Nov. 2 Statewide Ballot Initiatives

Prop 19: YES. I’ll be holding my nose and voting Yes on this one. I’ve mentioned before it makes my skin crawl to vote for something just so it can be taxed and regulated, but we have to do something to start moving away from the pot wars.

Prop 20: I might not vote on this one. I’d like to stay out of the argument that, if we just set up our districts right, the state will start being run correctly.

But, I noticed Eric Kirk is voting No on this one because he’s worried the Democrats could lose some seats in Congress should it pass. Maybe I’ll vote for it now? I’ll either stand aside or vote Yes.

Prop 21: NO. Paying for our vehicle registrations is already a problem for us. I’m not going to vote to make it $18.00 more difficult.

Prop 22: Standing aside on this one and not voting.

It sounds like a good idea to make it harder for the state to take money from cities and counties as they’ve done before, but it also can put the state in a situation where it can’t be flexible with its finances. No good way to vote on this one so I'll let the rest of you deal with it.

Prop 23: YES. This is the most important one on the ballot as far as I’m concerned. Common sense would tell you it’s foolish to vote to raise your utility bill up to possibly 60% above what it currently is.

Voting Yes doesn’t eliminate any air pollution laws and utilities would still be required to get 20% of their power from renewable sources, just not the 33% AB32 requires. You can still take advantage of wind and solar power should you chose to do so. You just won’t be forced to if you can’t afford it.

Prop 24: NO. This would eliminate some tax breaks for businesses. Taxes will likely be going up pretty soon, anyway. Might as well try to hold the line as best we can.

Prop 25: NO, although a Yes vote is tempting. This one changes the vote requirement to pass a budget from 2/3 to a simple majority.

This one seems rather silly to me as proponents say they'll still need 2/3 to raise taxes but a simple majority is needed just to pass the budget. What sense does it make to pass a budget if you can’t just as easily increase taxes to pay for any increases in the budget?

I suspect the proponents are being less than truthful and they’ll be able to increase taxes to meet their budget just by calling them fees, as some opponents to this initiative have suggested.

The temptation for voting Yes is simply to put an end to the Democrats pointing fingers at Republicans for the state of the state. They'd have the majority and could pass the budget with their majority alone. After that, they can run the state even further into the ground, if that’s even possible, and the blame will fall on their shoulders alone.

Prop 26: YES. This one will require 2/3 voter approval for the legislature to raise user fees. This is important since, if Prop 25 passes, the Democrats are certain to try to convert as many taxes as they can to “fees”. That way they can raise “fees” to cover their increased budget.

Prop 26 could help protect taxpayers from potential runaway spending. Well, maybe not runaway spending, but runaway taxing to pay for runaway spending as might happen if Prop 25 passes.

Prop 27: NO. I don't have much faith that any group of people would be less corrupt than the ones we have in Sacramento, but I'll go ahead and leave the job of gerrymandering to whoever sits on the redistricting commission. It's tempting to just stand aside on this one, though, as with Prop 20.

No On Props 2 and 10

I was already leaning strongly against Proposition 2. That's the initiative that will require farmers to give animals a certain amount of space to live in. With food prices already soaring, it would seem foolhardy to voluntarily raise food prices even further.

Eggs from hens grown cage- free already cost $1.00 more per dozen than caged, or so I've been told. If all egg producers were required to give hens more room, you can just imagine the ripple effect it would have. Eggs are a component of many other foods. If eggs go up in price, other foods will likely rise even more than they already have. At least now food manufacturers have the option of buying the cheaper eggs. If Prop 2 passes they won't, unless they ship them in from out of state.

This editorial against Prop 2 in yesterday's S.F. Chronicle pretty much confirmed my opposition to it. At the end they make the point that, if there are unintended consequences to Prop 2, the only way to rid ourselves of the law would be to pass another ballot initiative to repeal it. That's something I don't know that I'd considered before when thinking about ballot initiatives.

**********

The Chronicle also had a good piece on Prop 10 in their paper today. Worth a read, although I was already planning on voting NO on that one.

A Look At Prop 2

The Santa Rosa Press- Democrat takes a look at Prop 2 this morning. That's the one that will prohibit keeping chickens in small cages, among other things. The P-D also takes a look at Sonoma County's egg industry.

As I mentioned earlier on, I'm sympathetic to the issue, but not sure how I'll vote on that one. After reading those two articles I'm leaning pretty much against Prop 2.

First of all, the price of eggs will almost certainly go up- cage free eggs costing $1.00 more than caged as it is. Food prices are already soaring. Not something we need to help along by voting for higher prices. I'm also worried about all or part of the state's egg industry moving out of state should this proposition pass.

There's still time to hear more arguments for or against so I won't commit myself to a yes or no vote just yet.

How To Vote In November

I received my sample ballot in the mail yesterday so will assume most of you got yours as well. I also think it's safe to assume you're confused by the ballot and are asking 'Fred, how do I vote on all these issues?". 

Not to worry folks. I'm here to help, so grab your sample ballots and a pen or pencil and follow along with me as I go through all the candidates and issues. If you didn't get your sample ballot, a simple notepad should suffice. Here we go:

U.S. President/ Vice President- This should be a no- brainer although I'm sure some will disagree with me for various reasons. Johnson- Weld is the clear choice. What better time than now to vote for a third party with two horrific candidates holding places in the top two parties?

U.S. Senate- Lorreta Sanchez. I was surprised to see Libertarian Party's perennial U.S. Senate candidate, Gail Lightfoot absent from the ballot. I went to the California Libertarians Facebook page and asked what gives and was reminded this was the result of our new "top two" prmary where the top two winners, regardless of party affiliation, move up to the general election. Candidates not on the top two are tossed aside.

