All posts in Politics

For your consideration, the following link takes you to the complete text of the ballot proposals (pdf).

Proposal 06-1 – YES

“…to amend the State Constitution to require that money held in conservation and recreation funds can only be used for their intended purposes.”

The fact that this even has to be a proposal shocks me. I  am a firm believer in that you should reap what you sow. So, it seems only obvious to me that monies collected by these organizations should be used by the organizations.

Basically, the ballot calls for a series of “legacy” funds to be created that collected monies derived from their specific areas are then used to support those areas. I know that sounds confusing, so let me give you the following example: with the forest recreation account, revenue comes from concession, leases, contracts, and fees from recreational activities on state forestlands. This money is then spent on things like the development, improvement, operation, promotion, and maintenance of forest recreation activities.

So, this proposal only seems logical to me. I mean seriously, why should money raised by these groups go to support drug addicts on welfare? Or, really for any other purpose?

Proposal 06-2 – YES

“…amend the State Constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.”

This is one of the greatest ballot proposals that has come up since I have been able to vote. I would love to see the day when all government mandated preferential treatment programs are utterly abolished. Unfortunately, this proposal only applies to the public sector.

Affirmative action is at best a joke, and at worst insulting. Not only does it hold the potential to harm those in the majority, but also those in the minority by undermining their qualification. Really, I could go on and on against the evils of programs like affirmative action.

I do believe that in order for the government to function effectively, they need to be as unbiased as possible. So, preferential treatment-like programs just fly in the face of this notion. They are at least as bad as policies before affirmative action, if not worse because it codifies the discrimination.

However, in the private sector I think companies should be able to hire whomever they want, and fire whoever they want for whatever reason they feel like. So, if individual organizations instituted policies like affirmative action, or counter-affirmative action, or whatever I would still be ethically against it, but I would support their right to do so. However, for the government to do it, well that is just reprehensible.

Proposal 06-3 – YES

“…allow for the establishment of a hunting season for mourning doves.”

There is not really any reason not to vote yes for this law. It does not say that a mourning dove hunting season will be established, just that one could be. Generally speaking, hunting seasons are created as a means of population control for the species. Therefore, if these birds become problematic it would be important to be able to hunt them. And, if they are struggling, you would obviously not have a hunting season.

Proposal 06-4 – YES

“…amend the State Constitution to prohibit government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain private purposes.”

I think that it is pretty obvious that not banning this in the federal constitution was probably an oversight by the founding fathers. Otherwise, we would have heard about this thing going on in the past.

Regardless, Michigan is doing the right thing by codifying an end to this reprehensible practice within our faltering state.

Proposal 06-5 – NO

“…establish mandatory school funding levels.”

This is a simple matter of something that is good in spirit, but bad in execution. Guaranteeing money without any kind of accountability is really problematic. I do agree that schools should be getting more money, but it needs to be done in a more constructive, responsible way. Because, throwing money at the problem is not going to fix our school system.

This was originally going to be a comment, but it seems to have developed into quite a rant so I decided to let it out to breath.

Chouse, I cannot believe I just heard you say you are satisfied by her policies. That makes me very worried for you.

The biggest threat that Graholm possess is the lack of understanding of economics. The democratic party has already pushed through a minimum wage hike, that is one of the worst possible things you can do during a recession. Furthermore, every time I hear a democrat utter the phrase “unfair trade agreements” it makes my blood boil.

The bottom line is that free trade is not unfair. Ian Bremmer recently wrote a book where he talks about the “J-curve” that illustrates how countries can become stable as isolationists, but they can only become as robust as the short part of the J, where as open governments that are stable can make it to the top of high part. I mean that is obviously an over simplification of what he said, but it makes my point. The elimination of the so called “unfair trade agreements” would ultimately cap Michigan and do it more damage in the long run than anything else.

Many of the so called “solutions” the Granholm has proposed are narrow minded temporary solutions. Accelerating both building and road construction just reduces their necessity into the future. Thus, in a couple of years when those pet projects are done those people will still be without jobs.

Furthermore, the lack of resourcefulness in the Governor’s ability to eliminate both the personal property tax and the single business tax illustrate well the lack of ingenuity of the party.

The best possible thing that could happen to Michigan is a restructuring of our economy to free ourselves from the automotive manufacturers. And, the only possible way to do that is to provide a stable environment for businesses in the state. I really think this would be a stronger angle for DeVos on Amway. Every time they attack him for cutting jobs here, and investing in China, he should make it very clear that he cut those jobs to protect that rest, and to strengthen the company overall. The numbers support him.

When DeVos started at Amway there were 3,032 people employed there, and when he left there were 3,989. This is because the company was allowed to prune when it needed to, and grow when it was allowed to. It is simply the reality of business.

However, when Granholm took office there were around 4,445,000, and by now we have lost over 100,000 of them. Granted it is not directly her fault that the automobile industry dug itself a grave back in the 1970′s. But, it is her fault that she did not provide a conducive climate for the business here, and to attract new business. The only way that any new businesses even considered coming here was if she cut all the personal property and single business taxes they would have to pay, because they are simply ridiculous. Furthermore, other large employers have been received substantial tax relief in those areas, ultimately putting a bulk of the 2-billion brought in by the taxes on small business in Michigan.

Perhaps the biggest joke is that she had anything to do with Google setting up a plant here. That is just flat out wrong.

The bottom line is that the democratic party is not intellectually capable of getting themselves out of recession.

Among those reasons listed here, this will be the first time that I have ever cast I vote where I believe I was picking the best candidate, and not just the lesser of two evils.

Oh, yeah, Paris Hilton is there to remind all you liberals to talk as much as you want, but on election day don’t bother to vote, just like her.