4 Kasım 2012 Pazar

2012 Election: Chicago Ballot, Legislative and Executive Positions

To contact us Click HERE
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Here's a quick run-down of my positions on the legislative and executive (both national, state, and local) contested positions on the ballot in Chicago (at least, my ballot in my part of Chicago). For another opinion, the Chicago Tribune's endorsement page is here.
  • U.S. House of Representatives, 1st District of Illinois
The candidates are Bobby Rush (incumbent, D) and Donald Peloquin (R). First of all, Congressman Rush deserves credit for wearing a hoodie on the floor of Congress in honor of Trayvon Martin, the teenager shot in Florida earlier this year. But Peloquin on the issues is tough to beat. He's an economic conservative, but a smart one: his focus is on a simplified tax code with everyone paying their fair share. He seems to acknowledge that low capital gains tax rates are ridiculous, and he makes a positive statement about health care reform (specifically, the need to address preexisting conditions and portability) without jumping on the "repeal Obamacare" bandwagon: in fact, he says that he would support a detailed and thoughtful reconsideration of the Affordable Care Act that would keep some parts of it and change others. His support for lowering the deficit without raising additional revenue is troubling, but not realistic and seemingly not a core principle. He says that marriage is between a man and a woman, but also says that he understands "marriage" to be a purely religious notion—not only does he think the government should offer civil unions to same-sex couples, he thinks civil unions are all the government should offer to anyone. He thinks that military action against Iran's nuclear program should be a last resort. He supports a path to citizenship for current undocumented immigrants. He supports investment in clean energy and term limits for Congressmen. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the last one, but Peloquin has my support, especially given Rush's uninspired approach to addressing the issues.
  • Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Commissioners
Voters can select up to three of the eight candidates for this commission. This isn't an area where I have much to say, so I can't do much better than go with the Tribune's endorsement of Debra Shore, Kari Steele, and Patrick Thompson. The Tribune does seem to be focusing on the right issues, at least, even if their concern about the Election Day holiday is a bit overblown.
  • Cook County State's Attorney
The candidates are Anita Alvarez (incumbent, D) and Lori Yokoyama (R). I don't feel kindly to Alvarez because of her trumpeting her victory in Williams v. Illinois, a recent Supreme Court case that limited defendants' right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment. But Professor Friedman argues that the impact of Williams is limited and, regardless, arguing Williams was Alvarez's job; it's hard to imagine any prosecutor doing differently. And we shouldn't fault Alvarez for doing her job well. There are some positives in Alvarez's issues profile as well: her focus on public corruption is encouraging, as is her creation of a conviction integrity unit to investigate suspect convictions. In contrast, Yokoyama's approach to the issues feels juvenile; her style simply doesn't convey the gravitas one expects from a prosecutor charged with life-altering decisions. Also, as the Tribune points out, Yokoyama's background is in civil litigation, not criminal law. State's Attorney is not the first criminal law position someone should hold. So, I'll be voting for Alvarez.
  • Cook County Clerk of the Circuit Court
An vote for county clerk is more about administrative abilities than politics, so I must once again turn to the Tribune, and trust them in their assessment that Dorothy Brown (D) has failed to follow through on modernizing the Clerk's office. But just because politics isn't going to get anyone elected as Clerk, that doesn't mean it shouldn't sink their campaign. The Tribune references anti-Muslim postings by Diane Shapiro (R); one of them appears to be this. In short, it's a crude joke claiming that Muslim women wear veils because they're all ugly. It's not a suggestion that Muslims shouldn't be elected to office, but it's still pretty bad. Given that, and the fact that Brown's accomplishments do sound positive, even if she hasn't modernized the office like she promised to, I'll be voting for Dorothy Brown.
  • Recorder of Deeds
The difference in issue statements between Karen Yarbrough (D) and Sherri Griffith (R) actually provides some good information this time. Yarbrough is focused on increasing the investigative role of the Recorder's office, while Griffith is focused on stream-lining the office, eliminating waste and speeding up turnover rates. Both are important, but Griffith's focus seems to me to be more essential at the current time, and so I'll be voting for her (the Tribune's endorsement notwithstanding).

Summary:
US House, 1st District: Donald Peloquin (R)
MWRD: Debra Shore (D), Kari Steele (D), Patrick Thompson (D)
State's Attorney: Anita Alvarez (D)
Clerk of the Circuit Court: Dorothy Brown (D)
Recorder of Deeds: Sherri Griffith (R)

Some Mitt Quotes To Remember

To contact us Click HERE
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Here are some quotes to remember as we head into the last few days before the election.
  • Some gays are actually having children born to them. It's not right on paper. It's not right in fact. Every child has a right to a mother and father. (source)
  • We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things [disaster relief] without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all. (source)
  • I'm supporting Richard Murdock for Senate. (source) (Richard Murdock is the candidate who said that there should be no rape exception for abortion, because such pregnancies are "God's will.")
  • No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate. (source)
  • I wanted to increase the work requirement. I said, for instance, that even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work...I'm willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more, providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work. (source)
  • There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it...And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. (source)
  • I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. (source)
  • My dad, as you probably know, was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico... and had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this. But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico. He lived there for a number of years. I mean, I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino. (source)
  • Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. (source)
  • Get the education. Borrow money if you have to from your parents. (source)

Michigan 2012 Election: Proposal 4, Michigan Quality Home Care Council

To contact us Click HERE
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

The full text of the amendment that Proposal 4 would add to the Michigan Constitution is available here. In short, Proposal 4 would enshrine collective bargaining rights for home health care workers in the Michigan Constitution, together with recreating an agency of government to oversee them that was defunded earlier this year.

