My Halloween 'Blob' Entry

My son asked me if I was working on my "blob" today.  Halloween is a busy time in my household.  So, rather than do an in-depth blog entry, I have decided to just give you some ghoulish thoughts to ponder.  The Tea Party has been doing some excellent stumping this year, and they are making a frightening bid for congressional and senatorial seats across the country.  There will be tens of thousands of angry conservatives, lurching menacingly toward the polls, like a zombie hoard.  And no, removing their heads isn't the answer.  All we can do is make a showing of our own.  Show them that the liberals know it takes more than a year and a half to fix eight years worth of mistakes.  Show them that we still have faith in our president and his administration and that we have every intention of making sure he still has the support he needs from our representatives to do what we put him in office to do.

Colorado Ballot 2010

Well, it's that time.  I voted early this year.  I like to encourage people to vote early, but I think next time I'll wait until Nov. 2nd.  There's something exciting, to me, about waiting in line for an hour and talking politics with people I don't know.  But then, I'm a people person.  So without further adieu, I give you my 2010 ballot picks for the lovely State of Colorado with a brief explanation of each choice.

Amendment P  YES
This amendment would transfer licensing of games of chance (such as bingo and raffles) to the Dept. of Revenue, rather than the Dept. of State.  To tell the truth, this one isn't that big of a concern for me.  The studies sited in Colorado Blue Book
showed that while the Dept. of State has been handling this adequately for over 50 years, the Dept. of Revenue handles other gaming licenses and could control this aspect more efficiently.

Amendment Q  YES
This amendment would establish a process for moving the state seat to a temporary location in the case of a declared disaster emergency.  This seems like a no-brainer to me.  Why wouldn't the state legislature have a process in place to move the government somewhere safe if Denver is in a state of emergency?

Amendment R  NO
This amendment would eliminate property taxes for individuals and businesses that use government-owned property for profit, where the profit interest is worth less than $6000 in market value.  The argument in favor of this is that many of the interests that this would effect owe less in taxes than it costs to enforce and collect the taxes.  While that may be true in some cases, the market value exemption would have to be much lower for that to be true in enough cases to warrant passing a law like this.  It is like saying that since it costs more than $1 to collect anywhere between $1 and $20, we are going to exempt everyone who owes $20 or less.

Amendment 60  NO
This amendment does all sorts of things from overthrowing voter-approved tax increases to cutting school district property taxes by half.  With amendment 61 and proposition 101, it transfers school budget responsibility to the state and eviscerates every other aspect of the state budgets by proxy and then decimates state property and income taxes and restricts borrowing.  It then also increases state spending and reduces income by requiring publicly owned interests to pay property taxes.  These measures would cause statewide job loss and loss of services at every level of state and municipal government, including police and fire districts.

Amendment 61  NO
This is the borrow portion of a deadly trio of legislature.  This restricts or prohibits borrowing on multiple levels, including school districts.  See synopsis of amendment 60 for a more detailed diatribe.

Amendment 62  NO
I won't go into detail on this subject right now, except to say that I am not in favor of criminalizing abortion.  This amendment appears to be attempting to do that by applying the constitutional term "person" to embryos at conception.

Amendment 63  YES
This makes healthcare choice a constitutional right in our state.  It also prohibits the state from requiring or enforcing participation in any health coverage plan.  This amendment effectively prohibits the state government from enforcing the aspect of the new national healthcare bill that requires people to purchase health insurance.  I am in favor of the healthcare bill over-all, but I am opposed to an unavoidable legal requirement to purchase any private product.  I feel that this particular aspect of the health bill is unconstitutional, and essentially wrong.  This amendment would not change anything about the national bill, but it at least sends both state and federal government a message.

Proposition 101  NO
Here we have the statutory part of the 60, 61, 101 legislation of doom.  The one aspect of this particular piece I might be inclined to agree with is that car registration fees are too high in this state.  But $10 per car is far too low, so that nullifies any validity to the point.  For more on this see my amendment 61 synopsis.

Proposition 102  NO
This bill makes it more difficult to be released from custody without a secured bond.  So far as I can surmise on the subject this only benefits bondsman and no one else.  How this works is that anyone arrested for a felony or a second offense, non-violent crime can not be released from custody without a secured bond (the type of bond most people have to have a bondsman for).  This would unnecessarily increase jail times and populations at additional cost to the state.  It would potentially increase revenue for bail bondsmen though, which I guess would be good for the economy [roll eyes].

Candidates (No explanations, this part is up to you).

Governor/Lt. Governor
John Hickenlooper (D)
 Joe Garcia

U.S. Senate
Bob Kinsey (G)

U.S. House of Representatives (District 3)
John Salazar (D)

Colorado Attorney General
Stan Garnett (D)

That's all folks!  To get more local than that, you'll have to do your own homework. Thanks for reading.  Now go out and VOTE!!

Calling All Honest Politicians

I'd like to propose a new standard of practice for all campaigning politicians.  There are no truth-in-advertising laws when it comes to campaign ads (at least none that can be enforced).  So, I'd like to ask any politician who wishes to stump on honesty to publicly submit their ads for a thorough fact check, by a non-partisan organization, prior to airing.  Also, I ask that they denounce any ads by special interest groups which put forth false or misleading claims, even if these ads are in their favor.  I know that this seems like a tall order, but if America is to live up to the ideals set forth by our founding fathers, there must be transparency from our leaders from the very moment they show interest in leading.  There must be a new standard for accountability in politics.  And it must be a willing act on the part of the politician.  We do, after all, have a right to free speech in this country.  Call your favorite (or even your least favorite) politician and challenge them to prove their honesty and their worthiness as a leader.  Ask them to show, out-right, that their claims and aspirations are founded in rational thought and not just a lust for power. If one does it, their opponents will have to fall in line or face scrutiny and suspicion by their constituents.  If two do it, people in neighboring municipalities will start to wonder why their representative won't submit themselves to the same measure.  If enough people demand it, it's only a matter of time before it becomes a ubiquitous standard by which any perspective leader must pass muster in order to be taken seriously.

The Maiden Post

This being my first blog post, I'd like to start by stating my intent and maybe a little about where I'm coming from.  What this blog is, is an attempt to shine an honest light on politics.  I am not unbiased, I have my views and they will be apparent.  I will, however, take any rational arguments into consideration.  I will not let my views distort my journalism in as much as that is possible.  I will look at both sides of the story with an open mind.  My opinions may change over time.  In fact, I would be disappointed if they don't.  There is far too much spin in "journalism" these days and I hope that it will be omitted in the following posts.  My views are pretty far to the left, in general.  For instance, I believe in a balance between capitalist markets and strong social programs.  I also take sides with "the right" on occasion; I am a firm believer in our right to bear arms.  I invite, freely, comments and discussion on my posts but I will not tolerate abuse.  If someone is here just to flame, their comments will be deleted, regardless of the validity of their points.  I will gladly accept constructive criticism and corrections of fact and grammar.  In the mean time, thank you for reading, and above all VOTE!!