We'll now feature the next two candidates...
Party: Constitution Party
Candidate: Chuck Baldwin
The Constitution Party boasts the title of the party with the largest volume of registered voters outside of the duopoly (Dems and GOP). They currently have ballot access in thirty states. (Note: Ralph Nader now has surpassed Baldwin with access in thirty-three states.) The party's platform is very conservative, perhaps paleoconservative with, as the name suggests, a strong adherence an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. They also adhere to a strong moral platform on Christian principles.
Mr. Baldwin is a Baptist pastor, author and radio talk show host. He received the party's nomination for Vice President in 2004. Baldwin has received public support, but not an endorsement, from Ron Paul (R-TX) for his strong defense of liberty and fiscally conservative views. Interestingly enough, prior to Baldwin's decision to seek the candidacy, he endorsed Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. Baldwin has gone on record to indicate that he believes there may be government conspiracies behind 9/11, the New World Order and the North American Union. He has also proposed a ban on foreign ownership of just about anything in the U.S. His running mate is Darrel Castle.
Like many of the candidates we've reviewed so far, I respect many of Mr. Baldwin's positions. He believes in limited government, decentralization, and strict interpretation of the Constitution as designed by the Founding Fathers. However, the strong message of Christian values is divisive and leads to the restriction of other people's rights. Their platform walks this line carefully which is important. Their stance on gambling probably best embodies my trepidation. The old argument that State's Rights is "code" for granting the states the authority to impose morality and discrimination is one that I don't believe in. But, I'm a little nervous in the case of Baldwin and the Constitution Party. I do like more than I dislike. He's a semi-finalist.
Party: Libertarian Party
Candidate: Bob Barr
The Libertarian Party is often described as fiscally conservative socially liberal (or progressive). This is a reasonable description of the party, but the strong belief in personal choice and freedom without little (or no) government intervention is the spirit of their ethos. In some ways they look a lot like very conservative Republicans and in other ways the look a lot like hippy, liberal Democrats. The Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the U.S. in terms of the number of candidates and elected officials. They currently have ballot access for President in forty-one states.
Bob Barr is (like Cynthia McKinney) a former Congressman from the state of Georgia. He served from 1995-2003 and was (in)famous for leading the impeachment charge against President Clinton (before Lewinsky). Barr has changed his position on many issues since his time in Congress. He was against medical marijuana, authored the Defense of Marriage Act which limited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, and voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. He has changed or revised his position on all of these issues which caused consternation and limited his acceptance within the Libertarian Party. Nonetheless, he did receive the party's nomination and arguably gives them their best chance in the election since their inception in 1972. His pick for VP is Wayne Allyn Root.
I've struggled to bring myself around to definitively support Mr. Barr. His background shows strong conservative principles, but mixes in a bit too much authoritarianism on social issues and security than I care to have in a politician. But, he says that he's changed. Should I trust a politician? Barr continues to maintain his Leadership PAC and has distributed funds to staunch Republican conservatives even in battles where they oppose Libertarian candidates. (Story here and interesting blog post here.) So, where does that leave me...??? Barr is a semi-finalist.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Review of Presidential Candidates - Part Two
Today's review of Presidential candidates will look at two more candidates. Let's get right to it.
Party: Green Party of the United States
Candidate: Cynthia McKinney
The Green Party is on the verge of being a very legitimate party in the U.S. They currently stand with ballot access in twenty-six states and arguably has more potential (longer-term) than any other third party in the U.S. as there is broad international appeal and stories of success. Their platform is summarized in its Ten Key Values. As you would infer from the name of the party, there is the expected focus on environmental issues. But, the Green Party is more about social equality, non-violence and delivering the power to the people. You also may recall that Ralph Nader has previously received the nomination of the Green Party for President.
Cynthia McKinney is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Georgia. She served from 1993-2003 and 2005-2007. She gained a reputation as an outspoken young leader of the Democratic Party. However, she said some unpopular things, and spent a bit too much political capital. Since losing her seat in Congress, she has continued being outspoken - now against the political elite in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike. Now, she has settled in with the Green Party. Her platform shares a lot of similarity with that of her party; however, there is a lot more focus on social and racial justice. She is highly critical of our economic and political systems suggesting they further perpetuate racial inequity and call for reparations for Blacks. She has chosen Rosa Clemente as her running-mate.
