending money.

I for one would like to know that if the Government is taking my money they are spending it efficiently and not just to spend it.  Especially in this case when they are spending hundreds of billions of dollars they don’t have – that they are going to take from you and me and our children and their children.  We have to borrow this money from foreign countries like China.  It can’t be conjured up out of thin air.  If we borrow at this rate there’s no guarantee we won’t see some super inflation and see foreign investors stop loaning us money.  I see it as a massive trainwreck and I honestly have some fear about how it’s going to work out (or not work out).

Obama has recently been criticizing the opposition to the bill, saying that those in opposition are obstructionists who (and he says this repeatedly) think “tax cuts alone” will solve the problems and have a “knee jerk anti-government reaction.”  That kind of dishonest rhetoric coming from someone who talks big about being bi-partisan is pretty disheartening.  While Republicans have zero credibility in criticizing wasteful government spending because they spend like crazy, that does not mean there is no valid reason to criticize the stimulus package. 

Many who oppose the bill are like myself – believe some Government spending may be a good idea, in combination with tax cuts – but don’t want to spend such a massive amount of money or spend it on so many questionable and wasteful programs.  Especially after the TARP (bank bailout) has seen us throw hundreds of billions away with nobody having any real clue what happened to the money (other than executives giving themselves large bonuses at our expense).

I hope this stimulus package succeeds.  I hope I am wrong and this spending really does get the economy back on track.  History gives me very little reason to believe this will be the case, but I’ll hope for it anyway.  That’s all I can do.  But mark me down as someone opposed to this stimulus package and someone who is looking at the future of the U.S. with less optimism than I used to.

Wasting Education Money

Before we increase the education budget I think we need to deal with the massive amounts of waste.  In a state as large as California I have no doubt that there will always be some degree of waste.  We’ll never have a completely efficient educational system and that’s fine.  But too often I hear people clamoring for an increased educational budget (and therefore higher taxes to pay for it).  Many in that same camp suggest that those who oppose higher education spending are somehow against education, or children, or want to abandon our public schools.  This is certainly not the case. 

A study recently came out from Stanford (hardly a hotbed of financial conservatism) and here’s some info on it:

Every study of California's school dilemma, including the 1,700-page opus produced by a Stanford University team, has pointed out the correlation between socioeconomic status and academic success.

A new monograph by the Legislature's budget analyst points out that the state has more than 45 programs spending more than $9 billion in state and federal funds to help the 3 million "ED" kids to overcome academic problems. But as the report, released Tuesday, concludes, "We believe California's existing approach for helping these students fails on virtually every score."

$9 billion wasted.  This is what happens when you throw money at a problem and think that will solve it.  Lots of ineffective programs, staggering waste, and no help for the children who need it.  What’s worse is that these programs aren’t likely to be changed or done away with.  Such is the nature of government sprawl.

This study also confirmed what many teachers “on the ground” already know: a huge part of a student’s academic success is determined by their home circumstances.  For various reasons, some legitimate and some not, many parents are completely unengaged in their kids’ education and do nothing to encourage them.  Until that problem is dealt with you can throw all the money you want down the abyss of “helping the children” but it’s never going to do anything.  Truly caring for students doesn’t mean wasting your money in order to make yourself feel better.  That’s too easy.  Truly caring for students means finding out how to fix the real problems and putting the efforts there.

I say this as someone who is going to have an incredibly difficult time finding a job this next school year.  I’m finishing my credential program this year and the district I work in is losing millions of dollars and has already instituted a hiring freeze.  It will take a small miracle for me to get a job as a full time social science teacher this next year.  But I don’t want to raise taxes to increase California’s educational budget.

The money’s already there…it’s just being flushed down the toilet. 

Voting Recap

Go vote tomorrow!  If you disagree with my votes, go cancel me out!  I didn’t really go into depth on anything other than the Props on here.  That was enough controversy.  I think Obama will be our next President; I certainly know he’ll win California. 

Click here to read a post that captures a lot of my feelings on the Presidential election this year.  I didn’t get there quite the same way as the author but our feelings regarding this year’s Presidential election are pretty much the same:

I’m not looking forward to Tuesday.  I’ll make a choice, but I’ll be walking home praying for God to have mercy on the United States.