This is the sort of race I might well not vote in since there's no appealing candidate but I have heard positive things about Sanchez earlier on- her being a bit of a maverick of sorts and sometimes voting against her party line. She also wasn't the choice for her party's endorsement which is a good sign. That's good enough for me unless I hear something negative I consider disqualifying. And, in a two Democrat race, it wouldn't take much for that.

 U.S. Representative, District 2- I recommend Dale Mensing, the Republican candidate. I believe this is the guy that works as a cashier in a Safeway or Rays in Fortuna or Garberville. That may seem disqualifying to some, but I think we need more average working guy types in congress. His opponent, Jared Huffman, is a life long politician having spent his whole life- as best I can tell- in government. Huffman's "experience" is not the kind we need.

State Assembly, Dist. 2- Ken Anton, the Libertarian Party candidate is the clear choice here. A self- employed geologist earlier on, he's looking at bigger and better things. His campaign signs actually say "protect our freedom". How often do you see a candidate mention that? That's especially important in this day and age.

He's run for this position before and I'll have to say I admire him. He's not like the paper candidates third parties- LP Included- often run just to get someone on the ballot. He drives around and makes the campaign rounds. The day he showed up here to drop off some signs I believe he'd drove to Crescent City and then Trinity County putting some effort into the campaign. He also went to the expense of submitting a candidate statement for the ballot. Something many candidates don't bother with. A great candidate we're lucky to have.

Next in line is the Eureka City Council Member. For Ward 2, Heidi Messner wins by default since she was the only one left in the race. Good enough for me. While I don't have to, I'll still mark off her box on the ballot. 

Eureka City Council, Ward 4- John Fullerton is the clear choice. I'll admit his conservatism is of some concern, but others on the council should keep that in line. His experience as an accountant should be particularly useful when crunching numbers in the city budget. Most council folk likely have to consult with city staff to understand the numbers. Fullerton should be able to get a handle on them himself and perhaps anticipate future budget problems.

Next we have the state wide ballot measures, some of which confuse me as much as anybody:

Prop 51- School Bonds- No. I see no reason to throw good money after bad and, if you're a homeowner, this amounts to a tax increase.

Prop 52-Medical Hospital Fees- No.  this is the one they've been running TV commercials on with doctors and nurses supposedly urging us to vote for it. That's enough to get me to vote against it if only because doctors and nurses would be the last ones whose advice I'd follow for anything other than medical advice. 

Make no mistake. This is a tax imposed on medical care that's funneled into other medical uses. Best pay it up front rather than trying to pretend it's free money that just showed up somehow as the commercials try to suggest.

Prop 53- Revenue Bonds- Yes. This requires statewide voter approval before the state can issue bonds. Seems like a no- brainer, although I have little confidence in the average California voter to judge the legitimacy of those bonds. We need look not further than the passage of bonds for the high speed rail boondoggle to see where voting on bonds gets us.

Prop 54- Legislative Transparency-Yes. This would require the state legislature to publish language of any bills on the internet at least 72 hours before it can be voted on. Billed as a legislative transparency issue, this supposedly will help reduce instances of bills being snuck through the legislative process before anyone knows it was coming. Makes sense although I don't know that it will function as advertised.

Prop 55- Tax extension- No-This extends the "temporary" Prop 30 tax increases of years ago for 12 more years. We'll likely never get rid of this temporary tax increase if we don't do it now.

Prop 56- Cigarette Tax Increase- NO- Increases price of pack of cigarettes by $2.00. No brainer, although perhaps not for most of you. For one, despite being a smoker, I wouldn't vote for this one if I didn't smoke, as I think it's immoral to levy a tax on someone that won't apply to myself. This tax goes after the poorest in our society and thus those least able to defend themselves from tax increases.

Prop 57- Criminal Sentence and Parole Reductions- A grudging Yes- Just like I voted for Prop 47, I'll grudgingly support this one which reduces sentences for supposedly non- violent crimes. There's some question as to what crimes are considered non- violent under this initiative but I'm chalking that up to hype the the lock 'em up and throw away the key crowd. We can't just keep locking more and more people up, especially for non- violent crimes.

Prop 58- Bilingual Education- No- I actually have no idea what this one does but am following the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee's recommendations on it.

Prop 59- End Citizen's United- No- would force the state legislature to do what they can to ask the courts to overturn the Citizen's United decision. I don't have a problem with Citizen's United. Those that do are generally ones who want to limit businesses ability to spend money but not unions or others prone to support "progressive" causes. I say let everyone spend money for political purposes as they see fit.

Prop 60- Condom Requirement- No- Requires porn film actors to wear condoms. This is their business and the industry already has its own safeguards, although they aren't foolproof. If passed, this will likely add the porn industry to the list of businesses leaving California. 

Los Angeles passed its own version of this a while back resulting in a substantial reduction in film permit applications by the porn industry. Those businesses moved away from L.A. The Santa Rosa Press- Democrat has a good argument against Prop 60.

Prop 61- Prescription Drugs- No- Not too clear on this other than it being an attack on the pharma industry. As one newspaper recently pointed out, this could have the unintended result of raising drug prices.

Prop 62- Death Penalty Repeal- Yes- Replaces death penalty with life in prison. The death penalty seems unworkable in this state and has proven not to be a deterrent across the country. Innocents have been found to be executed. It's also been said it's more expensive to try and execute someone than just keeping them in prison for life, after all the appeals and such. Time to end the death penalty.

Prop 63- Gun Control- NO- This is Gavin Newsom's brainchild that wouldn't have stopped any of the shootings he uses as an example of the need for this law. Just another incremental attack on gun ownership that we've come to expect from Democrats.

Prop 64- Marijuana Legalization- ???- Those involved with the pot industry, or otherwise in the know, say to vote NO on this one as the result would be worse than the status quo. I'm tempted to vote Yes if only as a push back to all the arguments I've heard opposing. Besides, then I could grow my own pot. I might decide this one when I fill in my ballot.

