In that last days of the Presidential campaign, I just found this at McCain's site. I agree with every point.
We cannot tax ourselves out of a recession. The Tax Man Cometh
Do we want to trust our security to someone whose mettle has not yet been tested? Mark Biden's Words
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". The narrator of the book War and Peace says this. Some have attributed this to Edmund Burke.
I just posted a comment on Emily's blog.
Some people are wrong. They do not believe in something that I believe would be wrong. I believe that McCain will be a better President that Obama. That he will lead us in a direction that will more likely bring prosperity, security and a more moral society.
Some people are rotten. They do evil things for fun. Enough said. Don't treat someone you think is wrong like they are rotten, if they are not.
I have a friend who does not seem as conservative as me when it comes to economic policy. She is considering voting for Obama. I emailed her Teach school children what spread the wealth means. I agree with her premise that many people are poor because of their lack of opportunity.
She looks forward to a civil implementation of the Law of Consecration. I also look forward to this. I see it being based on the principles taught by king Benjamin and those more fully practiced hundreds of years later.
One key principle in this economic policy is that they gave voluntarily. They were not compelled to give the poor their means. They did make covenants that they would be giving. So after a man made a covenant, he was held accountable.
This kind of economic policy is already available. There are many charities that promote self sufficiency and the dignity of work in the way they uplift those in need and want. There is the perpetual education fund. There are humanitarian charities. There are opportunities to serve with our own hands in the communities where each of us live.
Charitable welfare is possible as far as we are able to persuade those around us that it is a good thing for them to do personally. Compelling those around us to be charitable is not as effective as having them acknowledge their position before their Maker; that they might give of their means to provide relief and opportunity to those around us.
The above is the ideal. The reality is that very many of us are not charitable. Many don't care so much to help the less fortunate. We can do better in persuading others and ourselves to be more giving. I really like the focus both candidates gave for a day or two on promoting service.
Obama is the most liberal presidential candidate(1, 2) ever nominated by either of the two main parties. If he gets elected and is not checked by a Republican House or Senate, we may turn this recession into a depression like FDR did. You cannot tax your way out of a recession.
I thought this was an effective way to teach school aged children what spread the wealth means, Conversations with Molly.
I just listened to a friend talk about the run around he is getting. His hard drive flaked out near the end of its warranty. The manufacturer gave him a refurb and it flaked out after 2 months. They kept saying that they could not send him a new one. They finally agreed to send a refurb and extend his warranty so he does not have to worry that it will give out a day after his originally warranty expires.
It took many many emails back and forth to convince them to apply an exception to their warranty policies. This reminded me of the post by Erik Sink (Absurd Customer Service) on the differences of large companies versus smaller ones.
I will post here what I think about the Arizona Ballot measures. Respond if you do or do not agree.
The two main sources I am using to decide are the pamphlet the AZ Secretary of State publishes and Arizona 2008 ballot measures at ballotpedia.org
See also who I am voting for.
Prop 100 known by its supporters as the Protect Our Homes Act.
My Vote is Yes.
The sponsor's statement describes the measure this way: "this Initiative prohibits the government from charging any new tax on the sale or transfer of real property in Arizona. Currently, there are no real property sales or transfer taxes in Arizona. However, the government could enact a real property sale or transfer tax at any time. This Initiative would prohibit the enactment of any new real property sales or transfer tax by a constitutional amendment."
I agree with the supporting arguments. I am a little wary of putting this in the State Constitution. This is my only reservation at this point.
Prop 101 Medical Choice for Arizona or the Freedom to Choose Act
My Vote is No.
We should allow people to choose to pay their own medical costs. It prevents a mandatory health care system for the state of Arizona (see 101 Q&A). This video gives arguments for. See also yeson101.com.
I am a little wary of the murky language that is argued by the opposition. Perhaps it is not worded well. I am again wary of putting this in the constitution. Sounds like it belongs in the law instead.
How could those who rely on Medicaid and Medicare could lose coverage? The video argument says it will jeopardize AHCCCS, how?
Update: I received some feedback from a Doctor. I have changed my vote to No. I may support something like it but it seems it is too geared towards helping insurance companies than individuals.
The reason I initially was for this was that it allowed individuals to opt out of a AZ State run mandatory health ins system. Our medical cost are more than many other nation's. We also have many more treatments and innovations as a result. I think it is important to make reasonable access to health care to all who want health care.
I generally like the premise of the system Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. It required everyone who could afford insurance to get it. Like liability insurance for autos. Those who could not afford it, would get assistance to buy their own. It left it up to each family where to get it. It allowed for lower rates because everyone was in it. It also allowed for competition of Ins companies.
I don't want a government run health care system.
Here is the quote from the Doctor:
This is a very politically mediated proposition. This proposition is written and backed by the insurance companies and gives them an advantage. Passing of this will not affect Medicaid.
My concern is that we are further legislating Insurance Companies rights over the rights of the consumer and most of the medical societies initially took a "no" position, however, after they all received subtle threats from the insurance companies attorneys, these societies back pedaled and last week have taken a "neutral" position on this which means that this proposition, vague in its wording, gives leverage to insurance companies many times placing the consumer at further risk.
Vote your conscience.
My vote is "no."