As a reminder, here are my votes on the Propositions.  I include them not to tell you to vote my way, but to remind you that there’s a lot more to vote on this year other than President and it will have as big or bigger of an impact on your life.  Below is a list of the Propositions and my votes for them.  Click the Prop number for a link to my post about it.  From there you can follow another link to research it more for yourself.

Prop 1A: No

Prop 2: Yes

Prop 3: No

Prop 4: Yes

Prop 5: No

Prop 6: No

Prop 7: No

Prop 8: No

Prop 9: No (I didn’t do a post on this with all the hullabaloo about 8, but I did research it myself and came to this decision.  Yes.  Hullabaloo.)

Prop 10: No

Prop 11: Yes

Prop 12: Yes

Now go vote!

Study shows media portrays McCain negatively

Check this out.  This study shows that the media has portrayed McCain “in a substantially negative [light]…coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable – and has become more so over time.”  In case you want to dismiss the study and say it’s biased, there’s a link to the study itself where you can read it for yourself.  This isn’t a big surprise to anybody who’s been paying attention.  I’m not adding my voice to the chorus of “THE LIE-BERAL MEDIA BIAS” but it’s sure seemed to me that Obama has been getting great treatment in comparison to McCain.

 

The other day I saw a piece on CNN that was “checking the truth” of claims made by the candidates.  First they looked at McCain saying that Obama wanted to “spread the wealth around” a la his conversation with Joe the Plumber.  They deemed McCain’s statement that Obama wanted to spread the wealth “misleading,” and went on to say that was just one thing Obama said in a five minute conversation with Joe the Plumber.  They then looked at something Obama said about McCain and deemed it “True, but incomplete.”  Their reasoning?  Exactly the same as they used with what McCain said – Obama left some stuff out of what McCain had said.

Somehow that same action when McCain does it is “misleading” but with Obama it’s “true but incomplete.”

I’m not really a McCain or Obama supporter but the state of journalism in our country pretty much sucks.

Prop 12: Veteran Home Loans

Proposition 12 would allow the state to sell $900 million in general obligation bonds to provide money for the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program, which provides low-interest loans for California veterans to buy homes and farms.  This would allow the state to pull money away from the state General Fund to pay off the bonds if loan payments from participating veterans are not enough to pay off the debt. 

California's independent  Legislative Analyst says it would cost California $1.8 billion to pay off the principle and interest of the 30-year bonds ($59 million per year), with an estimation that costs would be paid by participating veterans.

My vote: Yes.

Why: I'm cool with this.  Several measures like this have passed in the past decades and they haven't resulted in any significant cost to California.  It’s an extension of an already extant program.  Not a single state senator voted against it and there are actually no pro/con websites to speak of.  This seems like a good, reasonable thing to do that doesn't carry much risk.

Read more about Prop 12 for yourself here.

Proposition 11: Redistricting

They say not to talk about religion or politics with your friends because it can lead to arguments.  Those last couple of posts threw that crappy advice to the wind and combined the two for a wonderful controversy smoothie.  This post should engender a bit less controversy (and therefore be a bit less interesting).

 

Prop 11 would change the way California State Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization districts are drawn in California, which is currently done by the state Legislature and the Governor through legislation.  These districts would instead be drawn up by a 14-member citizen commission made up of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four people who don't belong to either party.

My vote: YES.

Why:  This state is gerrymandered big time.  Those in power in the state legislature don't have to fear losing power because of the way the districts are drawn up.  California's state government is terrible, our politicians are by and large terrible, and it's due in large part to this gerrymandering.  Redistricting won't necessarily fix everything, and this isn't the perfect redistricting bill, but this is better than nothing.  The whole point of a democracy is that the people have power, and representatives can be held accountable to the voters for their (mis)deeds.  As it stands our state representatives aren't accountable to us, they can do what they want - or perhaps more accurately, they can do what their lobbyists want.  I don't think it would necessarily make the state legislature less partisan - but it could help do something about the gerrymandering and oligarchy we've got going on here. 

