First - I am mostly over the flu. Yay for my immune system. Go team white blood cells!

Now, on to the election tomorrow. This will be a long post, because I am going to run down the ballot. Should be easy to skim however, if anyone is interested in reasoning on a particular ballot issue or state position. It's mostly just my own way to run through the ballot before I vote tomorrow, and maybe get feedback from friends if they care to enlighten me on something, or lend agreement.

Federal Issues (House and Senate): I have not checked the news lately (well, I have not done anything lately), so I just checked some of the polling news and was fairly surprised to read this from Pew: "Pew Director Andrew Kohut said the most significant change over the past two weeks is that Republicans now outnumber Democrats among likely voters". Say What? When did that happen? Last I checked (which was, well, about 2 weeks ago) Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a fairly wide margin. Wow. I guess the Republican get-out-the-vote machine is working well. Or maybe something happened in the news that I missed.  Or maybe Pew is wrong (not one of my top two favorite pollsters).

Well, I will stand by my now less-than-educated guess that the Democrats retake the House and the Republicans keep the Senate (perhaps with the VP being the tie-breaker). Whatever the result, I hope it means there will not be enough votes for a long and useless but paralyzing series of hearings about Bush. It was bad for the nation when it was done to Clinton, and it would be bad for the nation if it were done to Bush. Aside from that, I also hope it is close in both houses. Necessary compromise is usually better than any one party having too much power there.

State and Local Issues (governor, state positions, and propositions):

Proposition 1A. Transportation Funding Protection—State of California. Should the California Constitution be amended to further protect the state sales tax revenues for transportation purposes from general-purpose use and require any funds borrowed to be repaid to the transportation fund?

I think I am voting yes. I am tired of the transportation fund being looted by other departments. Our transportation infrastructure is breaking, and I'd like to see it repaired.

Proposition 1B. Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security—State of California (Legislative Bond Act – Majority Approval Required). Should the state sell $19.9 billion in general obligation bonds to fund state and local transportation improvement projects to relieve congestion, improve movement of goods, improve air quality, and enhance safety and security of the transportation system?

I am probably voting no. Despite what I just said about wanting to see the transportation system repaired, I don't think that system should be mixed in with things like "improve air quality". That's not the same issue, and may in fact be at odds with transportation improvement in some places. Nor do I think security should be thrown in there, as that is a federal issue that is seeing federal funding right now (much to the loud complaints of New York this year). I don't think we should spend $19.9 Billion is future taxes (which is all a bond is, delayed debt paid eventually by SOMEONES taxes) on that. Narrow the items and I am in favor - but not with that mish-mash.

Proposition 1C. Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006—State of California. Should the state sell $2.9 billion in general obligation bonds to fund housing for lower-income residents and development in urban areas near public transportation?

I am undecided on this one, and will have to read the text. If done right by spreading low income housing mixed along with middle class housing over a wide area, this can be good. If done wrong by focusing low income housing in bad neighborhoods downtown, this can be awful (just look at the projects in Chicago, or East Saint Louis, to see examples of awful results). If I don't get the time to read the full text, my default vote will be no.

Proposition 1D. Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities—State of California. Should the state sell $10.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund repair and upgrade of public schools, including kindergarten through grade 12, community colleges, and state universities?

I am unsure on this one. We seem to be dumping more money into that system every year, and getting pretty rotten results for it. On a dollar for dollar basis almost every other state in the US seems to be able to get better results for the money than California. I am wary about feeding a broken system even more. I'd rather see major changes to the system before spending more on it (like a major reduction in administration with simultaneous major increase in pay to teachers along with a more merit-oriented system for those teachers and an element of competition added to the system as further incentive). If a corporation were failing this bad, no bank or investors would give them more money without at least a promise to change the things that went wrong. I've seen no such promise - in fact I just heard the administrator-to-teacher ratio just went up again in California. No thank you.

Proposition 1E. Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention—State of California. Should the state sell $4.1 billion in general obligation bonds to finance disaster preparedness and flood prevention projects at the state and local levels?

