Tag: decision-2012

So Mitt Romney has made his choice, and it is Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. At least its not Sarah Palin. But it may turn out to be as disasterous.

As you’ve probably guessed, I”m not a fan of Romney. I’m not totally enamored of how Obama has done, but in general my positions mesh more with his policies than with Romney’s, especially with regard to social positions. Obama, in general, has tried to do the right thing, only to have it stymied or mucked up by the various factions in Congress — most notably the Tea Party faction.

Romney clearly picked Ryan to appeal to this faction. He wants to return the focus to the budget, the economy, and the size of government. Ryan will do that. The problem is that Ryan’s budget slashing would be disasterous–as has been noted by many economists looking over Ryan’s proposals.

Setting that aside, my bigger concern is that the Republican ticket knows nothing about foreign policy and defense. Ryan’s congressional experience is entirely budgetary. Romney was a governor and businessman. Neither understands the geopolitical situations and sensitivites, and I’d be very worried about the safety and security of this nation. Remember the Republican ad of many years ago asking whether you would feel safe if this candidate received the call at 2am? Would you feel confident if Romney or Ryan got that call?

Further, what is the job of a vice-president? Other than to represent the President at funerals, the job should be to work Congress and get them to go along with the President’s agenda.  Biden was supposed to bring this experience, and he does know how to work Congress. Ryan? Has he shown any ability to get the other side convinced of his opinions? Not to my knowledge.

The choice of Ryan was made to reassure the party faithful and to appeal to the crowd that supported Ron Paul (and that want to downsize government). In other words, it makes those who were already strongly in favor of Mitt unlikely to defect. That won’t win Mitt the election. He needs to convince the moderate Republicans and independents to his side. I’m not sure Ryan will do that. It won’t move a state to his column (it’s not close enough in WI). It will likely alienate the seniors that depend on Medicare. It will scare those who are worried about things other than the economy.

Mitt – the job of the President is more than just the economy, despite what your advisors are telling you. This isn’t a business, you don’t run a government to make a surplus. The job of the President is to see the big picture — to think about the long term health of the country, which is a combination of a number of factors, not just budget cutting. Ryan does not balance your ticket, it unbalances it.

ETA: Electoral-vote.com has a really good analysis of the risks of this choice, which pretty-much agrees with mine.

Music: Mayor: The Musical (1985 Off-Broadway Cast): I Want To Be The Mayor

While eating lunch, I’ve been skimming the papers… and a number of articles related to the Presidential Election are coming to mind.

First, there is the issue of whether big business is good (although the value of “good” is never defined). The R camp seems to believe that the solution to the economic problems is to get government out of the way of business. The underlying belief here is that business exists to hire people and do good stuff. But is that borne out? I don’t believe so; in fact, business often seems to be in business to fatten its own coffers and those of its executives. A good example is JP Morgan. The LA Times is reporting that JP Morgan has been engaging in “at the edge” practices to manipulate energy markets in California and enrich its profits–at the expense of rate-paying consumers. Another example is Capitol One, who has been ordered to refund boku-amounts of money due to deceptive practices. We’ve seen banks in the UK manipulating the LIBOR, again for their own profit purposes. I don’t think this is a trustworthy track record: giving more money to big business does not result in a better economy.

Then there’s the issue of the tax returns. Romney is refusing to release anything older than 2010. CNN has a good explanation of a possible reason why. In short, we want to see transparency in our president’s finances, for it is a demonstration of their moral and ethical compass. Do they try to exploit the rules to the letter for their own benefit? Do they do what is right? With Romney, we have already seen money in Swiss bank accounts and significant tax dodges, all borderline legal, to avoid paying taxes. Romney’s response is to accuse Obama of croneyism, claiming that Obama makes decisions to benefit donors. I wonder if he has look at Congressional fundraising of late. The question is not whether Obama’s decisions have benefitted donors — people donate to campaigns to elect the candidate that they think works in their interest. The question is whether Obama specifically took an action to benefit a specific donor, and the donation was contingent on that action. That’s croneyism. You give me this; I get you that. I haven’t seen any specific evidence of that surfacing.

Lastly, as a measure of how strange this campaign is getting (and the conventions haven’t even been held yet)…. Romney’s camp is protesting the upcoming Batman movie because the villian’s name is Bane. They claim it will hurt Romney and want it changed.

Sigh.

Well, information has started to come out on the propositions that will be on the November California ballot. Although the numbers may change, I doubt any will disappear, so let’s do some preliminary thinking — based solely on the newspaper descriptions and first impressions. These may change as we learn more about what they actually say:

Proposition 30 – Taxes. Increases personal income tax on annual earnings over $250,000 for seven years. Increases sales and use tax by ¼ cent for four years. All money goes to education. Complete text.