I respect many of McKinney's positions and those of the Green Party. Their economic policies, especially those of McKinney, are a certain flavor of socialism; however, this is not the core plank of their platform. But, many of the social justice programs will only be manifest as massive government welfare at the expense of corporations and taxpayers. McKinney has a tendency to be a bit of a conspiracy theorist. I'm not sure if I should write her off as crazy or trust that she understand the dirty inside business in Washington because she's been there. The message of "Power to the People" is a good one, but the McKinney platform doesn't seem to mention decentralization of the government and suggests a deeper system of nationalized welfare. I'm going to pass on her.
Party: Independent
Candidate: Ralph Nader
Mr. Nader is often made fun of for running for President in every election. He is also known by some for costing Al Gore the election in 2000 to George W. Bush. While he has run in every Presidential election since 1996, I strongly believe it is not fair to say he is responsible for putting Bush into office. Running as the Green Party candidate in 1996 and 2000, he moved to run as an independent candidate in both 2004 and now in 2008. He currently has ballot access in twenty-eight states.
Ralph Nader has long been in the public view as a political activist and consumer advocate. On the big political stage of the Presidency, he is most comfortable fighting corporatism and the duopoly of the major parties. Much of his platform is consistent with the Green Party platform. In fact, his platform hasn't changed much at all since 2004 as his website borrows the same text from his 2004 campaign on many of the issues. His VP candidate is Matt Gonzalez.
Nader has broad appeal and superb organization skills as he has established numerous non-profits to push his activist agenda. His campaign website is the best of those reviewed thus far (except for being too lazy to update his positions on many of the issues), and I have no doubt that he could be a strong leader on the domestic front. But, his deep disdain for Corporate America and multi-national companies is bothersome. I know where he is coming from... I do. And I'm sympathetic. But, massive taxation and government regulation will cause a regression in the economy. Nader would expand the "Nanny State" to unimaginable heights. But, I feel his presence on the national stage is important, and his message should be heard. He just won't get my vote.
Part Three is forthcoming and will feature Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr.
Party: Green Party of the United States
Candidate: Cynthia McKinney
The Green Party is on the verge of being a very legitimate party in the U.S. They currently stand with ballot access in twenty-six states and arguably has more potential (longer-term) than any other third party in the U.S. as there is broad international appeal and stories of success. Their platform is summarized in its Ten Key Values. As you would infer from the name of the party, there is the expected focus on environmental issues. But, the Green Party is more about social equality, non-violence and delivering the power to the people. You also may recall that Ralph Nader has previously received the nomination of the Green Party for President.
Cynthia McKinney is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Georgia. She served from 1993-2003 and 2005-2007. She gained a reputation as an outspoken young leader of the Democratic Party. However, she said some unpopular things, and spent a bit too much political capital. Since losing her seat in Congress, she has continued being outspoken - now against the political elite in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike. Now, she has settled in with the Green Party. Her platform shares a lot of similarity with that of her party; however, there is a lot more focus on social and racial justice. She is highly critical of our economic and political systems suggesting they further perpetuate racial inequity and call for reparations for Blacks. She has chosen Rosa Clemente as her running-mate.
I respect many of McKinney's positions and those of the Green Party. Their economic policies, especially those of McKinney, are a certain flavor of socialism; however, this is not the core plank of their platform. But, many of the social justice programs will only be manifest as massive government welfare at the expense of corporations and taxpayers. McKinney has a tendency to be a bit of a conspiracy theorist. I'm not sure if I should write her off as crazy or trust that she understand the dirty inside business in Washington because she's been there. The message of "Power to the People" is a good one, but the McKinney platform doesn't seem to mention decentralization of the government and suggests a deeper system of nationalized welfare. I'm going to pass on her.