I am voting yes. We've had some broken levies up in Sacramento for a while. Yeah, I know, it's nowhere near here. But it's our capital, and a levy system is a state-wide issue, not a local issue. We should act to prevent a Katrina-like disaster here, and spending this money now will save a lot more in the future.

Proposition 83. Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring—State of California. Should California amend existing laws relating to violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters to increase penalties and monitoring?

I am torn on this one. I know, it seems like a slam-dunk yes. But I am a big believer in crime and punishment. And the latter half of that implies that once you do your punishment, you don't continue to be punished - and this law would essentially a form of exile if it's what I think it is. Then again, I do think there should be more tools at the disposal of law enforcement to be able to prevent recidivism for these types of crimes. I'll have to read the text before deciding, and as usual if I don't find the time to read the text my default will be no.

Proposition 84. Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements—State of California. Should the state issue $5.4 billion in bonds for a wide variety of projects related to water safety, rivers, beaches, levees, watersheds, and parks and forests?

I need to see specifics on this one. That's a large figure for this kind of issue. If water safety means using state funds instead of federal funds to protect reservoirs from terrorism, then it's a bad idea. That's a federal issue, and the feds can (and will) fund it. And if protecting watersheds means spending millions on failed legal battles like the disaster that Playa del Rey turned out to be, then it's a bad idea as well. But if it's actually about cleaning parks, forests, rivers, and beaches, and getting more rangers, then it might be money well spent. Again...I have to read this one.

Proposition 85. Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy—State of California. Should the California Constitution be amended to require notification of the parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion?

I am probably voting yes on this one. I am pro-choice. But then, I am also pro-asprin, and teenagers cannot take asprin without parental permission as well, much less undergo a serious surgical procedure like abortion. I understand the concern about the cases of incest and fear of physical violence from bad parents, and I've read the protections in this proposed law to deal with those issues and I think those protections are very sufficient. It's really not that hard to get an abortion under this law as a teen without parental permission if you have one of those good reasons for it. A judge will grant the exception, and the public system has private advocates already in place to help a teen get that permission (in fact planned parenthood is one of those agencies that can help you get that exception).

Proposition 86. Tax on Cigarettes—State of California. Should the state impose an additional tax of $2.60 per cigarette pack to fund new and expanded health services, health insurance for children, and expand tobacco use prevention programs?

I am voting a big NO on this one. This proposition is a total fraud. I've heard enough interviews on this particular proposition so that I really do believe that money is so NOT going to fund those things the title lists. First, the bulk of the money is going instead to Rob Reiner's last failed program which he looted. Second, the "expanded health services" isn't things like rescuing failed emergency services, but it's funding an already bloated administrative system. The title might lead one to infer it has something to do with, say, lung cancer - but it does not. None of this money is slated to go to lung cancer. I don't like tobacco (except for the rare cigar - an industry this would put out of business in California by the way), but if we are going to tax tobacco again, it should go to fund something with more meaning - like lung cancer and emergency services.

Proposition 87. Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers—State of California.
Should California establish a $4 billion Clean Alternative Energy Program to reduce California’s oil and gasoline consumption by 25 percent through incentives for alternative energy, education, and training?

It took me a long time to come to a decision on this one, and I did a lot of research. I am voting no. First, it will raise gas prices because it decreases the amount oil companies will drill from California, which decreases the amount of local supply, which increases the amount of imported oil to California, which increases the price. So while the tax to the oil company does not "directly" increase the price of gasoline, indirectly it will. And does it matter if it is direct or indirect, as long as the result is the same increased price?

Second, there is no check on this system at all. You would think in a country founded on the principal of checks and balances that check would be in place in major new laws like this, but it isn't. This law creates a non-elected panel of people who can grant the money however they want - to their friends, their own companies, their family companies, whatever. And they don't have to produce any results. And they money MUST be spent year after year - even if every think tank on the planet agreed it was not being spent in a useful manner, it would still be spent. And there is nothing we could do about it. That's a bad system. If I am going to pay more for oil (and believe me - we will ultimately be the ones paying for this program), I want it to go to a system that has incentives to work, and has checks in place. This one does not.