Tentatively For. This is Gov. Brown’s proposal. It goes to both K-12 and state universities, both of which have been killed it the budget wars. Even though I don’t like the fact it is dictated for specific purposes (such dictates are part of the reason California is in such a mess), I don’t believe that’s sufficient to vote it down. I think they didn’t make it a general levy because they knew that wouldn’t get through, simply because there is no trust that the legislature wouldn’t use the money for some boondoggle. Do I have a problem with the tax itself? Based on this description alone, I have no problem with the personal tax increase–I don’t believe it will impact small business as claimed, nor do I think the additional tax will cause loads of folk to leave the state. The sales and use tax is more problematic as it impacts the poor more, although it is so little as to be, literally, pocket change for most purchases. More significant will be the fact that Amazon will be collecting use tax, and there will be more of a push to get people to pay use tax.

Proposition 31 – Budget. Establishes two-year state budget cycle. Prohibits Legislature from creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or cuts are identified. Permits governor to cut budget during declared fiscal emergencies if Legislature fails to act. Complete text.

Unsure. I’m not sure about the 2-year budget cycle. Although this means budgets will be more stable, it also means that the state will be less nimble. I’m also not sure about the $25 million proposal. I can see the intent — don’t create large programs without ways to fund them — but I’m not sure the $25 million number is the correct number; further, it is unclear what is to be done if the expenditure is a federal mandate. The last bit is interesting about the governor cutting the budget, but I’m curious about the definition of “fails to act”; we’ve seen how effective that can be in docking legislator pay.

Proposition 32 – Campaign contributions. Prohibits use of payroll-deducted funds for political purposes by unions and businesses. Permits voluntary employee contributions to employer or union committees if authorized yearly, in writing. Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing to candidates and candidate-controlled committees.  Complete text.

Tentatively for. I think unions being involved in politics is a bad thing, beyond providing endorsements. In particular, I think union-financed campaigns are bad things. That said, there is some benefit in union-supported PACs or advocacy groups that can provide technical expertise in crafting legislation. My concerns with this proposal are: (1) would this give undue leverage to corporate-sponsored groups, especially in light of recent Supreme Court rulings; (2) what is the definition of “for political purposes” — if it is too broad, then this is a bad thing. As I said, there are things unions should be able to do (endorse candidates that agree with union positions).

Proposition 33 – Auto insurance. Allows insurance companies to give discounts to drivers with prior insurance coverage and to increase cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage. Complete text.

Tentatively against. This one has been tried a few times. As I recall, it was written by Mercury Insurance. Two primary concerns here: (1) how are new drivers treated (i.e., does this gouge the new driver), and (2) how do they define continuous coverage — same company or just having insurance? I’m leaning against this one because I believe that experience should be sufficient, and that is already a rating factor. I don’t see how simply being insured demonstrates that one is a better driver; rather, it is claim history and the nature of the particular claims.

Proposition 34 – Death penalty. Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Complete text.

Unsure. The big problems with the death penalty are (a) it isn’t cheap, with all the appeals; (b) it is difficult to carry out, with the supreme court rulings; (c) mistakes happen, and new evidence can’t bring someone back, and most importantly, (d) I don’t believe it has been a deterrent. On the other hand, life imprisonment is also very expensive, and there is only so much prison space available. I’m going to need to see more detailed analysis.

Proposition 35 – Human trafficking. Increases criminal penalties for human trafficking, including prison sentences up to 15-years-to-life and fines up to $1.5 million. Requires person convicted of trafficking to register as sex offender. Complete text.

Tentatively for. I’m not sure about the sex offender bit, but I have no problems with increased penalties for human trafficking.

Proposition 36 – Three strikes. Revises three strikes law to impose life sentence only when the third felony is serious or violent. Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if third strike conviction was not serious or violent and judge determines sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety. Complete text.

Tentatively for. Three strikes is one reason our prisons are so crowded, and stealing budget away from UC. I agree with the notion that the final strike needs to be something significant.

Proposition 37 – Genetically modified food. Requires labeling on food to identify if it was made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as “natural.” Complete text.

Tentatively for. We need to know when our food is modified. Note that requiring this labeling in California will likely benefit the entire country.

Proposition 38 – Taxes. Increases income tax rates for annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from .4% for lowest earners to 2.2% for individuals earning over $2.5 million, ending after twelve years. During first four years, 60% of revenues go to K-12 schools, 30% to repaying state debt, and 10% to early childhood programs. Thereafter, allocates 85% of revenues to K-12 schools, 15% to early childhood programs. Complete text.