Prop 65- Plastic Bag Revenue Redirect- No- Redirects store revenues from charges on plastic bags to environmental projects and other such things. This sets a bad precedent as those receiving the money will be encouraged to try and go after other sources of revenue or perhaps even levy more taxes that they can take advantage of.

Prop 66- Death Penalty- No- reduces the rights of defendants in death penalty cases in regards ability to appeal and such. Nope. Innocents have already been proven to have been executed. And we're talking about The State killing people. Those facing death by The State should always be allowed every option to defend themselves. Get rid of the death penalty and this wouldn't even be on anyone's radar.

Prop 67- Plastic Bag Ban- No. This is a referendum which means voters approve or cancel a previous act of the legislature. I hope I have this right but a No vote makes the plastic bag ban passed by the legislature null and void. A Yes vote continues it.

We need to stop trying to ban everything in this state. People make their livings making plastic bags and those "single use" plastic bags are anything but. I find them convenient for any number of uses. Vote No.

Whew! Now that was some typing. Now you're all ready for the election. Glad I was able to help. That's what I'm here for.

DON'T VOTE!

I agree at least in part with Jeff Greenfield that those who are still undecided as to how they'll vote should just stay home. I'll take it one step further, though: Don't vote unless you vote the same as I did.

I mailed my absentee ballot in last Monday. Here's how I voted:

U.S. President: Gary Johnson- No question the best choice, with a great track record of executive experience. If you'd like to vote for one of the other third party candidates, that's acceptable and there's no better time than now since Obama has the state locked up.

U.S. Senator: Elizabeth Emken- What's to say? Anybody but Feinsten, the authoritarian's choice.

State Assembly, Dist. 2: Tom Lynch- Clearly a better pick than Chesbro if for no other reason than Chesbro holds a good share of the blame for running this state into the ground. Lynch has also expressed interest in reforming state pensions which Chesbro is ill- equipped to do since he helped create that mess.

Eureka City Council, Ward 2: Wrote in Charlie Bean- Hey, it's just one seat on the council, but Bean deserves it for staying out of the Us vs. Them, Red vs. Blue fracas. The world won't come to an end regardless of who wins.

Eureka City Counci, Ward 4: Didn't vote- No reason to vote with only one person in the race. If I the incumbent had done something good, I might well vote for her as a sign of support, but nothing comes to mind so I'll leave that one blank.

Prop 30, Tax increase: NO- The Governor and state legislature have shown little, if any, sense of fiscal responsibility. Voting Yes would be akin to patting them on the back for a job poorly done and asking for more of the same.

Prop 31, Budget stuff: Didn't vote ?- I actually don't remember if I voted Yes, or didn't vote on this one. My Yes vote would have been in support of a two year budget cycle. Whatever.

Prop 32, Union dues paycheck withholding: YES- I was going to stand aside on this one but opponents convinced me to vote for it when they affirmed that union members wouldn't donate to their cause unless it was taken from their paychecks. If passed, union members get more of a choice but unions are still involved in the political process through varous PACs and such.

Will the unions still have as much money to spend? That depends on their membership.

Prop 33, Auto Insurance: Didn't vote- Six one way, half a dozen the other. I'll let everyone else decide.

Prop 34, Replaces death penalty: YES- If only to save all the money we spend enforcing it, although other reasons as well.

Prop 35, Human trafficking: NO- A solution in search of a problem. Main reason is this will clutter up sex offender list with yet more people that shouldn't be on it. Current penalties suffice.

Prop 36, Modify three strikes: YES- We need to do all we can to separate the wheat from the chaff in regards who spends life in prison, although I'm not sure this is really needed.

Prop 37, GMO Labeling: NO- More of an anti- business initiative than anything else. Also, crony capitalism could be argued as it's sponsored by organic and natural food producers trying to put the screws to non- natural producers.

Prop 38, Tax Increase: NO- We certainly don't need any more ballot box budgeting, which is what this is.

Prop 39, Out of state corporation taxes: Didn't vote ?- Here's another one I can't recall if I voted, or not. If I did, it would have been NO as all arguments I heard for it amounted to dragging out of state business down to the level of state owned businesses.

Prop 40, Referendum on redistricting: Didn't vote- Even proponents dropped their support of it. No biggie and no reason to vote one way or the other.

If you voted even close to how I voted above, especially for Gary Johnson and against the tax increases, I urge you to vote today. If not, stay home and stop ruining this state and country.

2008 Ballot Initiatives

I decided to take a peek at the initiatives that will be on the ballot this November. Looks like there are eleven,so far. Forgive me for shortening the titles:

Prop 1- High Speed Passenger Train Bond: I'll probably vote NO on this one if only because I nearly always vote no on bond measures.

Prop 2- Treatment of Farm Animals: This one will require farmers to keep animals in cages with enough room to move around a bit, so to speak. Proponents are upset with laying hens, for example, being forced to live in cages so small they can barely stand up. I'm very sympathetic to this issue but realize enforcement might have drastic consequences for some farmers. I'll hold off on making a decision on this one.

Prop 3- Children's Hospital Bond Act: Doesn't it seem that every election there's at least one thing you need vote for for the children? Another bond issue so likely another NO vote from me. I also have to wonder why we need a bond act for children's hospitals? What about hospitals for everybody else?

Prop 4- Waiting Periods/ Parental Notification/ Abortion: Back again, this one prohibits abortions to minors without parental consent within 48 hours, or some such. I'll probably vote YES on this one in support of parental rights.

Prop 5- Non- Violent Offenders, Parole and Rehabilitation: I'll hold off until I can get a clearer picture of what's involved. This will cost more money for prisoner rehabilitation programs but certainly rehabilitation is a worthy goal. However, I have to wonder if the programs we already have actually do any good? This does look like it will reduce sentences for some drug offenses, so that might be a good thing.