It sounds good and progressive, but the underlying story is more complicated. The standard model of unionization assumes that a large group of employees, working for a single employer, bargain collectively in order to level the playing field. Home health care workers, however, are independent contractors employed by individual patients, who are paid (at least in part) by taxpayers through Medicaid. Apparently, "many" of the home health care workers are actually family members of the patients, who use the taxpayer support to enable them to devote more time to care.

What's even more worrying is that, allegedly, only 20% of home health care workers took part in the original unionization vote, which was held without much publicity.

Given that the home health care workers are so dispersed — independent contractors working for individual patients — unionization does not seem like the right path for either increasing the quality of care or the employment standards of the workers. Rather, it looks like mostly a way to siphon money off for union dues. It doesn't seem to me that the home health care workers will have many common issues or concerns that a union can address.

And so, unless someone can tell me what benefits home health care workers get from the union — benefits that justify embedding this program in the Constitution — I recommend a NO vote on Proposal 4.

Michigan 2012 Election: Proposal 6, Limiting Bridge Creation

To contact us Click HERE
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Proposal 6 is absurd. If passed, it would require special votes of both the citizens of the entire state and citizens of local municipalities before new bridges or tunnels to Canada can be built. Direct democracy is great and all, but there's absolutely no reason that the construction of new bridges and tunnels should require anything more than standard legislative approval.

That would be reason enough to recommend a NO vote on Proposal 6, but in addition it represents the worst of crony capitalist politics. Matty Moroun, the billionaire owner of the existing bridge to Canada, is trying to use the Michigan Constitution to cement his monopoly on land travel between Michigan and Canada.

Vote NO on 6. Don't let billionaires rewrite our Constitution.

Michigan 2012 Elections: Ballot Proposal Summary

To contact us Click HERE
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Over the course of the last few months, I've ended up opposing all six proposals on the statewide ballot in Michigan this year. For those interested, here are the links to the relevant posts and brief summaries of my rationales.

Proposal 1: A NO vote on Proposal 1 will repeal the Emergency Financial Manager law, an unconstitutional intrusion into local governance. I've written extensively on this law: see here.

Proposal 2: This proposal would put an absolute right to unionization and collective bargaining for all employees into the Michigan Constitution. Unionization is good; poorly thought out absolutes are not. I've also addressed this in the context of graduate student research assistants here.

Proposal 3: This would constitutionalize an energy plan. It's a bad idea. Circumstances change, and things of this specificity and limited duration don't belong in the Constitution. Besides that, I'm leery of overt subsidies to renewable energy: the government should invest in research and infrastructure, not energy production.

Proposal 4: This proposal would reestablish a system of collective bargaining for home health care workers. It sounds good, but I'm not convinced it's a good idea. Home health care workers are dispersed, and don't really work for a single company, so it's not clear what a union can really accomplish for them. That's not to mention, of course, that the original unionization vote (several years ago) only included votes from about 20% of those eventually unionized.

Proposal 5: This would make tax increases require a 2/3 vote of both houses of the legislature. It's a terrible idea, not least because it would doom any effort to simplify the tax code (even one that didn't raise taxes on net). Save Michigan from financial ruin by voting NO.

Proposal 6: This is an attempt by the billionaire owner of the current bridge from Michigan to Canada to use the Constitution to block competition. Don't let him.

13 Ekim 2012 Cumartesi

Obama's $5 trillion tax cut claim against Romney is a fiction

To contact us Click HERE
Robert Samuelson has his usual nice, even handed discussion here:
Here's Obama at one rally:"My opponent, he believes in top-down economics, thinks that if you spend another $5 trillion on a tax cut skewed towards the wealthy that prosperity will rain down on everyone else."
It's a powerful argument, marred only by the fact that the $5 trillion tax cut is a fiction. . . .
To justify its $5 trillion figure -- the estimated tax loss over a decade -- the Obama campaign had to cherry-pick Romney's proposal and the TPC analysis. It had to ignore any revenue raised by reducing tax breaks and assume that, faced with a conflict between the rich and the middle class, Romney would automatically side with the rich -- as opposed to shielding the middle class from any tax increase. On Wednesday, Romney promised to protect the middle class.
The TPC report was widely interpreted as saying Romney would have to raise taxes on the middle class. It didn't, says the TPC's Howard Gleckman. It simply pointed out that he couldn't keep all "his ambitious campaign promises." He'd have to make choices and modifications. So what else is new? . . . 

Do a Google Search on "Completely Wrong" and you get page after page of links to Mitt Romney stories

To contact us Click HERE
I did this search around 2 AM this morning.  You have to go to the third page of searches until you come to a link to something using the term "completely wrong" that has nothing to do with Romney.
I must say that searches that I did using Bing and Yahoo produced similar results.

UPDATE: Fox News has this: "Mitt Romney’s Google problem is 'completely wrong'"

A Google Images search for the phrase “completely wrong” yields page after page of photos of the presidential candidate, calling to mind Google Bombs lobbed in the past against Rick Santorum, George W. Bush, and others.
But this is no Bomb, the company said.
A Google spokeswoman told FoxNews.com that Romney’s Google problem isn’t something the company can “fix” -- labeling it instead a “natural” effect of the algorithm. After secret video was released of the candidate saying he “didn’t have to worry about” 47 percent of the population, Romney used the phrase to describe his off-the-cuff comments.
"Clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you're going to say something that doesn't come out right," Romney told Fox News host Sean Hannity. "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong." . . .