2004 election thoughts (candidates, ballot measures)

[jrtom]

A somewhat detailed list of my anticipated positions on the ballot measures and candidates.

This is likely to be of direct interest mostly to those that also reside in California. I am actively soliciting commentary on any of these items--most especially those for which I have not yet posted my intended decision, or for which that decision is marked as "tentative"--and in particular on California Measures 60 and 62 (primaries).

As comments come in, I may edit (mostly append to) the existing entry, if my positions change.

There is a good chance that I will be voting absentee this year, so if you got sumpin' to say, say it soon. :)

I can't find candidate statements for the US Rep or the California Assembly/Senate candidates. Anyone?

Update:



I'm going to leave out candidates for which I have either little information or no particular preference.

• US President/Vice President: John Kerry/John Edwards.
  I doubt that this will surprise anyone. I'm willing to say more about my reasons if anyone cares, but I'd prefer to focus on the less obvious decisions.
  
• US Senator: Barbara Boxer (D)
  Bill Jones (R) authored the flawed "Three Strikes" law we're now hopefully fixing (see below). The American Independent candidate is a kook. The Libertarian candidate wants to ban public schools, and I'm not as convinced as he is of the essential beneficence of the free market; otherwise, I kind of like his approach. The Peace and Freedom candidate is nice, but fuzzy. (No Green candidate this round, oddly enough.) Barbara Boxer at least seems to generally be heading in the right direction.
  
• US Representative, 48th District: unknown; probably John Graham
  Update: still no statements from these candidates except the Libertarian (see below for similar).
  
• California Assembly, 70th District: Carl Mariz
  Update: Now that I've looked at http://smartvoter.org/svhome/2004/11/02/ca/state/race/caasm70/questions.html, it's pretty straightforward: Mariz is realistic, has a position I like on health care, and isn't running on sound bites; he actually seems to have thought about the issues and about what a voter would want to know about his positions on them.
  
• California Senate, 35th District: unknown
  Update: the only candidate that seems to have submitted a statement is a frankly rather scary Libertarian. (Yeah, why don't you tell me about the solutions that the private sector afforded to those without health insurance before the gov'mit got involved.) *sigh*
  
• City of Irvine Mayor: Beth Krom
  
• City of Irvine Council (<= 3 candidates): Sukhee Kang, Larry Agran, Debbie Coven
  There's been an incredible firestorm of advertising going on recently over these four elections. The gist seems to be that the four Republican candidates for these (nominally nonpartisan) offices are accusing the current (Democratic) mayor--who's running for City Council--of some kid of malfeasance in regards to a contract the city awarded. The Democratic candidates are making similar counterattacks, and bringing up incidents from a few years ago when one of the Republican candidates made false accusations and statements.
  At this point, I can't tell the truth of the matter without doing some investigation of my own, which I probably am not going to do. So my decision is based on the differences in the things that these candidates want to do (Republicans: be nice to businesses, Democrats: be more accountable to residents) as well as the things that they have done or opposed in the past (the Republicans specifically mentioned opposing the light rail project that would have made it a lot easier to get from the University to the airport, and which the Democrats supported).
  

Constitutional amendments are marked by a C.

Some personal biases:

• I tend to oppose constitutional amendments on principle. I believe that the purpose of a constitution is to outline fundamental principles on which to base the formation of laws, and to provide a context for the interpretation of those laws. I find that many ballot measures--at least in Oregon and California--are proposed as constitutional amendments for no better reason than to either (a) make them more difficult to get rid of or (b) give them a status that they don't deserve. My friend Alex's politics pages give some excellent examples of ridiculous amendments.
  
• California's debts are really, really bad right now (the band-aids applied recently merely postponed the problem rather than addressing it). So there are some otherwise really good ideas here that I'm feeling more hesitant about supporting than I would have, say, six years ago.
  
• I tend to oppose laws that say "we are going to collect money from this specific source and use it for this specific purpose" where the source and purpose have no apparent connection. It removes what is often a necessary flexibility, and often seems to have no other purpose than to increase the number of likely supporters of the law.
  

Framing question: does anyone have any idea what happens if two apparently contradictory amendments both pass? (Consider Measure 60 and Measure 62, for instance.)

Update: according to the voter's pamphlet p. 17, the answer is "only the provisions of the measure with the higher number of 'yes' votes...take effect". How...unexpectedly rational.

Another framing question: in several cases the "con" position seems to be taken solely by Gary Wesley, an attorney from Mountain View. Anyone know this guy or have any further information about him that doesn't come out in his arguments?

Legislative Constitutional Amendments

• 1A: Protection of Local Government Revenues. (C)
  
  No (tentative). I find this measure confusing, complicated, possibly overly restrictive, almost certainly problematic in that it seems that poorer areas might get screwed, and I don't see a compelling argument for it.
  
