Category: Politics

Question: who was the only incumbent state Congressman in California to lose the election in 2004?
Answer: none! out of 153 Congressional seats, not a single one changed hands from one party to the other.

You can read about Proposition 77 here.

The basic premise is that we’ve allowed legislators to do their own redistricting for a long time (in particular in 2001), and now they never lose elections. The new plan sets a panel of independent, retired judges in California and asks them to draw the lines in publicly held hearings, which voters then can accept or reject. Its a pretty great plan, and probably is the single most important proposition on the ballot!

Definitely vote YES.

Here is a really good site (http://www.yeson77.com/) which talks about it. Check out what the politicians have done to “redistrict” so that they can’t lose. Its absolutely incredible.

If you haven’t yet read what proposition 75 is all about, be sure to read the actual proposition. You can find official information here.

This is another simple proposition, that should be a YES vote. The simple things it does are:

* Requires employee consent before contributing union dues toward Political purposes.
* Requires unions to maintain records to the Fair Political Practices Commission about these contributions, although the records are not subject to public disclosure.

That’s it. So, this proposition is quite simple and obviously a YES vote.

One of the problems we have in this state is that many large organizations take disproportionate control in politics due to their large contributions. Bringing that power back to the individuals is a good thing.

In reality, I doubt this proposition will have much affect at all. It means that Unions need to recognize that they are political forces, and they need to be fair. Employees who disagree with the politics of their unions *might* go against the union, but by-and-large they will not. So Unions as political beasts won’t be impacted much, and we’ll allow individuals to vote with their money as appropriate.

Opponents call this the “blame teachers act”. But I have yet to hear any arguments against this proposal. It’s simple and a no-brainer. I think the reason that I haven’t heard a single coherent argument against it (other than to call it names) is because there is no valid argument against it.

Say what you will about whether this bill should be a priority for our state (I agree that it doesn’t seem like a very pressing issue), the fact is that it is on the ballot, and it’s a good measure.

Here is the link to the official Proposition 74.

The bill makes the following true:
1) Delays tenure from two years to five years.
2) Modifies the dismissal process for tenured teachers such that if a teacher gets two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations, the school board can dismiss the teacher.

Thats it.

The only thing wrong with this bill is that it doesn’t abolish tenure altogether. I don’t think our teachers need to be coddled. Despite that, the bill is solid forward progress, and protects all Californian taxpayers from having to pay ineffective employees. Now, how could Warren Beatty or any other democrat claim this is a “fire teachers” bill? The teacher needs to get back to back failing reviews in order for this to be even possible. There is no corporation in America that tolerates bad performers like this, so why should the state?

I think the Democrats are just against anything Schwarzenegger proposes – not because the bill is bad – but because they want to attack him. Politics sucks.

Vote yes on this one.

Our Governor here in California has come across some troubles recently and his popularity has plumetted. Maybe thats why I like him more now 🙂

In particular, the unions hate him, and that has really hurt his standing. Previously, he hadn’t demonstrated any particular stance against a group. I’m sure he’s not against unions (nor am I), but he knows their far from perfect too.

But what is wrong with going after Unions? Unions are, frankly, awful for their employees in most cases. Let’s take teachers, for example. When was the last time a teacher in California got a 15% annual bonus for a great achievement. Um – NEVER! Now, when was the last time I got one? I’ve received them many times in my relatively short career. Why? Because I don’t belong to a union which prevents my employers from giving me a bonus. Teachers can’t be rewarded for going the extra mile. They are required to pay all teachers – good or bad – the same amount based on years of experience and college education. Geez – I’ve got guys working next to me that don’t even have college degrees. But they are looking at big bonuses and extra perks when they perform well overall. Once again, free-enterprise provides better for the employer and for the employee over the unions.

To all you “Union Yes” folk, well, you should start thinking for yourself for a change. What do your union dues really buy? (Other than those fancy cars for the Union leadership) If you are working hard, you’d do better without them, as your employer would know that he’s got to keep you happy. But with the union, he doesn’t have to give you anything special. In fact, he can’t anymore. The guys that are leaches on the system are bringing you down.

Let’s take a look at the public ballot which Schwarzenegger has spearheaded. First, remember that when he was running for office, he promised Californians that if the legislature wouldn’t reform this stuff, he’d take it to the people. Some voters now think it costs too much. But remember, when we voted him into office, it was because we wanted him to do this. So don’t blame him now, we specifically asked for this.