Of course, you probably can't even name your state representative or state senator.  If you're in Fremont (part of District 20), they're Alberto Torrico (he's even the majority leader...ugh) and Ellen Corbett, respectively.

 

Do some reading on Prop 11 for yourself.

My (unexpected) take on Prop 8 – Part Two

Here’s the conclusion of my take on Prop 8.  Read the first post for context, or else this post won’t make much sense to you.

Despite all I’ve written so far, I'm voting No on Prop 8.  I'm not happy with where the situation is as a whole, and I would prefer "marriage" be a term reserved for what it has historically/traditionally been - a relationship between a man and a woman.  I don't think it should be changed.  A gay couple is not the same as a heterosexual couple.  They are of the same value, they are no less human, they are equal.  It is not discrimination to recognize that the relationships are of a different type.  But as long as the government is in the "marriage" business and that word is an important part of guaranteeing the equal rights gays deserve, then I think gay marriage should be legalized.  This is a problem Christians created for themselves by trying to make America into a "Christian nation" and trying to use the system to legitimize their way of living.  Christians made this bed and now they need to sleep in it.  By making marriage an issue of the state in a state governed by the Constitution, which guarantees equal rights for all, Christians have made marriage subject to the Constitution.  There are lots of things bound up legally with “marriage” and it doesn’t appear that simply having “civil unions” will guarantee the exact same rights for gays, and that’s not right.

I think Constantine's declaration of Christianity as legitimate/official was one of the biggest blows to the message and movement of Jesus.  Instead of continuing Jesus' radical anti-establishment movement of love, Christians fell in love with becoming the dominant power and abused that power.  Today Christians are largely more concerned, I think, with maintaining power and making Christian culture the same as American culture - and that's a problem.  Instead of being seen as people radically in favor of love and acceptance and the gospel, Christians are seen as agents of the old, agents of hatred and discrimination.  It should not be this way.  If years ago Christians had tried to find another way to secure equal rights for gays rather than criticize and hate on them, things might be different.   But that's a fantasy land.  I think Christians have sort of made their own beds on this one and it's time to sleep in it.  By making marriage an issue of the state in a state governed by the Constitution I don't think we have any choice at this point but to allow gay marriage.

I hope I've explained and nuanced my view enough.  This started as a post explaining why I was voting Yes on Prop 8 but as I thought about it and worked through my view I changed my mind.  My guess is this will upset many of you on both sides - those of you who are strongly "Yes" will consider me a prodigal, and those who are strongly "No" will consider me only slightly better than a segregationist.  But still, it's where I am.

My (unexpected) take on Prop 8 – Part One

This post started out as something else and evolved as I thought through it.  I’m still a little surprised at my conclusion but I think it’s the right one.  This is long so I’ve split it into two posts.  The second post will have my conclusion and what I’m planning on voting. 

As someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about and figuring out how to communicate, I think words are important.  Words are symbols that communicate commonly shared meaning and ideas.  Words mean what they mean because we agree they do, and they carry certain connotations/things with them. This is why some words are considered inappropriate to say, like the n-word.  Words are powerful.  When it comes to marriage, I think the word should be reserved for what marriage has historically been - a relationship between a man and a woman.

This isn't based in religion or bigotry.  In fact I believe the insistence on using the term "marriage" for gay marriage is an example of cultural intolerance and insensitivity, which are generally considered cardinal sins by those who call themselves progressive.  Let me see if I can explain it this way with a hypothetical scenario.  Given the time and energy I have this is the best I could do, as inadequate as it is.

Let's say there's a group of people who do this particular dance.  The dance requires three people, and it involves certain steps.  This dance is a big part of their culture and it tells the story of their people.  Children are taught about the dance from a young age, and most children take it up when they grow older.  Sometimes the people mess up the steps, sometimes they screw up the dance and quit in the middle of it - but it always has three people.  That's what the dance is.   A new group of people come in and they hear about the dance.  They like the dance and think it's cool, but instead of 3 people they want to do the dance with two.  This means some of the steps change, and the story that's communicated by the dance changes - but the new group likes to do the dance and thinks it's fun.  They're not really doing the same dance - but they're doing a dance that sort of looks like the other dance, but it's different and communicates something different.