Prop 6- Criminal Penalties and Laws. Public Safety Funding: Looks like it will give more money to law enforcement and crime prevention programs. Also increases penalties for some crimes. I'll hold off on this one, too, but might vote NO on it.

Prop 7- Renewable Energy: Requires all utilities to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010. I understand even a number of environmental organizations oppose this one and think it's a bad idea. I'd likely vote NO on it, anyway, as I think requiring such conversions without considerations of the costs involved isn't a good idea.

Prop 8- Limit on Marriage: This is the one to alter the state constitution to define marriage in the state as only between a man and woman. Definite NO vote on this one.

Prop 9- Victims Rights: Another one of those things where the victim's rights are supposed to be considered during various phases of the criminal justice system. I'm curious if there's a problem in regards this issue to begin with? No Position, pending further info.

Prop 10- Bonds for Alternative Vehicles and Energy: Probably a NO vote as I can't help feel that this one, if passed, would end up funding any number of boodoggles after all is said and done.

Prop 11- Redistricting: This is the latest attempt to end the gerrymandering where all the state legislators drew the lines of their districts so they're virtually guaranteed re- election. I'll probably vote YES, or stand aside. I'm skeptical there would be any meaningful change with this one even if it does work as planned.

There's one more initiative pending signature count verification, as best I can tell. That one will require that school administrators can't be paid more than the highest paid teacher at the school. Don't know what to think about that, but I won't worry about it until the signatures are verified.

Taxpayer's League Recommendations

The Humboldt Taxpayer's League recently released their recommendations for the statewide and local ballot initiatives:

Prop 19: Marijuana- No Position
Prop 20: Elections- No Position
Prop 21: Park Taxes- No
Prop 22: State Spending- No
Prop 23: AB32 Suspension- Yes
Prop 24: Tax Breaks- No
Prop 25: 2/3 Vote & Budget- No
Prop 26: Taxes- 2/3 Vote for increased fees- Yes
Prop 27: Elections- No Position

Local Ballot Measures:

Measure N: Balloon Tract Rezone- Yes
Measure O: Eureka Sales Tax Increase- No
Measure Q: School Bond Measure- No

No real surprises there for me except maybe Eureka's Measure O. For some reason I figured they might support O since local gadfly and past League President, Leo Sears, came out in favor of it.

It's also good to see the League once again not take positions on issues they either can't come to an agreement on, or feel don't have anything to do with the League's mission.

I'll post my positions on issues and candidates sometime this week. I know you're all sitting there with your absentee ballots waiting for your marching orders from me. Please be patient. I've been lazier than usual as of late.

I've Cast My Vote

I filled out my absentee ballot yesterday. Not sure if I feel ashamed or proud for not standing aside on Prop 1A as I'd planned to do. I'd pretty much convinced myself to stand aside until the very last minute, when I voted YES on 1A.

My reasoning: As I wrote earlier, while 1A isn't the type of spending cap I think the state needs, it may be the best we can hope for in a Democrat controlled state. Compounding the problem are efforts to get rid of the 2/3 majority requirement to raise taxes. Many leftists and even some misguided middle- of- the- road types are behind efforts to remove the 2/3 requirement.

I'm thinking efforts to remove the 2/3 requirement will be successful, eventually. If that happens, there'll be hell to pay as taxes and spending will likely go through the roof without some sort of protection. While it may not be a spending cap, Prop 1A will be the closest thing we'll have to one and we definitely need something to protect us from out of control taxing and spending that we may be facing.

*******

As far as the others:

Prop 1B was an easy NO vote, if for no other reason than it will throw even more money at the schools. Funding for education has increased every year for decades, yet still we have nothing to show for it and are told we're not spending enough on schools. This goes on whether enrollments are up or down. Enough is enough. A rainy day fund should be used for rainy days, not for throwing even more money at the schools.

Prop 1C was a fairly easy NO vote. I don't have a problem with using lottery funds for general government, but borrowing the money to only have to pay it back with interest will likely just make things worse. We have more than enough debt to pay off as it is.

Prop 1D& E I'll link together because they're similar and I think the idea behind them has at least some merit. These measures take money from certain programs and divert them to the general fund, if necessary. What the heck. I don't have a problem with that. My main concern is that supporters of the affected programs would simply try the same thing, again, that they did to get funding in the first place: Raise another tax.

No way to say for sure if they would do that but I'll use these two issues to find common ground with the Republicans, the Humboldt Taxpayer's League and a host of others with their temper- tantrum voting this election and voted NO on both of them.

Prop 1F was an obvious YES vote. The least significant of all the propositions, I've yet to hear one halfway decent argument against it with the exception of Eric Kirk's. His argument centered along the lines of our legislators not being paid enough. Not that I necessarily agree with him, but it was the only argument I've heard that rose above the temper- tantrum level.

So there you have it. Now you know how to vote. If you haven't done it yet, fill in the blanks on your sample ballot and on May 19 go in and vote for The Freddy!

My Letter

I wrote a letter to the Times- Standard some weeks ago in rebuttal to a My Word column they published opposing Prop 23. I've seen at least two other letters in the T-S opposing Prop 23 since then but none supporting it, including mine.

So I'll publish mine here, changed slightly from the original I sent in:

Prop 23 doesn't roll back any of our air quality laws except AB32 and it only suspends that one until the economy recovers.

Prop 23 will save everyone money. Even opponents of Prop 23 admit we'll likely see increases in energy costs of up to 60% as we are forced to buy more of our energy from renewable sources and heavy fines are levied against companies exceeding CO2 limits.

Prop 23 won't stop you or your community from using solar or wind power should you chose to do so. It just won't force you, as AB32 does, to use expensive renewable energy you might not be able to afford.

Here in Eureka we're facing a possible 50% increase in our water and sewage bills. We'll also likely be seeing increased food costs soon as Prop 2 (cage free eggs) is implemented. Along with that and any new taxes coming our way, do you really want to see up to a 60% increase in your electric bill?

