Nov
3
Fiscal conservatism used to mean that you actually worked to reduce the size of the government and reign in government spending. Although the Republican party still claims that they are the party of fiscal conservatism, they actually are just as bad as the democrats, if not worse. When Clinton left office we had a surplus, the last 8 years the US has spent in such huge deficit that it is hard to see our way out of it… but is now the time to reduce spending? I don’t believe so.
“There’s such a thing as a smart deficit” by Thomas Frank from Marketplace an American Public Media show.
Audio Podcast:
Transcript of Thomas Frank: This is one of history’s great paradoxes: Again and again we elect deficit-denouncing conservatives to office, and again and again they proceed to run up gigantic federal deficits.
Why do they do it? Well, for one thing, deficits allow them to reward their constituents; They can cut taxes for the very rich while sluicing money to politically-connected contractors.
For another thing, deficits allow the conservatives who piled them up to demand that social programs be cut, that government operations be outsourced, that Social Security be privatized.
And now we have a conservative Republican running for president who is outraged by the deficits run up by another conservative Republican. That candidate, John McCain, promises — and you guessed it — a balanced budget in his first term in office. After all, his campaign tells us that individual families don’t get to run deficits — they have to pay their bills on time, and therefore so should the federal government. So what we need to do is slam on the brakes.
McCain’s approach would be calamitous. The federal government isn’t a family; it’s allowed to run deficits when they’re called for, and believe me, they’re called for right now when we’re in recession and everything is contracting.
Maybe there’s another way of looking at the problem. Suppose we understand the current deficits that benefited the rich and the well-connected as stupid deficits that didn’t stimulate much more than the market for yachts and lobbyists. Smart deficits, on the other hand, would come from federal spending that gets the economy going again. Spending money on infrastructure, on stabilizing the housing market and on a massive energy independence program — that’s the kind of energetic and intelligent governing we so urgently need today.
Look, the alternative is to deliberately bring on some economic day of judgment. But the right answer to our problem is not to steer for an iceberg while shouting ‘every man for himself!’
Nov
3
Here is what I am thinking about for November 4 on a state level. The propositions can be found at the Secretary of State web site http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/.
Download a calendar reminder to vote: vote.vcs.ics
| Prop |
Decision |
Reason |
| 1A |
Maybe. |
SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT.
Phase I of the train project is the corridor between San Francisco Transbay Terminal and Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim. If the authority finds that there would be no negative impact on the construction of Phase I of the project, bond funds may be used on any of the following corridors:
- Sacramento to Stockton to Fresno
- San Francisco Transbay Terminal to San Jose to Fresno
- Oakland to San Jose
- Fresno to Bakersfield to Palmdale to Los Angeles Union Station
- Los Angeles Union Station to Riverside to San Diego
- Los Angeles Union Station to Anaheim to Irvine
- Merced to Stockton to Oakland and San Francisco via the Altamont Corridor
It is really greener alternative than flying and certainly faster than other land trasport. Although I don’t quite see the benefit to the San Francisco Transbay Terminal and Los Angeles Union Station with so many cheap (and struggling) airlines with flights but the rest of it would dramatically reduce peoples commutes. Also it is a little rediculous that they will start with a SF to LA. Why not do the local services first whch would have agreater impact. |
| 2 |
Yes |
STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS. I am concerned that prices will go up and the poorest of us will have to pay for our morality. |
| 3 |
No |
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BOND ACT. GRANT PROGRAM. Most of the money, 80%, will go to private hospitals that the state does not fiscally manage in anyway, while university hospitals will only receive a fraction of the nearly $2 Billion that the tax payers will end up dishing out over the next 30 years. |
| 4 |
NO! |
WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY. How many more times does special interest need to have this same measure put on the ballot! This is nothing more than yet another ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade and inhibit the ability for young people to get a safe and confidential emergency contraception. btw, this one is a constitutional amendment. |
| 5 |
Yes |
NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING,
PAROLE AND REHABILITATION. Rehab works much better than jail, and it costs the tax payers a lot less. |
| 6 |
No |
POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING. If it was just funding I would not even consider voting no but this looks to take away rights from people who don’t have the money to fight back. |
| 7 |
No |
RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION. When a green initiative does not have the support of the green party, the league of conservation voters or most other Eco conscious voting organizations, you have to wonder. |
| 8 |
NO! |
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Taking away right from a minority group in this great state of California benefits no one. |
| 9 |
No |
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. California alread has the Victims’ Bill of Rights which may not be adequate in all situations but I believe it will cost us a lot of money at a time where are spending way too much to begin with. |
| 10 |
No |
ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY.
BONDS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Don’t be fooled. This is corporate welfare for T. Boone Pickens and we will need to pick up the tab. It is was such a good solution, we would not need a ballot measure to raise the funds. |
| 11 |
Yes |
REDISTRICTING.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. It is to no one’s benefit to keep the districts setup to favor incumbents. The only concern here is that this new process could be less transparent than the current redistricting process. |
| 12 |
No |
VETERANS’ BOND ACT OF 2008. I am always in support of our veterans but which veterans would qualify? We are in fiscal crisis, isn’t this the Fed’s responsibility to raise these funds? |
What is your opinion?
Subscribe 
twitter/dm247