Party: Independent
Candidate: Ralph Nader
Mr. Nader is often made fun of for running for President in every election. He is also known by some for costing Al Gore the election in 2000 to George W. Bush. While he has run in every Presidential election since 1996, I strongly believe it is not fair to say he is responsible for putting Bush into office. Running as the Green Party candidate in 1996 and 2000, he moved to run as an independent candidate in both 2004 and now in 2008. He currently has ballot access in twenty-eight states.
Ralph Nader has long been in the public view as a political activist and consumer advocate. On the big political stage of the Presidency, he is most comfortable fighting corporatism and the duopoly of the major parties. Much of his platform is consistent with the Green Party platform. In fact, his platform hasn't changed much at all since 2004 as his website borrows the same text from his 2004 campaign on many of the issues. His VP candidate is Matt Gonzalez.
Nader has broad appeal and superb organization skills as he has established numerous non-profits to push his activist agenda. His campaign website is the best of those reviewed thus far (except for being too lazy to update his positions on many of the issues), and I have no doubt that he could be a strong leader on the domestic front. But, his deep disdain for Corporate America and multi-national companies is bothersome. I know where he is coming from... I do. And I'm sympathetic. But, massive taxation and government regulation will cause a regression in the economy. Nader would expand the "Nanny State" to unimaginable heights. But, I feel his presence on the national stage is important, and his message should be heard. He just won't get my vote.
Part Three is forthcoming and will feature Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Review of Presidential Candidates - Part One
It's time to break down the race for Presidency in November. As mentioned before, I will review each candidate who has gained ballot access in at least ten states. This is by no means an exhaustive list - well over 200 people have filed the official papers with the Federal Election Commission to announce their candidacy. Some are crazy, some are serious, most do not have ballot access in even one state. Due to the restrictive laws in most states, ballot access is difficult if you haven't received the nomination of the "major" parties. I don't have the time or desire to review everyone... so, on to those with "significant" ballot access.
This will be part one in a series of posts on this topic.
(In ascending order of current number of states with access.)
Party: Socialist Party USA
Candidate: Brian Moore
After winning a recent lawsuit in Ohio, the Socialist Party has now gained ballot access in exactly ten states. Moore and the Socialist Party are strong advocates of Democratic Socialism and speak out against Communism. The Socialist platform focuses on a government by the people and an economy run by the people. The focus in on the provision of goods and services for the common good and not for profits. This concept is illustrated by Moore's proposal of a guaranteed wage of $35,000 per year and a maximum limit on wages at 10x the minimum - which is $350,000 by my math.
Moore is a former Democrat and has also run as a Republican in the past. He held elected, local government positions in Washington, D.C., in the 1980s and has had numerous unsuccessful bids for other elected offices across the spectrum of government. He has spent most of his professional career in the health care industry with much international experience (especially in Latin America). He currently holds a high-ranking position at an executive search firm for the industry. His running-mate is Stewart Alexander.
As you may have figured out, I don't believe in Socialism. I strongly believe that any form of tax or subsidy will distort market economics. This does not mean that I am an anarcho-capitalist; I'm pretty sure that I am not. But, placing a maximum income cap of $350,000 alone assures me that Moore will not receive my endorsement. This is way to guarantee the demise of our entire economy. I'll save a detailed report of my views against socialism for another article at another time.
Party: Party for Socialism and Liberation
Candidate: Gloria La Riva
With ballot access in twelve states, the Party for Socialism and Liberation is a self-declared Marxist-Revolutionary party. They hold many of the same principles as the Socialist Party USA; however, they place a lot more focus on issues of international affairs and equal rights. They also call for an increase in the minimum wage (to $15 per hour) and the eradication of capitalism. Their criticism places its focus more on the (so-called) corrupt nature of corporations and their close ties to the government elite. There is much (well-placed) focus against the warfare state. Unfortunately, they are all for the welfare state.
I can't find a lot of information regarding Ms. La Riva. She is definitely a political activist having been on Presidential tickets on numerous occasions. She is very active in anti-war organizations, advocates the release of political prisoners, and is a strong supporter of civil rights. I cannot find any information regarding her source of income; she did translate one of Fidel Castro's works into English. Here running mate is Eugene Puryear.