I don't, so I'm voting YES on Prop 23.



The Santa Rosa Press- Democrat published a nearly identical version of the letter I sent to the Times- Standard within a couple days of me sending it in, but it only made the online "extra" letters.

November Ballot- Part 2

On to the statewide ballot propositions:

Prop 1- 7.5 Billion Water Bond- Yes: I'm not really satisfied this isn't, or won't be, filled with a bunch of frivolous spending, but water infrastructure development is needed and this seems the best we can do.

Prop 2- Creation of a Budget Stabilization Account- Yes: I believe this will create an account to pay off debt and for use when state revenues drop- the often talked about Rainy Day Fund. I'll go along with it.

Prop 45- Health Insurance Rate Changes- Not Sure: This will requires the Insurance Commissioner's approval before any changes are made to health insurance rates. Seems to me we already have enough government involvement in health insurance rates. Not sure if this might not make things worse. If I don't vote NO, I'll stand aside.

Prop 46- Drug Testing for Doctors, Malpractice Award Increase- NO: The three separate actions this initiative would achieve should be reason enough alone to vote NO. They should be separated into three separate initiatives so you can choose each proposal on its own merit. Mixing a bunch of stuff together in hopes that the voter might vote Yes because of one is wrong.

Aside from that, we need more doctors in this state, not less. Telling them if they'll be subject to piss tests if they practice in California will give them one more reason to open their practice in some other state.

Prop 47- Felonies to Misdemeanors- A grudging Yes: I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of reducing criminal charges as a way to keep people out of jail. Then again, I'm one who has said time and again people shouldn't be arrested for simply eating, drinking or smoking things. I guess I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't go along with this. 

On the other hand, if someone is a career petty thief, or some small time crook, I'd prefer they spend as much time in jail as possible. I don't know that it matters whether they're charged with a felony or misdemeanor. I want them locked up where they can't prey on us.

Prop 48- Indian Gaming- Not Voting: This has something to do with approving gaming compacts between the state and some indian tribes. I really don't care about the specifics. I'm tired of hearing about indian casinos and all the back scratching between the casinos and politicians, local and statewide.

Almost makes me sorry I circulated petitions for the original indian gaming initiative that made it legal in the first place. But I'm not. If the indian tribes want to open casinos, they can have at it, but it should also be available to everyone else. Then again, even if everyone had the right to open casinos, I'd still be tired of hearing about it. I'm as tired of hearing about casinos as I am of hearing about pot all the time.

Local Measures:

Measure P- Countywide GMO Ban- NO: A solution in search of a problem. Meant as a slap in the face to Monsanto and other large businesses more than anything else.

Measure Z- Countywide Sales Tax Increase- Not Voting: A half cent sales tax increase throughout the county to help bolster the county coffers. I might not mind too much if I thought this was the only tax increase we'd be seeing on the ballot in the foreseeable future. It's not, and it won't be. 

I suspect this tax will also apply out of county when you buy large objects such as appliances and automobiles as Eureka's sales tax does. That's just plain wrong. Why I'm not voting instead of voting NO I'm not sure I can explain. I guess I'm happy to let the rest of the folks in the county fight it out and I'll stand aside.

City of Eureka's Measure Q- .5% Sales Tax Extension- NO: I'll vote No on this one if only because I think it's very wrong that it applies outside the city limits for larger purchases. Measure Z gets half a pass in that regard. This one doesn't.

Aside from that, as with Measure Z, there are too many taxes on the ballot now that will probably pass and likely more to come in the next few years. Things are expensive enough and I'm getting worried about being able to make ends meet. These taxes are just a small part of that but they will make things worse. 

And none of these taxes do anything to deal with the largest part of the ever growing drain on city and county coffers: Public employee pension and health care costs.

City of Eureka Measure R- Minimum Wage Increase- NO: Increases minimum wage to 12 dollars only in the City of Eureka. Another attempt at a slap the face of business. 

This puts Eureka, a depressed area needing all the new business it can get, at a disadvantage to all the other areas of the county. It will also make it harder for those of us relatively unskilled laborers to get jobs. The last thing we need.

The state has already raised the minimum wage and will raise it again next year. That should suffice.

City of Eureka Measure S- Eureka City Schools Bond- NO: Not sure what the term of this bond will be but even if 20 years I'm suspicious. They'll be using the money for some legitimate repairs, or so they say. They're also using it to upgrade technology systems. 

I can't see taking out a 20 year loan for equipment that likely won't last anywhere near the length of time to pay back the bond. We'll end up being asked to pass a new bond for newer equipment while still paying off the old bond.

Feds Threaten CA over Prop 19

I'm sure many of you have heard by now that officials in the Obama Administration are threatening to take the State of California to court should Prop 19 pass on November 2. I've heard some people suggesting this, and the fact Prop 19 is contrary to federal law, are reasons we should vote against Prop 19.

I strongly disagree. If anything, this is a reason for people to vote for Prop 19. The feds shouldn't be dictating law to the states and they shouldn't interfere with state laws at all, unless those state laws violate the civil rights of that, or another state's, citizens.

I say vote YES on Prop 19, if for these threats alone. Let the feds take us the court and let the battle be joined!

Prop 8 Repeal Petitions Available

At least one group has went ahead and had their initiative to repeal Prop 8 approved by the Secretary of State. This, after what I'd thought was the consensus of most Prop 8 opponents, that it was too early to work for a repeal of the law. I felt the same way myself but, with the effort being made, I suppose I'll go ahead and see if I can get a few signatures.

The petitions are available in .pdf format on the Sign For Equality web site. I like it when they make the petitions available to be printed out on standard 8 1/2 x 11 paper. They may not hold as many signatures as those on legal size paper but they're easier to print and more likely to be filled out and sent in.