  
• 59: Public Records, Open Meetings. (C)
  
  Yes. It's a constitutional amendment, but the principle is important enough that I'm willing to overlook that. The only significant con-argument is by someone who felt it doesn't go far enough. If true, we can supplement this with further legislation later.
  
  
• 60: Election Rights of Political Parties (C)
  
  Don't know. I want to make sure that third-party candidates and independents have a real chance to be heard and elected, and I am concerned that the primary elections don't get enough attention for that to happen. On the other hand, I think that the arguments in favor are bullshit...and the arguments against only say that it doesn't go far enough. Finally, of course, it's a constitutional amendment.
  
  Update: probably Yes, based on comments from Richard and my response. This doesn't actually really change anything in current law, but puts the "each party in primary must be allowed representation in general election" clause into the constitution. I don't really think this belongs in the constitution, so if I vote 'yes' it will be as a strategic decision whose purpose is to try to make sure that 62 doesn't take effect even if it passes.
  
  
• 60A: Surplus Property. (C)
  
  Yes. It's a C, which hurts a bit, but we need to pay down those bonds ASAP. (Although I note that the amount of money involved is not likely to help much, we'll take what we can get.) Again, the only con-argument is that it doesn't mandate the sale of surplus property, which strikes me as extreme.
  

Initiative Constitutional Amendments and Statutes

• 61: Children's Hospital Projects. Grant Program. Bond Act.
  
  No (tentative). It's hard to argue against something like "our kids should have better health care", especially for one who (a) is about to become a father and (b) is the son of a pediatrician. But I want answers to three questions.
  
  
  
  • First, why is this being financed by a bond rather than reallocating existing funds, or raising taxes? (One of those has to happen eventually anyway, in order for the debt to be repaid.)
    
  • Second, why is none of this money going to actual care costs? It all seems to go to infrastructure.
    
  • Third, where are the arguments for what can be done with this money that can't be done otherwise? All the quoted statistics describe how well things are going in children's health care.
    
  
  
  
• 62: Elections. Primaries. (C)
  
  Don't know. See the comments on 60, above.
  
  Update: probably No, based on comments from Richard and my response.
  
  
• 63: Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding.
  
  Yes (tentative). Well, this passes the "it's not a constitutional amendment" and the "it provides funding for what it wants to do" and the "this seems like a reasonably worthwhile thing to do" tests. But I feel conflicted about the source of the funds. Saying "stick it to the rich!" is very appealing considering how much the rich/poor gap has been increasing--and even in California, those making > $1e6 are "rich" by my definition. But, you know, if inflation keeps inflating, eventually I'll be making that much money even if my buying power doesn't increase. (Historical income tables from the US Census data: note that it took about 45 years for median income to go up by a factor of 10--a little less than that for mean income.) It would make more sense for the money to come from increasing the tax rate for the top tax bracket, which (I assume) gets adjusted for inflation.
  Finally, I tire of this notion that whatever we want to do, we should always get someone else to pay for it: the rich, the poor, our children.
  
  
• 64: Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws.
  
  No. If the point were really to stop frivolous lawsuits--which I think is a good idea--then I don't see that it helps to make it harder to file lawsuits. I also suspect that the organizations who are against this measure are the ones that I'm more likely to agree with.
  
  
• 65: Local Government Funds, Revenues. State Mandates (C)
  
  No (tentative). Many of the same objections that apply to 1A, above.
  
  
• 66: Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment.
  
  Yes. As I see it, the purpose to "three strikes" laws is to get dangerous offenders off the street, where "dangerous" is defined (as I see it) as meaning "those that have a history of doing serious damage". The problem with the current system is that the "second strike" or "third strike" felonies need not involve damage to anyone. (I have my own concerns and questions about the utility and morals of putting people in jail, but that's a separate discussion.)
  
  
• 67: Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge. (C)
  
  No (tentative). Why the heck is this money coming from phone service, of all things? Furthermore, the argument seems to be "we're not getting paid for all the emergency care that we're giving out". Well, that's a shame. But, well, I hadn't heard that physicians and hospitals were exactly running short on money, especially as the provision of health care has become an increasingly profit-driven business. I'm also somewhat concerned that there's a hidden revenue generator in here that's going to blow up in someone's face (note that there are no caps on the surcharge for cell phones or small businesses). How does this $540M a year compare to the total yearly profits of these individuals and organizations?
  
  
• 68: Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions. (C)
  
• 70: Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State. (C)
  
  No. I'm handling these together, as my objections apply to both and they're fundamentally about the same thing: squeezing more money out of Native American tribes.
  Look, guys, first of all, we just made new agreements with these folks. Turning around and creating new legislation that invalidates those agreements is Not Cool.
  Secondly, and more fundamentally: in theory, these are sovereign nations. Sovereign nations that have, historically, been jerked around by the federal and state governments for the last few hundred years. To the extent that these nations use state resources, I believe that it is reasonable for the state to make agreements with these nations that get compensation for these resources. But these measures seem little short of armed robbery. I'm almost tempted to hope that they pass and that one of the reservations says, basically, "Go to hell" in response to these demands.
  