I can respect much of the platform of Ms. La Riva. The warmongering pseudo-imperialism of the U.S. government is too much, too often. The notion of putting power in the hands of the people is not a bad thing. But, corporations are not always a bad thing either. Business plays an important role in delivering goods and services to the people. Government sponsored and/or regulated monopolies are destructive and distort capitalism. But, a socialist platform cannot receive my endorsement. The bad will just outweigh the good.
Party: Socialist Workers
Candidate: Roger Calero
Mr. Calero is not a natural born citizen of the U.S., and despite having ballot access in thirteen states, he is ineligible for holding the office of President. As such, I will not bother reviewing his candidacy.
Stayed tuned for Part Two where I will review Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader.
This will be part one in a series of posts on this topic.
(In ascending order of current number of states with access.)
Party: Socialist Party USA
Candidate: Brian Moore
After winning a recent lawsuit in Ohio, the Socialist Party has now gained ballot access in exactly ten states. Moore and the Socialist Party are strong advocates of Democratic Socialism and speak out against Communism. The Socialist platform focuses on a government by the people and an economy run by the people. The focus in on the provision of goods and services for the common good and not for profits. This concept is illustrated by Moore's proposal of a guaranteed wage of $35,000 per year and a maximum limit on wages at 10x the minimum - which is $350,000 by my math.
Moore is a former Democrat and has also run as a Republican in the past. He held elected, local government positions in Washington, D.C., in the 1980s and has had numerous unsuccessful bids for other elected offices across the spectrum of government. He has spent most of his professional career in the health care industry with much international experience (especially in Latin America). He currently holds a high-ranking position at an executive search firm for the industry. His running-mate is Stewart Alexander.
As you may have figured out, I don't believe in Socialism. I strongly believe that any form of tax or subsidy will distort market economics. This does not mean that I am an anarcho-capitalist; I'm pretty sure that I am not. But, placing a maximum income cap of $350,000 alone assures me that Moore will not receive my endorsement. This is way to guarantee the demise of our entire economy. I'll save a detailed report of my views against socialism for another article at another time.
Party: Party for Socialism and Liberation
Candidate: Gloria La Riva
With ballot access in twelve states, the Party for Socialism and Liberation is a self-declared Marxist-Revolutionary party. They hold many of the same principles as the Socialist Party USA; however, they place a lot more focus on issues of international affairs and equal rights. They also call for an increase in the minimum wage (to $15 per hour) and the eradication of capitalism. Their criticism places its focus more on the (so-called) corrupt nature of corporations and their close ties to the government elite. There is much (well-placed) focus against the warfare state. Unfortunately, they are all for the welfare state.
I can't find a lot of information regarding Ms. La Riva. She is definitely a political activist having been on Presidential tickets on numerous occasions. She is very active in anti-war organizations, advocates the release of political prisoners, and is a strong supporter of civil rights. I cannot find any information regarding her source of income; she did translate one of Fidel Castro's works into English. Here running mate is Eugene Puryear.
I can respect much of the platform of Ms. La Riva. The warmongering pseudo-imperialism of the U.S. government is too much, too often. The notion of putting power in the hands of the people is not a bad thing. But, corporations are not always a bad thing either. Business plays an important role in delivering goods and services to the people. Government sponsored and/or regulated monopolies are destructive and distort capitalism. But, a socialist platform cannot receive my endorsement. The bad will just outweigh the good.
Party: Socialist Workers
Candidate: Roger Calero
Mr. Calero is not a natural born citizen of the U.S., and despite having ballot access in thirteen states, he is ineligible for holding the office of President. As such, I will not bother reviewing his candidacy.
Stayed tuned for Part Two where I will review Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Loose Ends... Vol. V
Ok. So, I hope this will be an anomaly this week. I didn't get any other posts out there as I was traveling for business and then family reasons. This left me with little time to write anything this week much less the previously promised presidential candidate breakdown. But, enough excuses... I'll get to that this week. On to Loose Ends...
