Political Commentary

Link: http://www.wilcoxent.com/mzima/politics.php

I have spent a lot of time listening to commentary and discussions about these propositions. Of course, if you pay attention to the ads, both sides say the other is a scam. After much studying of the issue, I think I have figured it out. BOTH SIDES ARE RIGHT!

Proposition 98 is a scam because it purports to be about eminent domain, while it includes measures that could affect virtually every property issue that a government in California could get involved with. If it was just about eminent domain, and stopping government from stealing our homes unjustly, this would be a great proposal, but it goes to far, and leaves too much open to interpretation. The language does eliminate rent control and any other law that restricts the rights of property owners. This could have serious impacts on people’s lives, leading to reinstatement of many of the abuses that these laws were meant to protect people from. Of course, rent control would stay in effect for anyone currently living in a rent controlled home, but this proposal takes away any restrictions that government has put in place to keep a landlord from unjustly evicting low income renters for the purpose of raising rents. This could spur a mass of evictions, just so rents would go up. Of course, the government would benefit from this, because income from those units would also go up. I think the environmentalist wackos are probably right about the proposition making it impossible for them to impose their will on the rest of us. I am not sure that would be a bad idea, but it does illustrate the broad sweep of this proposition.

99 is a scam because it doesn’t really do anything except invalidate prop 98 if it passes and gets more votes than 98. It reads as if it prevents governments from taking private property for private use, but paragraph 5 defines just about everything conceivable as public use, and also allows private use required in the furtherance of public use, making just about anything possible. While the proposition states that the measures should be interpreted liberally in support of the private property owner, that statement is so vague and the courts so irresponsible in many of these things, that I would not trust them at all. In effect, 99 puts restrictions in place and then eliminates them. While this law as pretty straightforward compared to 98, it does not address rental properties, farms, churches and other community owned properties. Imagine the government taking over the pool of a condominium complex, because, while it is owned by the homeowners, there is no home on that part of the property. Farms might be covered as long as it is contiguous with the land that the farmer’s home is built on, but what if there is a public road or a river dividing the property? What if the farmer depends for his income on leased farmland in addition to his own? The government could take away the leased land. This proposition does not protect churches, other communally owned properties, or community service properties like YMCAs or Campgrounds. Overall, it doesn’t change anything.

My recommendations:

NO on 98
NO on 99

Lets start over and do this right.

El Presidente Bush and Congress have collaborated to give the American people a bribe, oh, I mean a check. This is a very stupid move, motivated by political considerations on both sides of the isle. For the Republicans, they are honestly trying to stimulate the economy. Too bad it is a completely ridiculous and expensive way to do it. The Democrats don’t really want a stimulated economy, they just want to buy votes. I think they are counting on this debacle not stimulating the economy, but they can say to their constituents how caring they are since they got them some extra money. There are a lot of issues here, so I will try to spell them all out.

Lets start with the economic stimulus side of things. First there is the political consideration. The Republicans want to stimulate the economy so that the Democrats lose that as a campaign issue. The economy actually isn’t that bad. The housing market is in a normal cyclic slowdown. The mortgage “crisis” happened at a fortuitous time for the Democrats. The Press can always find some poor person somewhere to show how miserable life in the United states is. Some states are suffering at the hands of politicians who can’t keep their hands out of pockets. Thus we all believe that the economy is bad. This is good for the Democrats, because they can blame the policies of the current administration for the slowdown of the economy. So the Republicans desperately want to stimulate the economy to eliminate this issue from the presidential campaign. There is no question in my mind that putting more cash in the hands of consumers, stimulates the economy. The question is, does $300.00 - $1200.00 per person represent enough stimulation to actually accomplish anything. Most people I have heard about plan to pay bills with their check. This does not stimulate the economy, because it simply pays for something that already stimulated the economy. Besides, what are you going to pay for? A small fraction of your rent or mortgage? Part of a car payment? This amount of money really doesn’t go very far. Regardless of Republican wishful thinking, I doubt if there will be much stimulus to this package.

