Elections Nov 2010 - San Diego Props, Governor & US Senate

In my previous blog I made my recommendations for the state-wide propositions. Here I address the local San Diego Props and also the race for Governor and the US Senate seat.

Local Props:

Prop A, Allow open bidding for local construction projects: This is a hard one to take a stand on. The contention is that by opening up government infrastructure projects to all contractors, the cost will come down. The opposition contends that part of the cost reduction comes from the lifting of several requirements such as health care, job training, etc. I can't really decide who the good guys are, but I am going with the benefits of increased competition. Vote YES.

Prop B, Add a good cause requirement for firing Deputy DAs: Hard to argue with this one, except that it may saddle a newly elected DA with some stubborn relic from the past administration. Still, I recommend a YES vote.

Prop C, Remove the I-56/I-5 interchange requirement for Pacific Highlands Ranch: On the surface, this seems to a largely local measure - 12 years ago, Prop M authorized this development under the condition that its completion be coincident with that of the I-56/I-5 interchange (56W to 5N & 5S to 56E), which is currently not scheduled for at least 2020. This stalls a number of neighborhood improvements in this development. Sounds unfair, especially since the developer is going to cover all the costs, but me thinks that they knew this when they put Prop M on the ballot. Also, why take away any pressure to complete said interchange? I hate the current arrangement! So, I am going selfish on this one: Vote NO.

Prop D, Temporary (5 year) half cent increase in sales tax: All the bugaboos are being trotted out for this one: fire protection will disappear, there will no more police, etc, etc. But, it also has the support of the Chamber of Commerce! Its hard to argue that the city is losing money from the State, but could the city's finances be better managed? The tax increase is contingent on a long string of financial reforms and some of them sound pretty good. Maybe I am being suckered in, but I am recommending a YES vote.

OK, now for the anticlimax - my recommendations for Ca Governor and US Senate seat. For anyone who knows my politics, it will come as no surprise that I am recommending Jerry Brown over Meg Whittman and Barbara Boxer over Carly Fiorina. I'd like to think that my reasoning is not entirely partisan: In the case of Meg Whittman, it came down to my opinion that she is not going to be effective in Sacramento. The Ca Governor is subject to endless restrictions and navigating the minefield of a Democratic controlled legislature is likely to prove too much for a political ingenue. If not anything else, Brown knows Sacramento and can hardly be worse than the "Governator" has been. I am also tired of all these business types who want to run government like "a business." The government is not a business.
As for Fiorina, I have never been impressed by her abilities as an executive - she took over a revered and storied technology giant - HP - and almost ran it to the ground. She spent a ton of money on showy employee get togethers and alienated the engineering rank and file. Her personal rise may be inspiring, but I don't find any reason to assume that she would be any more effective in Washington than she was at HP.

As for the Tea Party and the national scene - well, that will need another post.

Elections Nov 2010 - The California Propositions

Interest in the upcoming midterm elections is high - at the national level, this is the first real test of the strength of the Tea Party movement, not to mention the depth of opposition to Obama and the Democratic Party. The situation looks dire for the ruling party and much doom and gloom is predicted. I'll reserve my thoughts on that topic for later and focus on the California state propositions in this one. I'll follow up with posts on the local props and of course the two interesting state-wide races: the ones for Governor and US Senator.

I am going to limit myself to a few comments, but almost every one of these are really worthy of a more detailed examination. Here are the props on the ballot this time around:

Prop 19 (Legalizing Marijuana): This is quite easily the most well known ballot measure this time around. If passed, it would legalize the possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana for personal use. In 1972 a similar measure was defeated almost 2 to 1, but this time around polls suggest that it is likely to pass. The arguments in favor are predictable - savings from not having to catch, prosecute, and incarcerate large numbers of casual users, potential tax revenues from being able to impose taxes on marijuana sales, and even the possibility of putting a dent on the Mexican drug cartels. The opposition is somewhat surprising - most of them relate to potential loss of federal revenue because even if Prop 19 passes, marijuana will continue to be illegal under federal law. I find this rather weak and in any case, the experience with medical marijuana and indeed Portugal's experiment with legalizing drugs suggest that nothing disastrous would happen if Prop 19 passes and it is quite likely that some of the benefits will come to pass. I recommend a YES vote.