The biggest story on the national news front is Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden (D-DE) as his running mate on the Democratic ticket. Biden has deep experience in the Senate and has twice attempted a run at President. Biden dropped out of the Democratic Primary on the night of the Iowa caucuses earlier this year as it was apparent that he had no chance. I think that Biden is a solid choice for Obama. He is outspoken, has deep foreign policy experience, and can be (at least somewhat) positioned as "different" from the rest of Washington's political class despite his 35 years in the Senate. I look forward to his speech Wednesday night at the convention. We'll see how the McCain campaign counters with their own VP choice (most likely) later this week. My money is on Mitt Romney. In other interesting election news this week, McCain took the lead over Obama in this Zogby poll. It's still early, but it is interesting.
In the financial world this week, the continuing saga of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac scripted another chapter as their stocks tumbled roughly 40% (again!) on growing concerns over their need to raise capital and/or a government bailout of the GSEs. Fannie and Freddie have been labeled by many as "too big to fail" which should be concerning to everyone. This is a very complex issue, and a failure of either of them would send shockwaves through the economy. Unfortunately, I think that these problems are already manifest from years of malinvestment and misguided regulation (or perhaps the lack thereof). It's just a matter of when and how this will rear its ugly head. Perhaps a government bailout will ease the burden... but, perhaps not. Government intervention has a tendency to reward people in the right place and encourage other bad behavior. Don't you wish you were too big to fail? In the meantime, FED Chairman, Ben Bernanke, spoke at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's Annual Economic Symposium this week. Big Ben had this insightful comment for his audience, "... the financial storm that reached gale force ... has not yet subsided, and its effects on the broader economy are becoming apparent in the form of softening economic activity and rising unemployment. Add to this mix a jump in inflation, in part the product of a global commodity boom, and the result has been one of the most challenging economic and policy environments in memory." Did he just now figure this out?
That's it for tonight - I need to get to sleep. This week I promise there will be more content!
The biggest story on the national news front is Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden (D-DE) as his running mate on the Democratic ticket. Biden has deep experience in the Senate and has twice attempted a run at President. Biden dropped out of the Democratic Primary on the night of the Iowa caucuses earlier this year as it was apparent that he had no chance. I think that Biden is a solid choice for Obama. He is outspoken, has deep foreign policy experience, and can be (at least somewhat) positioned as "different" from the rest of Washington's political class despite his 35 years in the Senate. I look forward to his speech Wednesday night at the convention. We'll see how the McCain campaign counters with their own VP choice (most likely) later this week. My money is on Mitt Romney. In other interesting election news this week, McCain took the lead over Obama in this Zogby poll. It's still early, but it is interesting.
In the financial world this week, the continuing saga of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac scripted another chapter as their stocks tumbled roughly 40% (again!) on growing concerns over their need to raise capital and/or a government bailout of the GSEs. Fannie and Freddie have been labeled by many as "too big to fail" which should be concerning to everyone. This is a very complex issue, and a failure of either of them would send shockwaves through the economy. Unfortunately, I think that these problems are already manifest from years of malinvestment and misguided regulation (or perhaps the lack thereof). It's just a matter of when and how this will rear its ugly head. Perhaps a government bailout will ease the burden... but, perhaps not. Government intervention has a tendency to reward people in the right place and encourage other bad behavior. Don't you wish you were too big to fail? In the meantime, FED Chairman, Ben Bernanke, spoke at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's Annual Economic Symposium this week. Big Ben had this insightful comment for his audience, "... the financial storm that reached gale force ... has not yet subsided, and its effects on the broader economy are becoming apparent in the form of softening economic activity and rising unemployment. Add to this mix a jump in inflation, in part the product of a global commodity boom, and the result has been one of the most challenging economic and policy environments in memory." Did he just now figure this out?
That's it for tonight - I need to get to sleep. This week I promise there will be more content!
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Loose Ends... Vol. IV
Well, I had aspirations of getting in a few more posts this weekend, but birthday activities and home brewing kept me busy enough. Now it's Sunday and time to wrap up the week. I'm going to keep this one short like last week as I have to get up super early tomorrow to fly out for business (argh).