Here are the issues:

Union Dues
He wants to make sure that employees consent before Union Dues can be used for political contributions. This seems pretty fair. Why wouldn’t anyone want to control how their dues are used? This should allow the union members to better pick priorities for their Unions.

Public School Teacher Reform
Creates mechanisms where poor teachers can be weeded out with better performing ones. Do you know of any corporation that doesn’t have this? Why wouldn’t we want this?

Abortions for Minors
This one would require parental consent before giving a minor an abortion. I’m on the fence about this, because in general I think we should provide abortions to all. But, if it were my daughter, I’d want to know. I can go either way.

Reapportionment
Looking at the encumbents in our state, I’m betting we could use a good shuffle. And why not? Is there really much downside? Do you think your rep will be less in touch with you just because we re-draw a few lines? I don’t believe this is being done to bias the lines. I believe our last redistricting was done in 1991. Times have changed.

When he was running for office, I never thought I’d say this. But now I say Schwarzenegger rocks. What politician has the gall to tackle Unions and Reapportionment at the same time? The fact is that this guy isn’t just a politician. He’s actually trying to make California better.

When did our culture get so sensitive to every little remark, comment, or joke that might be interpreted as being offensive to anyone? Why can’t well all just recognize that not everyone likes everyone, and its actually okay?

The 49ers are getting blasted today for a PR-training video that leaked to the public. The video uses blatant politically incorrect humor and asks that the viewers embrace diversity. Its the contrast of the humor and the message which makes the video effective for its intended audience (mentally-underhorsepowered, arrogant, egotistical football players).

Groups they make fun of in the video:
– Chinese Americans/Immigrants
– Lesbians (including a rated-R scene)
– Homeless
– The SF Mayor (Gavin Newsom)

Want to see the video? Here is the link.

Oh well. Do we really need everyone to like everyone else? Can we no longer have the freedom to just get the say what we want? This video, while risque, aggressive in its approach, and definitely not a style I would ever use, does not encourage or condone hurting other people. So why do we care?

There are times when we’ll all be offended. Its okay. Its part of life. Lets move on.

Update
By the way, the video was apparently made and used within the 49ers organization in August of last year. Until today, they never regretted the video or made any personnel changes. All of a sudden today, they are apologizing like they’d never seen it before or were shocked. So, clearly, they are only doing what they think we and the media want. Make sure they know its okay!

I’m really saddened by how political the social security issue is. Its too bad we can’t take this problem away from politicians that are more worried about their votes next election than about fixing the problem.

I usually don’t agree with President Bush. But his willingness to tackle this issue during his second term is valiant. Second term presidents have the opportunity to tackle the tough issues because they are unencumbered by future elections, and its great to see this 2-timer get to this phase of his Presidency.

What is Wrong With Social Security?
Well, the basic problem is that each year, we take a bunch of money in, and pay it out immediately to the benefactors. This works as long as the number of workers paying in greatly exceeds the number of folks taking out of the system. Unfortunately, our census studies show that the number of retirees is going through the roof compared to the number of workers, and there will be a shortfall. There are no politics to consider here – its just plain accounting.

Time Value of Money
What President Bush has been trying to say is that Private accounts inherently have the advantage of the time-value-of-money. Here, each individual paying into the system puts his money in the bank. Each year it collects a modest amount of interest or gains, and, after doing so for 30-40 years, that small initial investment is a sizable retirement asset.

The current system cannot take advantage of time, and will always have the problem of needing a growing population of workers.

“Means Testing” Out – Can’t Trust Government Anyway
Last night, President Bush introduced the notion of decreased benefits for the wealthy. I’m not surprised by this at all, and I’ve been expecting it for some time. As a 34year old ‘worker’, I pay into Social Security each year, but I have no illusions that I will actually get anything from the government when it comes time to retire.

The fact is that Social Security will be out of money. Taxes will either have to be raised, or some people won’t get any benefits. If, during any of the next 30 years of my life, the government “changes its mind”, I could be screwed. If I were counting on Social Security for my retirement, I would be financially irresponsible. These politicians are whimsical, and we just have no idea what they will do.

