politics

There are 11 propositions on the ballot for November (2012). Here is how I will be voting along with a short comment as to why.

• Proposition 30 -- No
  Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

  We do not need to be taxed any more!!! As one of the arguments against this proposition states, "We already have the 2nd highest state income tax rate, as well as THE highest state sales tax rate." Businesses are already failing or moving out of state. We don't need to push them even harder.

• Proposition 31 -- No
  State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

  There are a lot of things that sound good in this proposition. However, I am very concerned about the reach of this proposition. It not only changes the rules at the state level, but also at the local level as well.

• Proposition 32 -- Yes
  Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.

  I am supporting this for one reason. No one should have the right to take money out of my paycheck for political purposes unless I say it is okay. It is that simple!

• Proposition 33 -- Yes
  Auto Insurance Companies. Prices based on Driver's History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

  Competition in business is always a good thing for the consumer.

• Proposition 34 -- No
  Death Penalty. Initiative Statute

  I support the death penalty. However, in California, those who oppose the death penalty have already ensured that it will rarely, if ever, happen. The fact that there has only been 13 executions in the last 46 years is proof of that.

• Proposition 35 -- Yes
  Human Trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

  We need to get tougher on those who commit these types of crimes.

• Proposition 36 -- No
  Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

  We do not need to weaken the Three Strikes Law. It is serving us well!!!

• Proposition 37 -- No
  Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute.

  I am opposing this primarily due to Section 110809.4. Enforcement which opens the door to numerous lawsuits because of incorrect labeling especially when the benefit from that labeling requirement is minimal.

• Proposition 38 -- No
  Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.

  We do not need to be taxed any more!!!

• Proposition 39 -- No
  Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.

  This is a transfer of wealth from successful businesses to fund clean energy. The loss to the successful businesses will result in people losing their jobs. We need to focus on creating jobs, not becoming number 1 in the nation in terms of unemployment!

• Proposition 40 -- Yes
  Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

  As Julie Vandermost, the official sponsor of the proposition, states, "This measure is not needed and we are no longer asking for a NO vote." I'm curious to see how many still vote No.

Another sign of the times ...

I was waiting to pick up my daughter from her part time job. I noticed that the music instruction business had some signs on the door and window. And, I noticed that the furniture that was in the front area was gone as well. So, I got out and took a look at the sign.

The sign said, "We've moved. We now offer in-home instruction. Call ### or go online to xxx to schedule an appointment."

What does that really mean?
There was no forwarding address, so why would it say they've moved?

They are trying to make it clear that they aren't out of business. However, they can no longer afford to pay the expenses of having an office. The lease payments, the utilities and the other costs associated with maintaining a place of business (not cheap with the various California and Federal regulations one must meet) were just too much. So, they will now provide the instruction in your home.

This is a sign of the times. I continue to see businesses closing around where we live. No matter what the economists or the media reports, the truth is, the economy is not recovering. Small businesses are dying and the majority of the workers in this country are employed by these small businesses.

My daughter is one of those workers employed by a small business. And, I know her company is struggling. I worry that she too will soon become one of the unemployed.

We need a change, "real" change!

So, on the way home from Church, I saw a truck with a bumper sticker and a sign on the back. The bumper sticker says:

Pro-Life AND Pro-War???

Clearly, this individual was opposed to the war in Iraq. And, they are trying to suggest there is a conflict in one's belief if they say they are Pro-Life yet support the war in Iraq. Now, on to the sign ...

Warning: There is nothing in this vehicle worth your life.

So, does anyone else see the contradiction?

We learned in the previous article that we have a Republican form of Government, a government ruled by law. The basis of our Government is held in the words found in the Declaration of Independence.

"... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..."

And, this forms the basis of my political beliefs! From these words, I have developed the "Three P's of Government" which define the proper role of government.

Three P's of Government
Protect Life - The government must protect the citizens it represents.
Preserve Liberty - The government must preserve the freedoms of it's citizens.
Permit the Pursuit of Happiness - The government must allow it's citizens to pursue happiness.

I apply each of these to a government action to determine whether the action is appropriate or not. If the action is in opposition to any of them, then the action is inappropriate. In most cases, an action will apply to at least two of these.

For example, let's take the issue of banning fireworks, something that is very common in Southern California.

Protect Life - Banning fireworks does protect life and property. This very reason is why the bans were proposed.

Preserve Liberty - Banning fireworks takes away a freedom. Law-abiding citizens are no longer free to use fireworks if they so choose.

Permit the Pursuit of Happiness - Banning fireworks does not really apply here. One could stretch it and say that the ban prevents them from "being happy", but that is not what is meant by "pursuit of happiness".

So, "banning fireworks" is not appropriate because it takes away a freedom from it's citizens even though it may protect lives and property.

Now, this seems pretty simplistic and limits the role of government. And, that is exactly the point. The role of government in our daily lives must be limited and, applying the "Three P's of Government" consistently, we can achieve that.