Tentatively against. First, I don’t like the fact this is K-12 only. It does nothing to shore up our decimated state university systems. I’m also not sure about the income tax rates: the numbers here seem awfully low unless they are just the deltas. Lastly, $7,316 seems really low for any additional tax.

Proposition 39 – Taxes. Requires multistate businesses to calculate their California income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California. Complete text.

Tentatively for. If I recall correctly, this undoes a deal done a few years ago that reduced how much multistate businesses had to pay to California.

Proposition 40 – Redistricting. Replaces the newly drawn state Senate boundaries with interim boundaries drawn by court-appointed officials for the 2014 elections. Complete text.

Tentatively against. Sorry folks. You voted for the new independent redistricting commission, and I think they did a pretty good job. Nothings perfect. You don’t get to call a  “do over” if you don’t like the results.

LA County Measures… Lastly, we have the measure that is likely to come up (sigh) in LA County. This measure would require actors in adult (i.e., pron) films to wear condoms. This is a really hard (sigh) issue to discuss, not only for the puns that keep rearing their ugly heads. There are a lot of problems with this measure. First, it is unclear if it is enforceable legally  (does freedom of speech extend to whether one wears condoms?) or how it would be enforced (can you imagine the outcry if the county had to pay people to attend pron shoots, or even worse, paid people to watch locally-produced pron all day to identify those without condoms)? Second, there is the issue itself: the segment of the community that watches (and presumably enjoys) pron might not want to publicly admit that they prefer non-condom pron, and thus to save face, will support the measure. The segment that do not want pron-production in the county will support the measure obstensibly to support safe sex, with the hidden agenda to drive production somewhere else. Certainly, one cannot imagine the major pron procedures doing ad campaigns against the measure (or how the hell they would get them on TV). I’d also imagine that gender will be a factor in support of this. Lastly, segment that actually want to protect the actor will get drowned out by all the other voices on this. This is going to be a measure that no one would want to touch with a ten-foot pole, even if it is covered in latex.

My prediction: this will get on the ballot, pass because people are too embarrassed to vote against it, and the production will just move to non-permitted, underground production, protecting no-one.

 

While I eat lunch, I’ve been thinking a bit about Pres. Obama’s proposal to extend tax cuts for those making less than $250K a year, and more important, Mitt Romney’s reaction to it. Mitt’s reaction is that we need to extend the tax cuts as well for individuals and couples earning more than $250K a year. His reason? “Successful small businesses will see their taxes go up dramatically, and that will kill jobs”.

But will it?

This would only affect those small businesses that are still reporting their income on Schedule C. Other businesses would be filing Corporate Tax Returns, paying corporate tax rates. Further, if we’re talking mid-sized businesses, most of these have incorporated for liability purposes. So it only the real small businesses that are affected, and those don’t create that many jobs overall.

Further, let’s think about those businesses further. The tax would only increase on the profits from the business. Employees are on the expense side. So reducing the amount of profit (remember: we’re talking businesses with profits over $250K here) shouldn’t force employers to lay off. What causes employers to hire or lay off isn’t taxes, it is spending. If more people have more spending money (from the lower side of the tax cuts), business should still be the same.

So who really benefits from extending the upper-end tax cuts? Those who make large amounts of money from investing, not the small business owners.

ETA: Two related posts of interest:

• “Can small business save the economy?” (Los Angeles Times)
• “Here’s What’s Wrong With the Anti-Tax Movement” (Livejournal)

As I was walking back from grabbing my lunch in the cafeteria, Mitt Romney was on the TV there, talking about how he will get rid of Obamacare on Day 1. That made me realize: I know what Mitt Romney is against (pretty much anything Obama), but I don’t know what he favors. For example:

• Healthcare. I know he is against “Obamacare”, but what would he do to solve the health-care problems it was designed to address? I’ve heard no proposals.
• Immigration. I know he is against the recent executive order, but what is his solution to the problem?
• Jobs. I know he believes Obama’s policies do not create jobs, but I haven’t heard specific proposals of what he would do, other than a significant increase in defense spending (that he hasn’t said how he would pay for).

So, for all the various issues, from foreign policy to the economy, from immigration to the environment, what will Mitt do, other than be against what Obama has done? The one time I voted Republican was for John Anderson in 1980, because he detailed specifically what he would do, and I agree with that. Further, with the likelihood of another split congress (a Republican House and a Democratic Senate), what can Mitt get through on legislation, and how would he do it? That’s been Obama’s problem.

So, Mitt supporters. What positive actions would your man take (i.e., other than repealing Obama), and how would he get them through a Democratic senate?