Private Accounts Provide Protection
Given that many of us are already being means-tested out, why shouldn’t we have a federally sponsored system which allows us to use the time value of money for our retirement savings? Doing so helps social security problem, because those individuals saving for their own retirement means that they will not need other government services when they get old. Further, it means that these people will be immune to political winds that could otherwise touch their retirements.

Some people say “well, what if the stock market crashes”? This is a fair question. But, when I weigh my own risks for retirement, I still think its more likely that I’ll get screwed by Uncle Sam than that the stock market will crash so intolerably that I’ll lose all my money.

It does mean that individual retirement planners need to be smarter than ever before. We need to understand asset-allocations and how to shift assets to reflect the amount of risk we want to take as we near retirement. Oh my goodness – do you mean we need to take responsibility for our own finances?

Governor Schwarzenegger caused a bit of a stir when he suggested we need to “close the borders” yesterday. Apparently, this is somehow offensive.

The fact is, unfortunately, that even if we wanted to, we can no longer lock down on our borders in California. Why not? Well, we let too many Mexicans in already. Now they are here, many legally, and they vote. And they want to be able to bring their aunts, nephews, mothers, uncles, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, etc into the US as well. How are they going to vote? Well, of course, they vote for their illegal resident relatives and their Mexico-residing relatives to be brought into the US legally. Wouldn’t you vote to have your uncle be allowed into our country?

To prove my point, consider California State Senator Gil Cedillo. This guy is so insane, he actually thinks illegal aliens should be legally issued drivers licenses in our state. No politician that wasn’t pandering to the immigrant vote would ever propose such absurd legislation. (Give legal rights to known criminals and no prosecute them for their illegal behavior? I thought our Senators were supposed to help enforce our laws?) So how does he stay elected? Well, we’ve already let enough of them into the state that they now have the power to elect him.

Some may think this blog entry indicates some sort of ethnic bias on my part. I have no ethnic bias. The fact is that those immigrating to the US from Mexico are largely uneducated and poor. 66% of those immigrating do not even have a high school education (see Center for Immigration Studies). The effect of this over the long term will simply mean a lower standard of living and lower benefits for the all of us. They will need more medical financial assistance, will be costlier to educate (they don’t speak english yet), and will consume more welfare dollars. We’ll either need to raise taxes, cut costs (like education and road maintenance for all), or lower benefits to the native poor that are already here. Oh yeah, we’re already doing those things!!!

Anyway, its very sad. Scwarzenegger, while now stating that he “misspoke”, was actually pretty spot on. We do need to close the borders to immigrants that offer absolutely no value to our society. We’ve got enough poor people here already, and we don’t need more unskilled labor. But its out of our control now. We’ve given them 8M legal votes in our state already. They’re not going to stop voting until our education systems, economic systems, welfare systems, and transportation systems are just as poor as they are back home in Mexico.

I don’t usually write about politics, but politics is a big topic right now, is it not?

So here is Mike’s Wild Postulus on Presidential Elections in the US: The result is random.

Is it not lost on people that the race is about a 50/50 split, and that if we randomly just picked two people out of a hat to run as the only two candidates, we’d probably expect a 50/50 split between them? This has happened two elections in a row.

My theory is that with all the mis-information out there, common folk (including myself) really don’t know who would make a better President. Kerry says bush is bad because of X, Y, and Z, and Bush says that Kerry is bad because of X, Y, and Z. But when both say the opposite things, only one can be right, and how can most people know? Well, we end up using our gut and guessing. And guess what, at the end of the day, we come out about 50/50 – the same as if we just did a blind election.

Prior to stumbling across this statistical fact, I used to think we should be moving toward a popular vote and away from the Electoral College. However, now more than ever I think our forefathers had it right – common folk aren’t really ready to decide who should sit in the Oval Office. Rather, we should probably beefen up the Electoral College. The people should decide who the candidates are (via the Republican and Democratic nominations), and then the electoral college should decide who is a better lawmaker, commander-in-chief, and leader of the United States. Unfortunately, the citizens of America just don’t have the data to know whether Senator Kerry has the right attributes or President Bush does. Maybe people closer to the two – people that know them personally and have worked directly with them – would be better able to make an informed decision on this very important role.

Is this pessimistic? Maybe it is. But the election speaks for itself- its a 50/50 split across the US. Isn’t that an amazing coincidence? The people of America are collectively voting “we don’t care – the two are about the same”. Its pretty amazing that while each of us can argue so fervently for our position, on the whole, we all wash each other out.