The original group of people have always called their dance "Jaje."  To them, "Jaje" carries with it meaning and it's something that has been a cornerstone of their culture for a long time.  They would admit they haven't always done it right and sometimes they mess up, but they still value it and the story it tells.  The new group wants to call their dance by the same name.  They like the fact that Jaje is a respected and honored tradition - and while they don't want to dance the Jaje, they want to do a dance and they want everyone else to call it Jaje.  This new dance is different from the historic, traditional Jaje but the new group still thinks they should have the right to be considered equal even if their dance is different.  The original group suggests the new group call their dance something else, but the new group says that's hate and discrimination.  The old group says they are trying to hold on to their traditions and culture, and "Jaje" is part of that.  The new group says that times have changed, and Jaje doesn't mean that anymore; besides, if the original group cared about Jaje so much they'd never mess the steps up or quit dancing in the middle of it.

I think any anthropologist looking at this scenario would see the new group as overtaking the culture of the old group.  The old group would necessarily feel threatened, and while they can still do their Jaje dance, it seems like a bit of a jerk move by the new group to insist their new, different, inspired-by-the-original-Jaje dance be called the same thing even though it isn't the same thing.  I'm sure if Americans went over to some other country and started co-opting their cultural traditions we'd be considered "ugly Americans."  I obviously use this as an analogue to the gay marriage movement of today.

I think gays should enjoy all the same rights as heterosexual couples.  The government should not discriminate based on sexual orientation when it comes to the benefits of domestic partnerships.  Truth be told, I would be happiest with the government getting out of the "marriage" business in the first place.  I wish the government could just have "domestic partnerships" that bestow the legal benefits of marriage, and both hetero and gay couples would apply for them.  The government should not be in the marriage business at all.  This is where the complexity comes in.  More on this with my next post, which will complete my thoughts on Prop 8 and tell you my vote.

Ethnocentrism is Good

There - did I get you to click on and read through my post? Haha.

I did this post as part of a discussion board assignment for my teaching credential program and figured I’d put it up here as well for your perusal.

Teacher Performance Expectation F: Developing as a Professional Educator - is important. Two of its subpoints are:
12.2 "Candidates are aware of their own personal values and biases and recognize ways in which these values and biases affect the teaching and learning of students.
12.3 "Candidates resist racism and acts of intolerance."
(Taken from http://pact.gse.uci.edu/tpe/)

These are important elements of becoming a great teacher, and they're related to a lot of what is mentioned in Johnson, et. al (2008) on page 96 under the heading "Ethnocentrism."

Johnson condemns ethnocentrism as the belief that your way of life is superior to others (2008, p. 96). He then condemns the beliefs and cultural values of some religious groups before misrepresenting them. Those religious people that believe the homosexual lifestyle is wrong are said to "not tolerate alternate beliefs" and "believe that their cultural values and lifestyle are the only correct ones" (Johnson, 2008, p. 96). Unfortunately for Johnson his declaration that ethnocentrism is wrong and that these religious people are incorrect is itself an ethnocentric notion. In Johnson's world he has no more right to criticize that (misrepresented) religious point of view than he says they have the right to consider the homosexual lifestyle incorrect.

To say they "do not tolerate alternate beliefs" is a misrepresentation, unless he is talking about those groups who perpetrate violence on others. Simply believing someone else is wrong is not an example of intolerance or ethnocentrism - it's an example of disagreement. Using Johnson's own definition of tolerance and ethnocentrism, he is an intolerant ethnocentrist.
I am not saying this because I don't believe ethnocentrism is a problem. I believe it is. Too many people (including teachers) consider their own point of view superior to others, and think any who disagree with them are fools. This point of view is not limited to religious people or Democrats or Republicans or Americans or Europeans; it is part of the human experience. Being aware of our own ethnocentric tendencies and taking care not to unfairly discriminate against or judge others is essential. It's important for a History teacher to be careful how they discuss/teach/treat the groups in their curriculum. It is also important, I think, to teach students that extreme cultural relativism (the point of view Johnson seems to be promoting) and extreme ethnocentrism are both problematic.