Prop 20 (Redistricting by a committee and not by the legislature): This is almost a no-brainer for me. Rampant gerrymandering has rendered most districts noncompetitive and this prop should go some way to fixing this problem. Vote YES.

Prop 21 ($18 vehicle tax to fund state parks): On the surface this sounds like a noble measure - at least for those who care about the vast network of Ca's state parks. But dig a bit deeper and it seems to be a cynical attempt to collect more revenue while playing upon the desire of Californians to keep their parks open. Vote NO.

Prop 22 (Limit the State's ability to dip into some local funds): Another seemingly well-meaning measure, but ultimately, misdirected. We want legislators to balance the budget, but we continue to tie their hands with such so called "ballot box budgeting." Vote NO.

Prop 23 (Suspend clean energy laws while unemployment is high): All you need to do is look at who is funding the "Yes" campaign - two big out of state oil companies. Vote NO.

Prop 24 (Eliminate 3 specific business tax breaks): This one seems rather arcane at first, but the potential amounts we are talking is high (a few billion). Then you realize that these were breaks that were promised to the businesses in exchange for some allowance they made and now some folks want to renege on that promise. The 'No' campaign is well funded by a host of well known Ca businesses including Qualcomm. I am going with big business on this one - a promise is a promise. Vote NO.

Prop 25 (Budget can be passed with a simple majority instead of 2/3rds majority): The 2010 budget was delayed by over 100 days. Enough said. Vote YES.

Prop 26 (Voter permission for new fees): Who is funding this measure? Almost exclusively alcohol and big tobacco! Also, another twist on the ballot box budgeting approach. Vote NO.

Prop 27 (Repeal Prop 11): Prop 11 established the committee that is the subject of Prop 20. This prop goes with Prop 20 in that only one of them can take effect. If both happen to pass, then the one with the higher majority will win. Easy choice, given my vote on Prop 20. Vote NO.

Padres Seek A Miracle

Spare a thought for the San Diego Padres this weekend - after leading the National League (NL) West Division for almost the entire season, they are 3 games behind the San Francisco Giants going into the final 3 games of the regular season. The good news is that the Padres will be playing the Giants in those 3 games, which means that if they sweep them, then the two teams will be tied for the division lead. The Atlanta Braves are most likely going to take the wild card spot, which means that if the Giants and the Padres are tied at the end of regular season they will have to play a 1-game playoff to decide the division winner.
It is somewhat poignant that the Padres find themselves in this difficult situation - this was a season that began with zero promise: Almost every baseball "expert" had picked the Padres to finish dead last in their division and indeed, 28th out of the 30 MLB teams. Baseball with its lack of a salary cap tends to favor the teams that spend the most - typically teams such as the Yankees and the Red Sox. The Yankees started the 2010 season with a payroll that was upwards of $250 million while the Padres had a payroll of just under $30 million (second lowest in the league). With their long regular season (each team plays 162 games over a 6-month period from April to Oct), top tier talent will usually win out and it is very difficult to for a low payroll team to sustain a lead for long periods of time. This is what made the Padres' dominance in the NL West so remarkable this year and indeed, for a period of time they owned the best record in all of MLB. And they did so with limited community support and pretty much the entire sporting world constantly forecasting their demise. Of course, stumble they did coming down the stretch and despite going beyond the most rosy predictions for the season, it still feels like a let down.
For a team with almost no superstars, it seemed like a different (previously unknown) hero would rise up each night to save the game. Now, the question is whether all the magic is spent or is there a little something left? We'll know soon since they need to win today, tomorrow, and on Sunday to keep their postseason hopes alive.