« Friday Random Ten: Beneath the Valley of the Random | Main | Sports update »

May 26, 2006

Comments

dave

Or maybe I should just start the California Christian Socialist Party.

I would join if I wasn't moving to Chicago...maybe we could work on a National Party! :)

Caelius Spinator

Or maybe I should just start the California Christian Socialist Party.

I'd change my registration to that in a heartbeat.

The Gonzman

I love the fact that Libertarians don't waste time on primaries.

Xrlq
Or maybe I should just start the California Christian Socialist Party.

Or you could move to Bavaria and join the Christian Social Union. Or maybe not.

ku nkiko

I'll join. I'm still registered (and voting) here in Cali, though I live in North Carolina at the moment.

Matt Brown

Good grief, Hugo. I thought only college STUDENTS, not college PROFESSORS, voted for Nader in 2000.

Hugo

Matt, would that I had been wiser... I voted for Nader in 1996 too, when he was first on the national ballot as the Green candidate.

Col Steve

Hugo -
What's your rationale for saying raising funds for public sector projects by taxation is "more honest" than by bond financing?

Traditional public finance theory holds if the benefits derived from a public sector project extend far into the future (and I think the LA Times article cited a 2005 Rand Corp. claiming a return to society from $2 to $4 for every dollar invested and the Prop 82 site claims a return of $2.62 for every $1 invested in quality preschool, due to reduced crime and dropout rates) than financing by long-term debt makes better sense than financing by current taxation.

Is it more honest because you can "identify" the 0.6% of the payers? You can identify the bond purchasers as well. Will the tax payers (which is not a constant "they") also be the ones to get the tax break when the state has less need for law enforcement and truancy services? If this initiative is such a good deal, why not spread the costs out into the future? After all, if I told you your house would be worth 2 1/2 times as much in the future as today, would you pay 100% cash up front or would you seek to minimize your downpayment as long as the borrowing cost is sufficiently below the gain in value?

If it's an equity issue, why not put the burden on the bond holders? After all, if the initiative fails to deliver the purported benefits, the state can always tax the 0.6% in the future. If the project is as good as the supporters claim, then the initiative will pay for itself and enable the state to lower taxes on the 99.4% in the future as well.

Hugo

Col Steve, thanks for the primer on bond financing. I suppose what I like about taxes (as opposed to borrowing) is it pays for things "up front" -- and it makes it clear that some folks rather than others are going to have to pay more NOW. It strikes me as more fundamentally honest, and counter to the contemporary political climate which seeks to defer hard decisions until after the current crop of politicians has left office.

I realize that this only raises taxes on a small percentage of the public. Frankly, I think we all ought to be paying more. If we'd go back to the marginal tax rates of the 1960s, and combined that with encouraging believers of all stripes to tithe on their gross income, we'd all be a lot better off.

Kyle

How can you call yourself a feminist and vote for Garamendi? No one in that race has done more for women than Jackie Speier. She created the Office of Women's Health in the Department of Health Services, she authored the Contraceptive Equity Act, and even carried the resolution adopting the ERA in California. Her list of accomplishments in this area goes on and on, unlike those of her competitor.

Jackie's also an experienced legislator who has already done more the state than most politicians do in their entire lifetimes. She's being award the NATIONAL LEGISLATOR OF THE YEAR awards from both the American Medical Association and Insure the Uninsured. And she has vowed to take this determination to improve our state to the Lt. Governorship, where she will redefine the office to actually carry political weight.

But if you think playing football outweighs all these accomplishments, go ahead and vote for Garamendi. And I thought you were an enlightened college professor.

aphrael

Hugo, i'm still undecided on the primary races; could you explain your reasons for supporting? I'm basically unable to come up with a compelling reason for voting for or against anyone, except for my longstanding dislike of angelides, so i'd love it if you could give me reasons. :)

Hugo

I'll see what else I can come up with -- honestly, I look at the Sierra Club endorsements, and read more about each of the candidates. Jerry Brown over Rocky Delgadillo is easy (especially when Rocky criticizes Jerry for being anti-death penalty). Judy Chu over Jerome Horton is easy; Horton was a shill for the alcohol/tobacco lobby when he was in the legislature. Debra Bowen over Deborah Ortiz is simply based on Bowen's masterful record in the state senate -- she's very highly thought of, though I am not sure she differs much from Ortiz. And frankly, for secretary of state in November, I'll probably vote for the one Republican I've ever voted for: Bruce Macpherson,whose record on environmental issues put him to the left of most Democrats in his state senate days. He's the last of an old breed of truly progressive Republicans, and he's earned support.

aphrael

I'm also likely to vote for Secretary McPherson; he was my legislator for many a year (I lived in Santa Cruz from 1991-2004), and while I was initially skeptical, he's done a fanastic job. :)

Hugo

Whoops, my bad. McPherson. I grew up in Carmel, which was for a time in his state senate district -- my mother (who still lives there), thinks very highly of him. He was the only Republican she's ever voted for either, as far as I know.

Anthony

Hugo, I'm not voting in that primary, but I am curious why Angelides over Westly?

About all I know about either of them is that Angelides is friendly with a lot of developers, and Westly has enough money personally to finance his campaigns himself. They're both constitutional officers, and until they chose to run against Schwarzenegger, neither made the newspaper much, if at all.

Hugo

Angelides is marginally more progressive than Westly, and has a better track record with progressive organizations. But this is pretty close to a coin flip. I suspect that come the general election, I'll vote Green.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004