John McCain and Barack Obama appeared at the Saddleback Church for a Q&A session with pastor and best-selling author, Rick Warren. I thought the session was reasonable with Warren serving as a good moderator. There were no great sound bytes or screw-ups in my opinion. I haven't watched much of the "analysis" after the debate, so I haven't heard the spin yet. Meanwhile, Bob Barr filed an injunction in the District Court against Saddleback on the premise that they were in violation of FEC rules by not having predefined objective criteria for inclusion to the forum. Barr lost his case. Should Barr, who is running on a platform denouncing the power of big government, try to use the power of government to get his way? Or, is he using whatever means possible to get his voice heard so that he can have the opportunity to advance the platform? It's an interesting debate. Regardless, according to the latest Zogby poll, most Americans want to have the opportunity to hear what he has to say in a head-to-head(-to-head...) debate.
The anti-Russia rhetoric in the U.S. continues to heat up as the days progress. I tried to bring the objective facts of history (is there a such thing?) to this audience earlier in the week. In discussions through the weekend I've reiterated my point that the complexity of this situation warrants caution in taking sides. I strongly feel that there is plenty of blame to go around and varying perspectives. Yet, sadly, all I tend to hear from both the television and others is how badly Russia is misbehaving. "Once you are KGB, you are always KGB", "Russia has attacked a sovereign nation", "Georgia is a friend of the West", "We must protect democracy"... Look, Russia's actions are deplorable. But, it is a bit more complex. Do the residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have a right to secede? Where does the line end for Georgia to use military force on its own people within its own borders? By the way, doesn't it seem a bit odd that the U.S. is taking such a strong stance against a nation launching an unprovoked attack against another nation?
Locally, Greg Ballard's budget is getting some heat. One of the biggest sources of discontent is his plan to reduce the budget for the Parks Department. This story ran in the Indianapolis Star this weekend. I want to do some digging around at some point to see if there has been any solid, reliable economic analysis which objectively studies the impact of green space on crime and education in a neighborhood. It makes sense to a degree, but I've seen some of the parks in this city. Just because there is a park, it doesn't mean that it is either nice or visited by anyone. This also reminds me that I need to read the Indiana State Constitution at some point as well as it's equivalent for the city of Indianapolis. I'm sure that parks are probably designated as essential services, but opportunity for privatization may exist. Either way, having some element of objectivity to determine which parks are "working" and which ones are not should be a must. Government should be run like any other business. You need to have objective goals and measures to know if things are working. Investment and management should have some notion of ROI or a cost-benefit analysis.
This week I plan on breaking down the candidates for President. I'll review everyone who has ballot access in at least ten states (that's my own arbitrary and objective criteria). This will include my official endorsement. I also plan on discussing "windfall profits" and their place in Obama's plan for the country.
John McCain and Barack Obama appeared at the Saddleback Church for a Q&A session with pastor and best-selling author, Rick Warren. I thought the session was reasonable with Warren serving as a good moderator. There were no great sound bytes or screw-ups in my opinion. I haven't watched much of the "analysis" after the debate, so I haven't heard the spin yet. Meanwhile, Bob Barr filed an injunction in the District Court against Saddleback on the premise that they were in violation of FEC rules by not having predefined objective criteria for inclusion to the forum. Barr lost his case. Should Barr, who is running on a platform denouncing the power of big government, try to use the power of government to get his way? Or, is he using whatever means possible to get his voice heard so that he can have the opportunity to advance the platform? It's an interesting debate. Regardless, according to the latest Zogby poll, most Americans want to have the opportunity to hear what he has to say in a head-to-head(-to-head...) debate.
The anti-Russia rhetoric in the U.S. continues to heat up as the days progress. I tried to bring the objective facts of history (is there a such thing?) to this audience earlier in the week. In discussions through the weekend I've reiterated my point that the complexity of this situation warrants caution in taking sides. I strongly feel that there is plenty of blame to go around and varying perspectives. Yet, sadly, all I tend to hear from both the television and others is how badly Russia is misbehaving. "Once you are KGB, you are always KGB", "Russia has attacked a sovereign nation", "Georgia is a friend of the West", "We must protect democracy"... Look, Russia's actions are deplorable. But, it is a bit more complex. Do the residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have a right to secede? Where does the line end for Georgia to use military force on its own people within its own borders? By the way, doesn't it seem a bit odd that the U.S. is taking such a strong stance against a nation launching an unprovoked attack against another nation?