  
• 69: DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding.
  
  No. It might have got my vote except that, starting in 2009, you don't even have to be convicted of a felony in order to get registered, or even charged of one...just arrested. Nor am I convinced by the arguments that current analysis methods include "no genetic trait information"; as analysis gets cheaper and more convenient, it will. I don't trust this information to not be misused. Not yet, anyway...and certainly not in the current political climate.
  
  
• 71: Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds. (C)
  
  Yes (tentative). I don't like the constitutional amendment aspect, but I do think that this is basic research that needs to be done. I am also glad to see that the amount of money involved is an upper bound, i.e., we're not saying that we're going to borrow $350M/year, but no more than $350M.
  
  
• 72: Health Care Coverage Requirements.
  
  Yes. While I'm one-a-them radicals what would prefer a single-payer health-care system, this seems like a reasonable step. I'm also annoyed by the scare tactics being used by those that oppose it, which seem hauntingly familiar.
  Also, if I hear one more time that the government is incapable of providing quality health care, or any more jokes about "the bedside manner of the DMV", I'm going to be strongly tempted to punch the person saying it in the gut, and then introduce him to my father (who was a physician in the US Army for 20 years before retiring, and then went to work for a public state university's hospital--sounds like government to me, huh?). Or maybe the other way around. Point being, folks, that's the system I grew up in, and in my experience, it works fine.
  

Related posts:

Auros' analysis (more detailed than mine in some respects, esp. on 1A and 65)
Paisleychick's opinions (no analysis, but some useful/fun links)

Comments

If'n you're interested...

[auros]

I've posted my own conclusions on the Propositions, based on a discussion among about 20 people that was held last night, and crosslinked to this post (and the ensuing discussion).

Re: If'n you're interested...

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I read your LJ article earlier today; it was nutritious and crunchy. :) More usefully, it seems that you and I are generally in agreement, although...

...I still have reservations about 1A. (Thanks to your analysis and discussion, however, they're now much more informed reservations. :) )

...67 (phone tax->emergency rooms) still hurts. Part of the problem here is that our government can't decide whether health care is properly part of its responsibility or not. If government controlled health care directly, then it could just say "don't close the emergency rooms". If government had no influence over health care, then it couldn't require hospitals to accept patients to emergency care regardless of ability to pay.

As it is, basically this is a bribe to hospitals in the *hopes* that it will keep hospitals from closing emergency rooms. (Anyone know how the funding model of a hospital works? I should call my dad about this...) And my gut feeling is still that hospitals are sufficiently profit-generating machines now that giving them tax money is just silly.


Sorry I missed out on the discussion last night. Might have been more of a technical headache than it was worth to try to set up the videochat thing, though.

Anyway, thanks again.

hospitals and profits

[auros]

The problem is that while hospitals generate profits, emergency rooms in particular do not. And until we do come up with a complete scheme to direct gov't money into the healthcare system without just having all of it gobbled by crooked administrators at the HMOs, insurers, and private hospitals, we really do need to at least prevent people from dying, y'know?

In the discussion last night, I did bring up the idea of allowing things to get worse -- "heightening the contradictions", as political operatives say -- so as to shock people into finally accepting something more like the Canadian system. The two problems are that a) there's a large constituency that is impervious even to evidence in front of their own eyes, and b) I don't like the idea of literally sacrificing people's lives for that kind of cause. :-/

Re: hospitals and profits

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

If we're trying to prevent people from dying (from lack of access to emergency care) then perhaps we should pass legislation requiring hospitals to actually *have* an emergency room, rather than providing funding and hoping that they do. I strongly suspect that hospitals that claim not to have an emergency room still provide some kind of emergency care; closing the emergency room sounds like an accounting trick to get around the requirement to provide emergency services.

It's just not obvious to me that this is actually going to help. I should probably read the legislation more closely, though.

Re: hospitals and profits

[auros]

I suppose it's possible that a hospital with no "ER for legal purposes" -- i.e. an ER that would be subject to the mandate that forces them to treat uninsured people -- might still provide emergency care to the insured. And I think you're correct that this is basically creating a bribe to get places to keep ERs open to the uninsured (though the bribe does come with a certain amount of oversight and auditing attached). But, well, it's a band-aid until we get real national healthcare, and it's better than having the uninsured die in the streets. (This is much the same argument that's been used to persuade me in favor of the mental-health thing.)

Re: hospitals and profits

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I guess I could look at this as a way to make it easier to pass a mandate on providing emergency services (carrot first, then stick).

As for the mental-health thing...gah. As plymouth noted, my arguments against sound more convincing than my arguments for, which is especially ironic considering my current stated position of "yes". *sigh*