 

Teachers must all be aware of the perspectives they have and how it influences them and what they are teaching. I agree with Johnson when he says that all teachers "must confront their own ethnocentrism" (2008, p. 96). We must teach the differences between groups and empower students to make decisions with regard to what they want to accept, condemn, or praise. I don't want to produce students that are so enlightened and forward-thinking that they cannot find fault in anything in any culture.
A culture that thinks it is okay to put people into slavery is worthy of being condemned on that point. A culture that tries to exterminate an ethnic group is, I can confidently say, worthy of criticism and I am fine with referring to others cultures as superior in that regard. A culture that mutilates girls and women is worthy of being considered faulty on that point.

At the same time we must not paint every person in such a culture as an inferior person - they are a person in a culture with some messed up ideas. Why do they believe the way they do? They were likely socialized to believe it? How can we work toward a society where people are not socialized into bigotry or hatred? These questions cannot be asked from a point of view totally free from ethnocentrism. I know the ideas from these cultures are "messed up" from my point of view - but if it makes me ethnocentrist to condemn slavery, genocide, and the mutilation and forced servitude of women - I'm cool with that.

 

It's important for teachers to help students have the ability to make these kind of distinctions. In order for a teacher to do that they must be aware of their own prejudices and ethnocentric tendencies, and be very aware of how they're communicating with their students. And even if a culture is worthy of some kind of criticism - simply criticizing it and leaving it at that is not sufficient. The teacher should engage in the questions I mentioned above and more - help students think for themselves through the issues and reach their own conclusions. I think this is a worthy goal for any teacher.

Props 7 and 10: Renewable Energy

I decided to combine these two into one post because they pretty much deal with the same issue – renewable energy and how to get it.  With the increase of gas prices (which now seems like a small problem compared to the larger economic crisis) these two issues got on the ballot and are an attempt to move California in the direction of renewable energy.  Here they are:

 

Proposition 7: Renewable Energy Generation

Would require publicly and privately owned utility companies to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025 and would impose penalties (subject to waivers in some circumstances) for failure to meet these requirements.

My vote: No.

Why: I don't like the idea of the government forcing utility companies to do this.  The trend is going in that direction anyway and energy companies are going to move toward renewable energy in order to stay in business.  All I see this doing (besides making some people feel like they're socially and environmentally responsible) is increasing utility bills for us as the companies try to meet certain benchmarks by certain dates.

Find out more about Prop 7 here.

Proposition 10: Alternate Energy Bonds

Prop 10 would allow the state to sell $5 billion in bonds, of which $3.425 billion would be used to help consumers and others purchase high fuel economy or fuel efficient vehicles and $1.25 billion would be used for research and development of  renewable energy technology (primarily solar).  The remainder would be used to give grants to cities for renewable energy projects.  California's independent legal analyst estimates the cost to California to be $10 billion in principal and interest, with additional state costs of $10/million for administration.

My vote: Hell no.

Why: Should be obvious by now.  Lots more spending, creating more government administration/bureaucracy - surely we can find better things to do with our money.

Find out more about Prop 10 here.

Prop 6: Safe Neighborhoods Act

Would require that a minimum of $695 million be allocated from the state budget each year (with the amount increasing to keep up with inflation) to pay for police, sheriffs, district attorneys, probation, and jails.  It also makes changes to state criminal laws to identify new types of crimes and increase penalties for certain crimes (especially gang-related crime).  California's independent  Legislative Analyst says Prop 6 would eventually lead to increased state costs of $500-$965 million annually due to greater spending on public safety programs and new costs for prisons and parole operations.  It would also create a one-time cost of $500m to build more prisons.

Fun fact: This is called “The Safe Neighborhoods Act” by some (generally supporters) and “The Runner Initiative” by others (usually detractors).  Initiative almost sounds like “scheme,” and we know how scary those are.

My vote: No.