Locally, Greg Ballard's budget is getting some heat. One of the biggest sources of discontent is his plan to reduce the budget for the Parks Department. This story ran in the Indianapolis Star this weekend. I want to do some digging around at some point to see if there has been any solid, reliable economic analysis which objectively studies the impact of green space on crime and education in a neighborhood. It makes sense to a degree, but I've seen some of the parks in this city. Just because there is a park, it doesn't mean that it is either nice or visited by anyone. This also reminds me that I need to read the Indiana State Constitution at some point as well as it's equivalent for the city of Indianapolis. I'm sure that parks are probably designated as essential services, but opportunity for privatization may exist. Either way, having some element of objectivity to determine which parks are "working" and which ones are not should be a must. Government should be run like any other business. You need to have objective goals and measures to know if things are working. Investment and management should have some notion of ROI or a cost-benefit analysis.
This week I plan on breaking down the candidates for President. I'll review everyone who has ballot access in at least ten states (that's my own arbitrary and objective criteria). This will include my official endorsement. I also plan on discussing "windfall profits" and their place in Obama's plan for the country.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Not That Georgia!
This morning I woke up, and while getting ready for work tuned in to watch more of the Summer Olympics. To my surprise, I found quite the epic battle in beach volleyball underway. I'm not a huge fan of beach volleyball - I prefer the indoor variety. I'm probably a bit of a traditionalist, I suppose. The match was between Russia and Georgia. I thought... "hmm... that's pretty ironic"... as I prepared to go to work.
Truth is that I've been giving thought to a blog post here regarding the recent conflict between the nations. While I'm not as prepared to discuss the details as I'd typically prefer to be, it seemed like to good of an opportunity for an opening paragraph to pass up! I'm going to touch on a few key points, offer some opinions, ask some questions, and call it a night.
First off (and this really should be no surprise), this is a very complex issue. One would hope that anytime conflicts escalate to the point of military action that there is an underlying complexity that drives such action. Russia is no doubt a large and complex nation. Georgia is a tiny nation (about the size of South Carolina both in area and population) with a long history and people of varied ethnic backgrounds. Georgia was formerly a republic of the Soviet Union. Two districts of Georgia are at the center of this current issue. Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia claim independence from Georgia, look for international recognition as independent states, but generally fail to receive that recognition. Russia is sympathetic to their cause for a variety of reasons. Georgia doesn't want to let go for a variety of reasons. Now we have a war.
Despite the complexity, the U.S. government and our presidential candidates have tried to make this a good vs. evil situation. John McCain even said in a recent campaign stop that, "today, we are all Georgians." (If you just want to hear the quote, advance to about 7:30 in the video.) I'm not sure I can put into words how ridiculous I think this statement is. President Bush's statement earlier today reiterates his (our?) unwavering support for Georgia.
On the international front, French president and acting European Union president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has taken the lead in negotiating a ceasefire between Russia and Georgia. Sarkozy worked out a six-point proposal with Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev. Their press conference can be seen here. Sarkozy was then to get support from Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili.
A few thoughts and open questions:
1. Sarkozy articulated his desire to bring the two sides together to stop the fighting before condemning one side's actions or the other. This press statement appears to be a subset of the transcript to the press conference linked above. I saw some of it in its original airing on C-SPAN was noticed Sarkozy commenting that his caution in judgment was not for a lack of courage. I couldn't help but think this was a statement directly aimed at Bush and the U.S.
2. And speaking of Bush and the U.S., why have we been so quick to judge and condemn Russia's actions? Here's a couple of things to consider: Georgia sent military support to Iraq to assist the U.S., they have a democratically elected government, a major oil pipeline owned by BP runs through Georgia, they aspire to join NATO where a military alliance with the U.S. would be solidified, and (as John McCain mentioned) they were one of the first states in history to establish Christianity as the official religion.
3. Does South Ossetia have a right to independence? When should a people be allowed to secede from their central authority? Does the U.S. pull for the underdog? Is Georgia the underdog or is South Ossetia?
4. Georgia has also announced that they will sue Russia for ethnic cleansing. Where? The International Criminal Court. Note that (today) the U.S. is not a member... Should we be subjected to another layer of unelected international government?