Printing is a little problematic for me right now. I finally went and bought a few legal size (8 1/2 x 14) sheets of paper about a week ago to print out some of those petitions for the decriminalization of marijuana only to find out my printer was out of ink.

It's kind of an iffy proposition to buy another ink cartridge for this old Canon printer as the mechanism that holds the cartridge in place often falls apart when you try to install a new cartridge and it can be difficult to put it back together. If we can't put it back together, the money spent on the cartridge will be wasted.

We need a new printer but can't really afford it. Maybe I'll go ahead and take a chance on buying a new ink cartridge for this old one so I can get these petitions printed out.

It's Over

Well...almost. Looks like we'll have to wait a while to see who wins the contest for Eureka Mayor. The Times- Standard seems to suggest Bass is already the winner with the Eureka Reporter saying it's too close to call.

Seems to be the same with the Neely- Flemming race, with the T-S giving the win already to Neely.

One thing's for sure; With the close votes in all the Eureka races, Eureka is a sharply divided community. Of course, there's still no way of saying what people are divided on. Some people might well have voted for one candidate or another simply because they got to shake one candidate's hand.

As an aside, one good thing about close vote counts like this is the winners certainly can't claim any sort of mandate. If it's one thing that raises the hair on this libertarian's head, it's when I hear any politician say he's got a mandate.
********

Oh, and time to take all the yard signs down folks. I actually blew it and took mine down this morning. I usually take them down as soon as the polls close, but I fell asleep on the couch and never got around to it. Let's get those signs down.
********

One thing frustrating about being a third party voter is getting quick election results. Most media tend to ignore third party election results, some not reporting them at all.

Not that it really matters, as we know we're not going to win anyway. But, unlike major parties, third parties can lose status as a state recognized party if they don't get high enough vote counts in statewide races and they don't have enough registered voters in their party.

I can never get this down right but a party has to get something like 2% of the total votes cast in at least one statewide race to maintain ballot status.

The Peace and Freedom Party lost their status a few years ago by a low vote count, then regained it the next election, but that was due mostly because of low voter turnout thus making the overall vote count lower.

I just checked the Secretary of State web site and it looks like they made it again this year with their State Controller and Insurance Commissioner candidates getting over 2%.

The Libertarian Party seems to have made it again, too, with a few candidates getting 2% or more of the vote. State Treasurer candidate, Marion Smithson, got 4%(!). Go figure.

She was one of a few of our candidates that had no campaign web site and didn't campaign, at least not enough to speak of, although she did have some sketchy information on the League of Women Voter's Smartvoter web site.

I was actually considering not voting for any Libertarian candidates that didn't even at least have a rudimentary campaign web site. I'm getting a little tired of paper candidates. In the end I ended up voting straight Libertarian in all the state wide races, with the exception of voting McClintock for Lt. Governor.
*********

Tom Reed, LP canidate for State Assembly, got over 4% of the vote. That's about what's to be expected up here, in a three way race. If there'd been another candidate he'd likely have gotten half of what he got, at least that's the way it usually works.
*********

A couple pleasant surprises in the propositions, with the tobacco and oil taxes going down in flames. On the downside, looks like we've acquired a bunch of new debt with more bonds being passed.

I know Eric and Heraldo will be sleeping easier with Prop 90 failing. I figured it would, despite polls saying otherwise. I ended up voting for Prop 90, if for no other reason that, with so many organizations saying the end of the world as we know it would occur if it passed, it must be worth voting for.

No biggie, since I almost chose not to vote either way in that one.
*********

Oh, and I agree with the Times- Standard editorial regarding the Marina Center people hanging out at the precincts. What were they thinking? I'm sure the accusations of hostility are overblown. Regardless, they should have at least been a little more incognito and not worn the Marina Center shirts while taking care of business.
*********

So, it's over. We'll still be hearing some more about all this as the recounts continue, I would think. After that, what will we talk about?

Oh, and for those of you that don't visit the other blogs all that often; Our very own, Richard Marks, says he'll be running for State Assembly in 2008. That ought to be fun to watch.

Good luck, Rich, but how you think you're going to beat Wes Chesbro in the primary when the local Democrat machine wouldn't even support you against two Republicans in the Board of Supervisors race is beyond me.

Godspeed. You've got your work cut out for you.

My Ballot

I've had my absentee ballot sitting on the table here for some time. I guess it's about time to fill it out and send it in. It looks like there will be more blank spaces than votes on it this time around.

Starting off with the state wide offices, that's a rather boring one, being a registered Libertarian Party voter. No contested primaries for any of the offices. I'll go ahead and check the box for the candidates that are running, though, and the LP has candidates for all the statewide offices.

Superintendent Of Public Schools is one race that I've paid no attention at all to. I'll Stand Aside, as the Greens put it, on that one and not vote for anyone.

County Tax Assessor- Mari Wilson: No bad candidates in this one. I felt sorry for Johanna Rodoni as she was walking around my neighborhood campaigning all by herself. She even came back alone to put a couple signs in my yard. But, I think I'll be voting for Wilson, the current Assistant Assessor.

No real strong reasoning for that choice except that I do like to see someone who has put in a lot of years in a department be able to make it to the top, assuming there's no reason she shouldn't and I've heard nothing negative about her.

Auditor- Controller- Joseph Mellet: An important position but, again, another one of those races I've paid absolutely no attention to. Since Mellet is currently working with that department, I'll let him take a shot at the top position.

Coroner- Uncontested, so Stand Aside.

County Clerk- Uncontested, Stand Aside.

District Attorney- Allison Jackson: I feel she's the most qualified with the most experience and has a prosecutor's mindset. I say that with some trepidation as overzealous prosecutors can be as big, or worse, a problem as incompetent ones.

Still, when you're looking to fill a District Attorney slot you want a prosecutor. It seems a bit strange to me that some local defense attorneys are backing the incumbent. Maybe he makes their jobs easier for them?