Why: While I really like the idea of this law I have to be consistent.  It's increasing spending and California's financial obligations and that's not what we need.  And it really bugs me to be on the same side as the Berkeley City Council.  Ugh.  It’s pretty funny that lots of these groups suddenly become interested in “government waste” when it has to do with crime and/or diverting money from their pet projects.

 

Find out more information for yourself.

Prop 5: Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act

Prop 5 would allocate $460 million per year from the state budget to expand treatment programs for criminals convicted of drug and other offenses.

My vote: No.

Why: Many reasons.  High on the list include the allocation of yet more state funds (bad), the creation of yet more state agencies (worse), etc.  Part of the reason California is in this financial mess is because we vote in all these Props that sound good and obligate us to spend money on things, whether we have the money or not.  This is a prime example of that kind of stuff.

Find out more information for yourself.

Prop 4: Waiting and Notification for Abortion

This is a proposed constitutional amendment that would require a doctor to notify a parent or guardian before performing an abortion on an under-18-year-old girl, and would require a waiting period of 48 hours after notification is given before the abortion could be performed.  Parents must be notified but they do not have to consent.  There are also some exceptions:

• Doctors can notify adult relatives other than a parent if the doctor reports the parent to law enforcement or Child Protective Services.
• Notification is not necessary in a medical emergency or if a parental waiver has already been obtained.
• A judge can waive the notification requirement if it's in the minor's best interest.

My vote: Yes.

Why:  Parents are (or should be) responsible for their children and big things like this should not happen without the knowledge of the parents.  While I recognize that some girls may not want to tell for fear of violence or whatever else, there are provisions for them in this law.  Children should not be able to do something like this without their parents knowing about it.  Yeah, some will get in trouble - but an abortion is a huge decision and minors should not be making them on their own.  It’s an imperfect law but I think it’s better than no parental notification.

Find out more information for yourself.

Prop 3: Children’s Hospital Bond Acts

Prop 3 would authorize the state to sell $980 million in general obligation bonds for the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of eligible children's hospitals.

My Vote: No.

Why: Sounds good but again it's obligating more state money (which we don't have) to build something.  We passed a Prop like this in 2004 as well.  We don't need to further increase California's financial obligation right now.

 

Find out more information for yourself.

Prop 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals

Prop 2 requires that cages or pens be used for calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs to allow them to lay down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and freely turn around.

 

My Vote: Yes.

Why:  Arguments against this prop seem to focus on an increase in the risk of food poisoning and bird flu as well as a potential increase in the cost of food.  After doing some more reading it seems to me the health risks are unlikely, especially the increase of bird flu.  I'm generally against "let's do this because it makes us feel good but it's a stupid idea" things and at first blush this seemed like one of those to me.  Further reading convinced me otherwise so I'll be voting yes on this Prop.  I’m okay with paying a bit more for my eggs if it means the animals are treated more humanely.

Get more information for yourself.

Proposition 1A: High Speed Rail Bonds

I’m going to work through each of the California Propositions here on the blog to give you my point of view on them.  I won’t necessarily go into depth with my thinking, but I’ll provide some basic information on the Prop, what it does, and my point of view on it.  You should do some research for yourself.  These Propositions are important – and while the Presidential Election gets all the attention these things are a big deal.

This measure would authorize the state to sell $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds to build a high speed rail system linking Southern California, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area.

My vote: No.

Why: While I like the idea of this railway, I can't see how California can afford it.  Our budget is already jacked up, our State is already spending too much money, and obligating us to build this railway is not going to help the situation.  Here’s a pretty compelling report on why this is a terrible idea.  Unfortunately the Prop is polling pretty well because as usual people think “oooh pretty train” and not “oooh billions of dollars to be spent.” 

Get more information yourself.

California Election Information

Go here to get more information on the Propositions coming up for us Californians to vote on this November.  The Presidential election gets a lot of attention but these Props will probably impact our lives more than (or at the very least as much as) the new occupant of the White House.

You can go to this site and read up on the various Props.  I will be posting my opinion on the Props later, but here’s a way for you to check them out for yourself:

http://citizenvoiceblog.wordpress.com/

Obama Song

Obama is going to save us all.