By the way, Georgia won the volleyball match.
Truth is that I've been giving thought to a blog post here regarding the recent conflict between the nations. While I'm not as prepared to discuss the details as I'd typically prefer to be, it seemed like to good of an opportunity for an opening paragraph to pass up! I'm going to touch on a few key points, offer some opinions, ask some questions, and call it a night.
First off (and this really should be no surprise), this is a very complex issue. One would hope that anytime conflicts escalate to the point of military action that there is an underlying complexity that drives such action. Russia is no doubt a large and complex nation. Georgia is a tiny nation (about the size of South Carolina both in area and population) with a long history and people of varied ethnic backgrounds. Georgia was formerly a republic of the Soviet Union. Two districts of Georgia are at the center of this current issue. Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia claim independence from Georgia, look for international recognition as independent states, but generally fail to receive that recognition. Russia is sympathetic to their cause for a variety of reasons. Georgia doesn't want to let go for a variety of reasons. Now we have a war.
Despite the complexity, the U.S. government and our presidential candidates have tried to make this a good vs. evil situation. John McCain even said in a recent campaign stop that, "today, we are all Georgians." (If you just want to hear the quote, advance to about 7:30 in the video.) I'm not sure I can put into words how ridiculous I think this statement is. President Bush's statement earlier today reiterates his (our?) unwavering support for Georgia.
On the international front, French president and acting European Union president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has taken the lead in negotiating a ceasefire between Russia and Georgia. Sarkozy worked out a six-point proposal with Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev. Their press conference can be seen here. Sarkozy was then to get support from Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili.
A few thoughts and open questions:
1. Sarkozy articulated his desire to bring the two sides together to stop the fighting before condemning one side's actions or the other. This press statement appears to be a subset of the transcript to the press conference linked above. I saw some of it in its original airing on C-SPAN was noticed Sarkozy commenting that his caution in judgment was not for a lack of courage. I couldn't help but think this was a statement directly aimed at Bush and the U.S.
2. And speaking of Bush and the U.S., why have we been so quick to judge and condemn Russia's actions? Here's a couple of things to consider: Georgia sent military support to Iraq to assist the U.S., they have a democratically elected government, a major oil pipeline owned by BP runs through Georgia, they aspire to join NATO where a military alliance with the U.S. would be solidified, and (as John McCain mentioned) they were one of the first states in history to establish Christianity as the official religion.
3. Does South Ossetia have a right to independence? When should a people be allowed to secede from their central authority? Does the U.S. pull for the underdog? Is Georgia the underdog or is South Ossetia?
4. Georgia has also announced that they will sue Russia for ethnic cleansing. Where? The International Criminal Court. Note that (today) the U.S. is not a member... Should we be subjected to another layer of unelected international government?
By the way, Georgia won the volleyball match.
Budget Time
Indianapolis Mayor, Greg Ballard, released his proposed 2009 budget on Monday. He's managed to balance the budget this year in light of a significant decrease in property tax revenues. There are a few things to note. There are some increases to the budgets for Public Safety, Public Works and Metropolitan Development. There is a nearly $100 million decrease in the budget for the "Division of Family and Children" which I need to look into further. This decrease alone allows for the budget to balance all else being equal.
The real story may be what's next for 2010. As I mentioned in a previous post, Ballard has stated publicly (and it is reaffirmed in this budget document) that tax revenues will decrease even further in 2010 due to the property tax reform. It looks to be a hole of about $60 million. We'll keep an eye on this...
P.S. - Follow-up (8/13): The state government has taken on the burden of the $100 million of child welfare referenced above. It was part of the property tax reform legislation passed earlier this year. Read the press release here.
The real story may be what's next for 2010. As I mentioned in a previous post, Ballard has stated publicly (and it is reaffirmed in this budget document) that tax revenues will decrease even further in 2010 due to the property tax reform. It looks to be a hole of about $60 million. We'll keep an eye on this...
P.S. - Follow-up (8/13): The state government has taken on the burden of the $100 million of child welfare referenced above. It was part of the property tax reform legislation passed earlier this year. Read the press release here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)