That said, I think Gallegos' heart is in the right place, albeit misguided at times. I simply can't get myself to vote for someone that I feel is of average to below- average ability. Not for District Attorney, anyway.

Sheriff- Mike Downey: No question in this one at all. Downey is a humble, live and let live, unassuming type guy who fits in well with the county. He's worked for the county for decades and wants to continue doing so. He's definitely the best fit for the office.

Mike Hislop is all about Mike Hislop. He just wants the job to fill his rather large ego. He's never worked for the Sheriff's Office and knows next to nothing about it.

Treasurer- Uncontested so Stand Aside.

Board of Supes, District 4- Unsure: This is clearly a Stand Aside or None Of The Above contest, from a libertarian standpoint.

I'm thinking of going ahead with a Bass vote if only to punish Bonnie Neely for actively campaigning for George Clark in the last Eureka City Council race. That was a race she needn't have gotten involved in but chose to in order to pander to the fringe left. Very poor judgment on her part which deserves at least some response from me.

See? My reasons for voting can be as frivolous as the next guy's.

State Measures:

Prop 13, Limits of Property Tax Assessment: Yes.

Prop 14, Blanket Primary: NO. This is downright silly. I'm not sure that voters should be able to vote in another party's primary in the first place. That said, I can see how some would want a better consensus or middle ground than the current system, but this makes no sense.

Putting all the candidates on one ballot and then only being able to vote for one of them? That makes no sense to me although it would probably save me the hassle of voting in the General Election since the two candidates likely to end up winning the primary would also probably be crapola to a libertarian.

It would make more sense to me, assuming we're gonna cross party lines in a primary, to have the voter choose their favorite candidate in each party. So, I'd pick my favorite Dem, Rep, Green and so on. That assumes those parties were having contested primaries. If you did it that way it might make sense and we might arrive a little closer to some middle ground in who ends up being elected. The way they're doing it on this one is just plain stupid.

Prop 15, Publicly Funded Elections: NO. This would require candidates for Secretary of State to demonstrate voter support by raising a certain amount of money. Then the state would finance their campaign.

I don't like the idea of the state restricting campaign finances to only state monies. It leaves elections too open to manipulation by politicians.

Prop 16, The PG&E Thing: Stand Aside. I'm awfully tempted to vote Yes on this one but I'll let it go. It doesn't ban local governments from getting into the power business, but it makes it more difficult for them to. That might be a good thing, though. Still, a 2/3 majority requirement seems a bit much. If it only required a simple majority of voter approval, I'd definitely vote Yes.

Prop 17, The Car Insurance Thing: Stand Aside. This is one of those glass half empty, half full ones. You folks can vote on it and I'll just watch.

Bush/Obama Inflation Coming?

It certainly will eventually, but it's hard to say how much that's playing a part in what's happening right now. First we have CNN reporting that inflation in developing countries will cause higher prices in the U.S. That also allows companies here some wiggle room to raise their prices.

The New York Daily News is reporting the same thing and adds that, despite the down economy, companies will likely have to raise the costs of nearly everything. So much for the notion that you don't have inflation in down economies.

The scariest part of this to me is that we don't know how much of the inflation in this country is the result of the Kirkian/ Zimbabwe style policy of printing more and more money as we've been doing for some years. To quote that CNN story, "The fall in the dollar and the rising commodity prices are the reason to worry,...".

So, the fall in the dollar? That can happen when you print more and more money. How much of what's happening right now is a result of printing money or are the effects still to be seen?

In California we'll likely take a double whammy, mostly self inflicted, since prices for food and energy were already expected to rise because of Prop 2 (cage free eggs) and Prop 23 (failed to suspend AB32). I was already worried about that. Now it's looking like it's happening sooner and might be worse than expected. I've already been seeing higher prices for food and I'm scared to death.

The June Ballot, Part 1

The sample ballots aren't out yet, but I was checking the League of Women Voter's Smartvoter web site to get an idea of who is running and what ballot initiatives will be on the table. Keeping in mind this is only a primary election, the state and congressional elections come down to who might be on the ballot come the general election.

Some races have multiple candidates and there's not much info available on a lot of them. I was surprised to see only one Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot. That's in the Attorney General race. Goes to show how far the LP of California has slid over the years. We used to have candidates in most races back in the day. Registration in the party is up, but candidates are almost non- existent. Oh, well.

U.S. Representative, 2nd District. Choices are Democrat Jared Huffman, incumbent. Republican Dale Mensing and Democrat Andy Caffrey. 

I'll likely vote Mensing as I would never vote for Huffman. Not much that I can find about Mensing. 

State Senate, 2nd District: 
Democrats Mike McGuire and Derek Knell. 
Perennial Republican candidate, Lawrence Wiesner 
and what seems to be an unaffiliated Harry Lehmann.

I won't vote for Mike McGuire. From what little I've read about him he sounds like a Huffman clone. Problem is, Republican Wiesner campaigned as War Party back when ran for congress. That doesn't matter now as this is a state race. In the past, when he ran for congress, unless there was an Libertarian candidate in the race, I haven't voted. Not sure what I'll do now. Maybe take a close look at Harry Lehmann?

I don't believe Harry Lehmann is the same Lehman that dropped out of this race earlier on. Who knows? Maybe the guy is a closet libertarian. I've seen that before.

State Assembly, 2nd District: 
Democrats Jim Wood and John Lowry, 
Republican, Matt Heath
Perennial Green Party candidate Pam Elizondo.

Pretty sure I'll go with Matt Heath. It doesn't much matter what his issues are as the Republicans will likely be a minority in the state until the state collapses. 

Pam Elizondo is the wild card in that race. For me, anybody that would wear a sweatshirt to a candidate forum is ok in my book. Unlikely I'd vote for her, though, unless Heath says something really dumb. Even if he does, so what? He'll still be in an ineffective  minority.

