CA Special Election – Recall and other matters

So the recall election is on for Tuesday, October 7. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against its earlier 3-judge panel ruling, and we will be making some important decisions in a little over a week.

If you think you might be unable to vote on the 7th, please request an absentee ballot. Your application for the ballot must be received by the County Election Official by Tuesday, September 30. Here’s a list of officials.

Recall – Vote NO

As you know, the recall was brought about because Republican House member Issa provided $1.6 million of his personal money to gather signatures for the recall petition. The petition only required a number equal to 8% of the number of voters in the last gubernatorial election. I don’t know about you, but the fact that such a small minority of Californians was able to push this through with the backing of a wealthy partisan politician really irks me.

What’s even scarier is the fact that if this recall fails and voter turn-out is even lower, then some other wealthy person could spend even less money to get another recall on the ballot.

This sets a bad precedent. Leadership means making hard choices, and sometimes those choices will be unpopular in the short run but turn out for the best in the long run. If every elected official could be recalled within 6 months of winning office, why would anyone ever make a tough decision? Why have representative government at all?

But isn’t Davis a bad guy? Well, yes and no. He’s a politician, and there’s been some mismanagement, but for the most part, the energy crisis and the state economy and budget have not been his fault.

Big energy companies like Enron used some shady practices to create an artificial shortage and drove up energy prices. In this environment of looming brownouts and angry Californians, Davis signed long-term contracts which fixed prices but guaranteed power. Once those were in place, the energy crisis disappeared. You can read the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s initial report on this.

As for the economy, the national economy has slumped since 2001, and 48 of the states faced deficits this year. California was hit especially hard because of the large technology economy in Northern California. Combined with the federal tax cuts, state revenues have been down significantly. Moreover, about two-thirds of the state budget is tied up with mandatory spending on debt and voter propositions. That doesn’t leave a lot of room to try to create a budget, especially with Republicans opposing passing a budget in order to fuel recall support.

But Davis hasn’t done anything that merits a recall. He’s a victim of his own bland personality, distasteful politicking, and an organized coup attempt by this state’s right-wing minority.

So please vote NO on the recall.

Replacement Candidate – Vote Cruz Bustamante

Contrary to some people’s opinions, you can vote NO on the recall and still vote for a candidate.

I support Cruz Bustamante because a) he is the most legitimate choice for Governor, since he was elected Lieutenant Governor by the people in the last election, and b) he is most likely to win over the Republicans. Since the recall is a Republican-funded coup attempt, they must be denied victory.

If this were a normal general statewide election, I would support Arianna. But this isn’t an election about who should be governor, it’s an election about thwarting power-grabs by partisan right-wingers. Let Arnold, Arianna, and all the rest run in the next regularly-scheduled election, and let them win on the merit of their platforms.

If the recall fails, this is a non-issue. But if it succeeds, we cannot hand over power to an actor with no management experience and no knowledge of how government works. Would you hire Arnold to work at your company?

Prop 53 – Funds Dedicated for State and Local Infrastructure – Vote NO

This is another instance of budgeting by proposition. Bad idea. Voters can’t see the big picture of the budget. If they could, they could decide on infrastructure vs. education, infrastructure vs. health care, etc., and achieve a balance of spending and cuts. It’s what we do when we choose to buy a new TV or save money to buy a car later on. But in an initiative process, we can’t see that the new bed we buy today means not paying the rent next month.

Prop 54 – Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color, or National Origin – Vote NO

This is touted as a way to make the government “color-blind.” Sounds good. It sounds like it’s against discrimination against minorities. But that’s not the case. What it means is that we won’t know what’s happening to which Californians. Hate crimes, racial profiling (i.e., driving while black/brown), public health issues (e.g., diseases affecting certain minorities), education policy–all these things rely upon having accurate demographic data about where we’ve been and where we are, and inform our representatives about problems so they can solve them.

Prop 54 is a bad idea. Please vote NO.

Posted on September 28th, 2003 § 0 comments

DOJ begins prelimininary inquiry

TIME.com: The Wilson War Continues

The Justice Department has opened a preliminary inquiry into whether a Bush Administration official illegally revealed the identity of a CIA employee whose husband criticized the Administration’s handling of intelligence on Iraq, TIME has learned. The probe will determine whether to order a full-fledged FBI investigation.

The New York Times is behind the times. Or behind Time. Their story only mentions the fact that the CIA has asked Justice to investigate.

The government official said George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, had determined there was a security breach and had asked the Justice Department to investigate. A Justice Department spokesman said tonight that he could not confirm the department had opened an inquiry.

Federal law bars disclosing the identities of Americans who work undercover for the C.I.A., a provision intended to protect operatives.

The Washington Post reports on the same story as Time, and has more information.

A senior administration official said two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife. That was shortly after Wilson revealed in July that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson’s account eventually touched off a controversy over Bush’s use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

“Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,” the senior official said of the alleged leak.

The Intelligence Protection Act, passed in 1982, imposes maximum penalties of 10 years in prison and $50,000 fines for unauthorized disclosure by government employees with access to classified information.

Two of ‘em, eh? I wonder which one’s going to be the punk when they go to jail?

Posted on September 27th, 2003 § 0 comments

New development in the Joseph Wilson affair

CIA seeks probe of White House

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman’s husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush’s since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.

Of course making the leak was illegal, irresponsible, and dangerous. We’ll see if the Justice Department complies with the request.

Posted on September 27th, 2003 § 0 comments

U.S. troops uncover one of their biggest weapons caches in Saddam’s hometown

But before you jump to conclusions, these are not WMD’s.

U.S. troops uncover one of their biggest weapons caches in Saddam’s hometown

The cache turned up 23 Russian-made surface to air missiles, 1,000 pounds of plastic explosives, four rocket propelled grenade launchers and 115 rockets, a mortar and 40 mortar rounds, 1,300 blasting caps and 423 hand grenades

Conventional weapons.

Posted on September 27th, 2003 § 0 comments

California’s Budget Process

A new initiative is undergoing signature verification by the Secretary of State. In summary, the initiative would:

“[Call] for reducing the proportion of legislators required to pass a state budget from its current 67% approval level to a 55% approval level. It would also withhold lawmakers pay when a budget is late, force them to work exclusively on adopting a budget if they miss the June 15 constitutional deadline for doing so, and requires legislators seeking re-election to disclose how they voted on state spending.”

In the most recent budget impasse, obstruction of the budget was used by Republicans as a political tool to drive the Davis recall signature campaign. As soon as enough signatures were gathered, the budget was allowed to pass. This type of political maneuvering is unacceptable. Furthermore, most voters want their representatives to do their job; withholding pay for failing to do so seems like a great way to force the issue.

A just-released Field Poll shows varying support for the initiative, depending on how it’s described:

The longer description which outlines both the approval level changes and the penalties for lawmakers is supported 61% vs 25%.

The shorter description which only mentions the approval level changes was opposed (38% vs 44%).

This seems to indicate that withholding pay and requiring disclosure are popular accountability tools.

Posted on September 24th, 2003 § 0 comments

Where am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for September, 2003 at StudioGlyphic.