McCain and Fiscal Responsibility

Here’s an editorial discussing McCain’s talk about cutting pork and comparing it with his spending plans.  The author says McCain talks big about cutting spending, but if you look at his spending plans and compare it with his intended tax cuts (or even just a refusal to raise taxes) you are left with a growing deficit.  I’m not sure about this guy’s math (I have to look more into McCain’s specific proposals and compare them to Obama’s) but he raises the issue that I think may decide how I vote.  At the very least it will factor in to the decision.

I fully believe the Government already gets more than enough money, and it is incredibly wasteful.  If I had my druthers, Government spending would be cut and taxes would be lowered.  George Bush increased spending and cut taxes – hence our gigantic budget deficit and bloated national debt.  If McCain’s plans truly are cut-taxes-and-increase-spending then our debt will keep growing and our economy will not be the better for it.  As someone who desperately wants our Government to get smaller and for people’s attitudes to change re: Government’s role and responsibility, I don’t like having these two options:

1) Raise taxes and raise spending (Obama)

2) Lower taxes and raise spending (McCain)

 

I think both of the above approaches are bankrupt (hah) for different reasons, but neither are good.

Sarah Palin’s Speech

  I'm watching the Sarah Palin’s RNC speech right now and figured I'd take some notes as I watched through it.

I hate it when people say "pundints."  The word is "pundits" people.

Her kids are named Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig.  Bristol's been the pregnant one and she's there with her boyfriend, who looks a bit nervous.

She's introducing her family right now...boring...but I guess it helps people feel more like they know who she is.

Describing people in small towns as those who "run our factories, fight our wars, and are always proud of America."  It's a good applause line, but it does strike me that our country has done things we shouldn't be proud of.

"What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull?  Lipstick."  Lots of talk about the hockey mom demographic since Palin entered the race...not many of those around these parts.

"I guess a small town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."  Funny line, but as someone who's worked in a non-profit I know there are actual responsibilities present there.

Reference to Obama's mention of people "clinging to religion and guns."  She's definitely not being shy about going after the Democrats.

"I'm not going to Washington to serve their good opinion, I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this great country."  This is her in response to some of the criticism of her lack of experience in politics.  She says the right reason to get involved in politics is to challenge the status quo and change things for the better.  She's clearly framing herself as the reformer coming in from the outside, trying to take advantage of her lack of experience rather than avoiding it.

Discussing some of the stuff she did as Alaska Governor.  Eliminated private jet and Governor's personal chef.  Didn't feel those things were necessary.  Running through some accomplishments in reforming the oil industry and its hold on Alaska.

Saying we need to produce more of our own oil and natural gas to reach energy independence - drill in ANWAR.  They want to build more pipelines, more nuclear plants, move for clean coal, and build more renewable energy sources.  Sounds like a good plan to me.

"This is a man who has authored two memoirs, but not even a single law." re: Obama.  Again, taking clear shots - she herself is taking shots at his experience.  Pretty bold.

Making lots of comments about Obama as a celebrity and full of hot air.

Obama wants to increase the tax burden on the U.S.  He does - but unless we stop spending so much money that's necessary.  The solution is to stop spending money - are McCain and Palin up to that?  They say they are, but I'm not sure how possible it is.

"There are some candidates who use change to further their careers.  There are others, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change."  I'm pretty confident Obama isn't just trying to further his career - I think he really does want to effect positive change.

Haha - she said Harry Reid's quote "I can't stand John McCain" is the best proof they've chosen the right person.  Funny - but I think one of McCain's strengths is his experience in the Senate and ability to work with those on the other side.  They're trying to cast him as a total maverick, not something I think I buy.

The GOP is really hitting McCain's POW time hard tonight.  I respect him for it and think it's very admirable...but I think you can only reference it so much before it loses impact.

Overall she's coming across as a pretty good speaker.  She's not delivering the lines mechanistically and her voice isn't terribly grating.  She has the good "look of determination" thing going.  I'd say she did a good job overall and I enjoyed listening to her speak.  I'm sorting out the issues thing but she did a good job portraying herself as someone who is smart and capable.  There's more to see but I think she acquitted herself pretty well.