 Governor:

Too many candidates to list here and, again, no Libertarian Party candidate. I won't vote for Jerry Brown. I don't think he's all that bad- probably your average California governor- but his insistence on following through with the high speed rail boondoggle gives him an F with me. 

I don't have much of a problem with either of the two best known Republican candidates,Neil Kashkari or Tim Donnelly. I'm also more than open to any of the other Republicans. I'll wait and see if anyone gets me even remotely excited.

Lieutenant Governor:

Too many to list here. Ron Nehring is the only Republican name that rings a bell but I don't recall what news I've read about him. I won't vote for Gavin Newsom. He strikes me as just power hungry. And there's always that Americans Elect candidate, Alan Reynolds. It might be worth looking into him, although I'm a bit suspicious of these populist new party types.

Secretary of State:

Former Republican but now unaffiliated Dan Schnur caught my attention the other day. I'll keep him in mind. The others I don't know anything about and they're not saying!

Controller:

Probably Ashley Swearengin.

Treasurer:

Going with Greg Conlon the Republican who also happens to be a Certified Public Accountant.

Attorney General:

Plenty of candidates in this one, too, so I'll likely throw away my vote on the Libertarian Party candidate, Jonathan Jaech.

Insurance Commissioner:

Quite honestly not sure just what the issues will be here. I can't think of any beef I have with incumbent Dave Jones, but maybe that's cause I wasn't paying attention. I'll have to come up with a reason to vote in this one.

Board of Equalization, District 2:

Probably Republican James Theis, or not voting.

State Superintendent of Schools:

Not voting, unless I catch a candidate forum sometime and one of them impresses me.

Ballot Initiatives:

Only 2 it seems,

Prop 41: Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Bond Act of 2014

NO, if only because I'm fed up with the idea of veterans being victims- our latest entitlement group. They already get all kinds of benefits. Besides, didn't we pass a similar veteran home loan bond not long ago?

Prop 42: Public Records. Open Meetings. State Reimbursement to Local Agencies

Looks like this requires local governments to comply with state public access laws, but eliminates reimbursement from the state for the costs of compliance. Sounds like an unfunded mandate to me, but the idea of more open government is certainly a plus. I'll wait and see what arguments develop for and against this one.

That's it for state races and issues. Part 2- local races- is next and will be much shorter.

Sonoma To Lose Largest Egg Farm

Eventually, according to one of the partners at Sunrise Farms, Sonoma County's largest egg producer.

The Press- Democrat looks at the future of egg farming in Sonoma County. I was surprised to see the farm would just wind down operations rather than move out of state.

Of course, the mouthpiece from Prop 2 says the guy's full of crap. Seems to me that's pretty much like politicians telling businesses what will or won't work. We'll see what happens as time goes on.

Anybody But Huffman!

It should be no surprise that I hate Democratic congressional hopeful Jared Huffman's guts. If there's a piece of nanny state legislation in this state, Huffman's been either a sponsor of, or at least voted for it.

His crowning achievement is probably the "Egg Safety Act", or something along that line, that essentially shuts off the flow of eggs from out of state unless they meet California's "cage free" standards. When Prop 2- that cage free egg initiative- fully takes effect and the price for a dozen eggs goes to $4.00 or more, you'll have Jared Huffman to blame.

I don't know that North Korea even does that sort of thing. We should be in a shooting war over this, since it literally takes food from people's mouths.

Huffman must be defeated. A tall order as he seems to be the favorite in this Authoritarian state and district. The only chance for defeating him lies with the Republicans, but not in the way some might think: The Republicans need to come together in force and back another Democrat in the primary.

A fairly prominent local Republican pointed out to me a while back they have a good chance of getting their candidate into the general election, despite the new blanket primary. With so many Democrats in the race, their vote will be split. With 30% or so of the registered voters being Republicans, that might well be enough to get Republican Dan Roberts into the November runoff. Except Dan Roberts has little, if any, chance against Huffman.

The Republicans need to join together and support the other Democrat most likely to win. That looks to be either be Susan Adams or Stacey Lawson. If they do, perhaps we can get one of them into the runoff. Then there's a decent chance of winning if the Republicans all back the anti- Huffman candidate.

The only downside to my proposal is that it assumes the Republicans won't back a proven authoritarian like Huffman. It also assumes Republicans would be willing to put aside their fraternal ties to the party and think of the bigger picture.

Those downsides are pretty big as I've found Republicans have their fair share of Authoritarians who might support Huffman because he "gets things done". I've also found most Republicans- at least the ones I know- are fraternal above all else, including issues.

Things don't look good under even my proposed scenario and the bad guy will likely win again.

Food Prices Climbing

Scary article from the San Bernadino Sun on rising food prices. I've certainly noticed it myself. One example is oatmeal. The 42oz containers I regularly buy used to cost around $1.80. Now they're something like $2.40 to $2.60, if memory serves me.

There's one guy in that article that predicts additional increases in prices up to 25%. Yikes!

California will likely be worse than the nation as a whole in a few years. When Prop 2- that cage free eggs initiative- takes full effect, egg prices should go up considerably. Since eggs are a fundamental part of many foods, other food prices will likely rise.

And don't look to imported eggs to save the day. Jared Huffman- the same sleazebag we have running for congress- sponsored a bill that was signed into law that shuts off the import of eggs into the state unless they're also grown cage free- something I don't think North Korea even does.

Things don't look good.

Yes On Prop 16?

This was one I was leading toward standing aside on. Now, I'm pretty sure I'm voting Yes on it.

Prop 16 is the one that would require a 2/3 vote for a local government to enter the retail electricity business. It doesn't prohibit governments from selling gas or electricity, as I've been hearing many opponents suggest. It just requires more than a simple majority vote for a local government to do so.

The Orange County Register made their case today as to why, while not perfect, Prop 16 is worth passing.