Proposition 88. Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax—State of California. Should the California Constitution be amended to levy an annual $50 real property tax on most parcels with the funds allocated to five K-12 education programs?

I'm voting no. First, similar reasons to the earlier education issue - don't throw money at a broken system and expect it to get better when empirically more money doesn't lead to better results with that system. But second, property is already way way too expensive in this state, and sometimes over-valued from a property tax perspective. This is not the time to be slamming property owners even more than the real estate economy is currently slamming them (not that I have a lot of sympathy, but hey, I don't like kicking people when they are down).

Proposition 89. Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Limits—State of California. Should eligible candidates for state elective offices receive public campaign funding that is supported by new taxes on corporations and financial institutions, and should contribution limits be imposed on those candidates that do not receive public campaign funding?

I am voting no. Good idea, bad execution. I'd be willing to pay higher taxes to fund a better election system. But selecting corporations and banks to fund that system is a bad way to do it. It sounds all great - but the reality of taxing companies and banks is that they always (and I really mean always) pass that tax on to consumers through higher prices or worse service - or they leave the state. And since the poor are impacted far more than the rich from increase in a cost of living or a flight of businesses, it really means a tax on the poor. Try again next election with a general income tax or bond measure and I will probably vote yes. But not the way this one is worded.

Proposition 90. Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property—State of California. Should the California Constitution be amended to require government to pay property owners for substantial economic losses resulting from some new laws and rules, and limit government authority to take ownership of private property?

I am voting yes. Kelo vs. City of New London was a bad Supreme Court decision. The Takings Clause was never intended to be used to help property developers make a larger profit - it was for the State's use for building things like transportation systems that couldn't function without eminent domain. This proposition helps put things back to where they were supposed to be.

State Offices:

Governor

Arnold Schwarzenegger - He's going to win anyway, he gets stuff done, and he is starting to fix our infrastructure. Resistance is futile. Angelides has less charisma than my pet rock. Come on, you know you want to vote for Arnold.

Lieutenant Governor

Tom McClintock. I don't care what you think of his socially conservative views - those things are not relevant to the job of lieutenant governor. Here is what Lieutenant Governor does, in addition to being head of the senate (which is a figurehead position): 1) Higher education board member (UC and CSU); 2) Economic Development Commission; 3) World Trade Commission; 4) State Lands Commission; 5) Infrastructure Rebuilding; 6) Disaster Relief; 7) Agriculture; 8) The Census. You will note that none of those things have anything at all to do with social issues like abortion or prayer in school or stem cell research or any of the issues mentioned in the attacks against McClintock. And the reason those emotional issues are mentioned in those attacks is because McClintock is actually REALLY GOOD at doing all those difficult economic and bureaucratic jobs that need to get done to run the state well - the stuff a lieutenant governor does. John Garamendi, on the other hand, is a political hack looking for another government paycheck who did a half-assessed job as insurance commissioner, and with no experience at doing all those things a lieutenant governor does. You want to vote against McClintock for social reasons, then wait for him to run for Governor. But don't be prejudiced about someone's personal views on social issues if it has nothing to do with the job they are applying for. McClintock would do the job better than Garamendi, and that's what the vote should be about.

Secretary of State - I don't care.

Controller - I don't care, though I didn't like John Chiang's radio ads. Unnecessarily nasty, so I won't vote for him.

Treasurer - Bill Lockyer's done fine as far as I can tell. Hey look at that, I'm voting for a Democrat :)

Attorney General - Chuck Poochigian. Sorry Jerry Brown, but I just don't trust you anymore. You're too wacky for me, and remind me of Ross Perot these days (the bad Perot ranting about the FBI secretly crashing his daughter's wedding, not the good Perot ranting about lowering the debt).

Insurance Commissioner - Steve Poizner, because Cruz Bustamante is incompetent and much more likely to take bribes - I mean donations - from insurance company lobbyists than Poizner (who doesn't need the money). Two points to Bustamante for losing all that weight though - I'd buy his diet book before I'd vote for him.