Michigan election endorsements
Here is who and what I'm voting for on Tuesday (between 7 AM and 7 PM at your local voting station). Hopefully you'll find at least part of this helpful.
U.S. Senate race: Michael Bouchard
Incumbent Debbie Stabenow is the classic senator who thinks that a big, federal government is the solution to any problem.
Bouchard doesn't have a Senate voting record, but he seems to be a typical conservative. It appears he actually believes in cutting taxes, government spending, and regulation. For example, he'd like to phase out the 15% tax on our paychecks - that's way more than I spend on all other taxes combined - that goes to a Social Security program that will go broke before young people benefit.
Most Republicans give lip service to things like this, then enact federal oversight of schools (No Child Left Behind - though it should be the states' and communities' job to oversee schools). I'm optimistic that Bouchard will stand out; he criticizes the Republicans currently in charge. My main concern is that this long-time sheriff will outlaw things because they're illegal rather than because they should be illegal. This includes immigration - will he only try to punish/fence out illegal immigrants, or encourage legal immigration? Will he be too pro-war?
Leonard Schwartz is also appealing. He's a Libertarian who knows what the Constitution allows congress to do (not as much as it does). If Michael Bouchard didn't stand so strongly for small government, I'd vote for Schwartz, never mind that it would mean (horrors!) the Republicans might lose control of the Senate. Good riddance, I'd say. They're not really any less of an evil than the Democratic system.
Governor's race: Dick DeVos
I'm pretty much basing this on money issues. We need someone who will make Michigan friendly for business, especially small business, as soon as possible. That, not state-sponsored health care or other social programs, is the only way to slow Michigan's job bleed. DeVos, a successful businessman himself, should be able to do this. He'll also be able to help the state work efficiently within its cramped budget. Granholm wants the state to add a health insurance program to its budget woes. How will we pay for that? Raise taxes on the few rich people left in Michigan to drive them out?
Michigan ballot proposals.
I tried to reword these slightly so they made sense.
Proposal 1: A constitutional amendment to require that conservation funds must be used for their intended purposes.
Vote no. This is ridiculous. It is the job of the state House and Senate to decide how to spend the state's money. If this passes, the only way to do anything new with the money is pass a new amendment. The state has only diverted money from these funds once over the last few years, anyway.
Proposal 2: A constitutional amendment to ban state affirmative action programs based on race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin. (This applies only to state-based hiring/contracting/school admission.)
vote no. I almost said "yes". This wouldn't be a bad thing. If it passed, discrimination would still be illegal; this only bans favoring minorities. If it only banned quotas, this would be a good idea. But if it bans a CMU admissions director from admitting an Argentinian student to keep the school from being just a bunch of boring white people, it's bad. I hate to ban personal discretion, even when it's abused sometimes.
Proposal 3: To allow a mourning dove hunting season in the state.
vote yes. Doves are no different from anything else we hunt. The one objection that carried weight with me was that mourning doves mate for life. However, Wikipedia says that single mourning doves will find a new mate.
Proposal 4: To prohibit the state and local governments from using eminent domain to take private property for private purposes.
vote yes. This protects private property from the state. The specific purpose is to keep the state from taking private property to let Wal-Mart or GM buy and build on it. The state can still take land for parks, highways, and other public uses (with proper payment).
Proposal 5: A law to establish mandatory school funding levels, and significantly raise current funding levels (by $565 million).
vote no. Where will the money come from? Money doesn't correlate to better schools anyway, as a Home School Foundation study found. Not that I'm opposed to , but let the state congress decide on the funds rather than voters. That way, they can decide how to fund it rather than mandating "give them $565 mil right now."
State senate, district 27: John Gleason
John Gleason seems to have more common sense than concern for political wrangling.
I might post another blog with Attorney General, Secretary of State, and other endorsements.
U.S. Senate race: Michael Bouchard
Incumbent Debbie Stabenow is the classic senator who thinks that a big, federal government is the solution to any problem.
Bouchard doesn't have a Senate voting record, but he seems to be a typical conservative. It appears he actually believes in cutting taxes, government spending, and regulation. For example, he'd like to phase out the 15% tax on our paychecks - that's way more than I spend on all other taxes combined - that goes to a Social Security program that will go broke before young people benefit.
Most Republicans give lip service to things like this, then enact federal oversight of schools (No Child Left Behind - though it should be the states' and communities' job to oversee schools). I'm optimistic that Bouchard will stand out; he criticizes the Republicans currently in charge. My main concern is that this long-time sheriff will outlaw things because they're illegal rather than because they should be illegal. This includes immigration - will he only try to punish/fence out illegal immigrants, or encourage legal immigration? Will he be too pro-war?
Leonard Schwartz is also appealing. He's a Libertarian who knows what the Constitution allows congress to do (not as much as it does). If Michael Bouchard didn't stand so strongly for small government, I'd vote for Schwartz, never mind that it would mean (horrors!) the Republicans might lose control of the Senate. Good riddance, I'd say. They're not really any less of an evil than the Democratic system.
Governor's race: Dick DeVos
I'm pretty much basing this on money issues. We need someone who will make Michigan friendly for business, especially small business, as soon as possible. That, not state-sponsored health care or other social programs, is the only way to slow Michigan's job bleed. DeVos, a successful businessman himself, should be able to do this. He'll also be able to help the state work efficiently within its cramped budget. Granholm wants the state to add a health insurance program to its budget woes. How will we pay for that? Raise taxes on the few rich people left in Michigan to drive them out?
Michigan ballot proposals.
I tried to reword these slightly so they made sense.
Proposal 1: A constitutional amendment to require that conservation funds must be used for their intended purposes.
Vote no. This is ridiculous. It is the job of the state House and Senate to decide how to spend the state's money. If this passes, the only way to do anything new with the money is pass a new amendment. The state has only diverted money from these funds once over the last few years, anyway.
Proposal 2: A constitutional amendment to ban state affirmative action programs based on race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin. (This applies only to state-based hiring/contracting/school admission.)
vote no. I almost said "yes". This wouldn't be a bad thing. If it passed, discrimination would still be illegal; this only bans favoring minorities. If it only banned quotas, this would be a good idea. But if it bans a CMU admissions director from admitting an Argentinian student to keep the school from being just a bunch of boring white people, it's bad. I hate to ban personal discretion, even when it's abused sometimes.
Proposal 3: To allow a mourning dove hunting season in the state.
vote yes. Doves are no different from anything else we hunt. The one objection that carried weight with me was that mourning doves mate for life. However, Wikipedia says that single mourning doves will find a new mate.
Proposal 4: To prohibit the state and local governments from using eminent domain to take private property for private purposes.
vote yes. This protects private property from the state. The specific purpose is to keep the state from taking private property to let Wal-Mart or GM buy and build on it. The state can still take land for parks, highways, and other public uses (with proper payment).
Proposal 5: A law to establish mandatory school funding levels, and significantly raise current funding levels (by $565 million).
vote no. Where will the money come from? Money doesn't correlate to better schools anyway, as a Home School Foundation study found. Not that I'm opposed to , but let the state congress decide on the funds rather than voters. That way, they can decide how to fund it rather than mandating "give them $565 mil right now."
State senate, district 27: John Gleason
John Gleason seems to have more common sense than concern for political wrangling.
I might post another blog with Attorney General, Secretary of State, and other endorsements.
posted by Derby at 23:59
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home