On the Democratic side, this is pure bribery. They talk about economic stimulus, and have agreed with the Republicans about that, but this is totally self serving, since they want to buy votes. They tried to get a check for people who don’t even pay taxes too. But they will settle for what they got. They simply want to buy votes. So how much will you sell your vote for. I have to admit that I probably have a price. Is it $300.00? No. Is it $600.00? No. Is it $1200.00? No. I think if they would pay me about $500,000.00, I would probably vote democratic regardless of the harm I believe their policies would do. Again, how much would it take for them to buy your vote?

Now on the practical side of things, does this even make sense? The timing of this payment is clearly geared toward the November election. I think they are going to send out checks in May. Now I ask you, how much are they going to spend on paper and postage to send these checks out? I submit it will be millions of dollars. Does this make sense when we are running huge budget deficits? Aren’t many of us receiving checks in the mail from the government anyway? Why do it twice when we could combine this “stimulus” with tax refunds? Why not just give a special tax credit of whatever the appropriate amount, and the government could save millions of dollars, and accomplish the same “economic stimulus". Of course, this isn’t as good for the Democrats, because it would look like they were supporting tax cuts, and it wouldn’t look like a bribe, oh, I mean gift, to people.

Because this is already a done deal, and my opinion isn’t going to really change anything, I have a suggestion. Really stimulate the economy with your check, by doing something wonderful with that money. I am going to donate mine to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, to try to find a cure for blood cancers. I would love to have a bunch of other people join me and donate to my account at the link above. However, equally good would be to donate to the charity of your choice. Give to your church or whatever your favorite charity is. You know what would be great? Write a comment on this blog telling readers where you are going to donate your check! That would really be fun!

Before I get started, imagine my shock when I looked at a Readers Digest and saw an article with exactly the same title. It was kind of funny really. That article was about something completely different too.

After the Tuesday primaries, I asked a friend why they chose to vote the way they did. The response was that they wanted change. I think we all want some kind of change, but change by itself is neither positive or negative. It is just change. During the current political campaign, I have been laughing at the candidates during debates as they argue back and forth who is really the candidate of change. “I am the candidate of change.” “No, I am.” “You are not, I am.” “Hunh unh.” “I said it first!” Well that is all pretty funny, and doesn’t really mean anything ultimately.

I think rather than arguing about who is the candidate of change, the candidates should really reveal what kind of changes they want to make, so that the American people can decide if they are proposing good or bad changes. I propose that everyone should make a list of changes they would like to see, and a list of changes they would not like to see. Everyone would have a different list of changes, probably. Then they should take a careful look at the candidates and see if they offer the changes you want. I will describe some of the changes I would like here.

First the good changes:

Lower taxes
Smaller government
Less government spending
Repeal of the 14th ammendment
Repeal of the 16th ammendment
Enforcement of the 2nd ammendment
Enforcement of immigration laws
Elimination of entitlements for illegal aliens
Less government interference in my life
Protecting our borders
Supporting our border patrol agents
An intelligent energy policy
Controlled end of US occupation of Iraq

There are a few, for example. Now, what I would consider bad changes:

Increased taxes
Drivers licenses for illegal aliens
Government mandated health care
Immediate withdrawal from Iraq
Global warming and other countries dictating US energy policy
Endangering the lives of our border patrol agents by prosecuting them when they defend themselves
Increasing entitlements for illegal aliens

OK. There are a few changes that I have heard about from our candidates of change. Now look at your lists and see what candidate supports the “good” changes, and what candidate supports the “bad” changes. This should give you a pretty clear idea of who to vote for. Of course, you want to vote for the person who supports your good changes. Now, for my lists, I don’t see anyone supporting any of my good list. Supporting the bad list to greater or lesser extent - John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barak Obama. Obama supports the highest number of the bad changes on my list. This means that as an agent of change, Obama represents really bad change for me. While I am very impressed with Obama’s demeanor and speaking ability, and he seems like a man with integrity, he does not support any of the changes that I would like to see. So he would not be a good candidate of change for me. I would rather have the status quo. I guess status quo would lead me to John McCain. But I would really like change too! To me, McCain does not represent change. He represents continuation of the bad policies of the current administration. To me, changing gender or race of a president is completely irrelevant, and a dangerous way to select a president.

It is really sad when you have a choice of status quo, which is bad, or bad changes, which is even worse. Unfortunately, that is the best the current crop of major candidates have to offer. I would invite all of my readers to make a similar list for themselves and see what candidate you arrive at. Maybe I will write myself in again. That would be fun.