Among Arizona's official write-in candidates for President of the United States is one Charles Jay, of the "Boston Tea Party", a sort of joke political party--"joke" in the sense that it doesn't aspire to elect people to office--formed by disgruntled members of the Libertarian Party.
I have it on good information that Jay's running mate for Arizona purposes is none other than snake-oil huckster turned Jesus Junk huckster turned Man who Runs for Things Barry Hess. Figures. Jay was put on the ballot by the small-party wing of the Arizona Libertarian Party, annoyed by the National party's adoption of a sensible platform and nomination of someone who has but recently come around to the libertarian way of seeing things, former Congressman Bob Barr.
Some people are voting for Bob Barr to help build (or rebuild) a party for America's politically homeless libertarian (market liberal) movement, and to signal the major parties that more must be done to earn their votes in the future. Others are writing in Charles Jay to send a signal to...the Libertarian National Committee? To tell them that anyone who isn't a lifelong libertarian is unwelcome on the party's ticket? Or maybe to the Libertarian Reform Caucus, to tell them that a platform more in step with the broader libertarian movement is unacceptable and that further moves away from Rothbardian nuttery will cause them to leave to form a libertarian-er-est party for glib anarchists that runs its own candidates?
Either way, there's but one thing to say about it, and that is that it's a "Mickey Mouse" move if there ever was one.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
By "Homeowners" we mean "Unions", and by "Rights" we mean "Restrictions": Arizona Proposition 201
Since it costs approximately a million dollars to place an initiative on the Arizona ballot, Proposition 201, now known as the "Homeowners' Bill Of Rights", can be thought of as a million dollar joke.
Who is the joke on? Members of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, the trade union responsible for drafting this initiative. Money to promote and collect signatures for this initiative comes out of their dues. If I were a member, I'd consider simply quitting; Arizona is a right-to-work state. Those in other states may wish to consider holding decertification elections or at least switching to "agency fee only" membership. Union dues should be levied for bargaining, not for politicking, and certainly not for promoting initiatives so ridiculous that they have no chance of passing.
It's difficult even to see the connection between trade unionism and this initiative. It would seem to make it more difficult to build and sell houses in Arizona, which isn't in employee or contractor interest. If it is a make-work measure, I'd wager a few dollars on it being drafted by a kook or an ignoramus.
Perhaps it is a "get out the vote" measure, like the gay marriage ban, but in support of Barack Obama or some other union-friendly candidate for office. But terms of house purchase aren't really a rabble-rousing issue, and Arizona has a "homeowners' bill of rights" of sorts that works, in ARS Title 12, Chapter 8, Article 14.
Prop 201 would amend that article, changing its name to the "Homeowners' Bill of Rights". Cute, but--like "victims' bill of rights" and "patients' bill of rights"--tawdry. The substance of the measure is worse. Proposition 201:
It also makes a few amendments, in the same spirit, to the statute about monetary compensation, repairs, damages, and the like; read the full text for details.
The last item above is especially telling of the filers' mindset. It could be a declaration that the 10-year warranty cannot appear as a line item on the invoice (so as to hide its cost), but the choice of language makes that unlikely. It seems more like Mugabenomics: require that a warranty be provided without additional charge, and the builder will simply give the warranty to the new homeowner for free.
Proposition 201 is not only unneeded, but it would also drive up the cost of housing in the state and forbid buyer and seller to enter into favorable contracts. It is unwelcome during this housing-market downturn and would be unwelcome during a period of growth. Vote "no". And I cannot emphasize it enough: If you are a member of the Sheet Metal Workers union, switch to "agency fee" dues and move to decertify. Don't let your hard-earned wages be wasted on baloney such as this.
Who is the joke on? Members of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, the trade union responsible for drafting this initiative. Money to promote and collect signatures for this initiative comes out of their dues. If I were a member, I'd consider simply quitting; Arizona is a right-to-work state. Those in other states may wish to consider holding decertification elections or at least switching to "agency fee only" membership. Union dues should be levied for bargaining, not for politicking, and certainly not for promoting initiatives so ridiculous that they have no chance of passing.
It's difficult even to see the connection between trade unionism and this initiative. It would seem to make it more difficult to build and sell houses in Arizona, which isn't in employee or contractor interest. If it is a make-work measure, I'd wager a few dollars on it being drafted by a kook or an ignoramus.
Perhaps it is a "get out the vote" measure, like the gay marriage ban, but in support of Barack Obama or some other union-friendly candidate for office. But terms of house purchase aren't really a rabble-rousing issue, and Arizona has a "homeowners' bill of rights" of sorts that works, in ARS Title 12, Chapter 8, Article 14.
Prop 201 would amend that article, changing its name to the "Homeowners' Bill of Rights". Cute, but--like "victims' bill of rights" and "patients' bill of rights"--tawdry. The substance of the measure is worse. Proposition 201:
- Extends to ten years the amount of time buyers have to make claims against builders.
- Requires 95% of the deposit to be returned to buyers who change their minds about purchasing a dwelling within 100 days of making their deposit.
- Forbids contracts between buyer and seller requiring arbitration before a lawsuit is filed; suits are the only recourse.
- Eliminates the "loser pays" provision, in favor of the buyer.
- Shortens from ninety to sixty days the amount of time a buyer must wait between notifying a seller of defects and filing an action.
- Strikes "includes a detailed and itemized list that describes each alleged defect and the location that each alleged defect has been observed by the purchaser in each dwelling that is the subject of the notice" and replaces it with "means a description in ordinary non-technical language that puts the seller on notice of the types of defects a homeowner of average experience would be expected to observe, any particular defect that is reasonably encompassed in the homeowner's description or that is or should have been found by a seller during an inspection of the alleged defects using due diligence shall be deemed included within the purchaser's notice to the seller", explicitly removing any requirement that the aggrieved buyer be specific, precise, or accurate.
- Requires all new houses to be sold with a minimum 10-year warranty, "without additional or separate charge".
It also makes a few amendments, in the same spirit, to the statute about monetary compensation, repairs, damages, and the like; read the full text for details.
The last item above is especially telling of the filers' mindset. It could be a declaration that the 10-year warranty cannot appear as a line item on the invoice (so as to hide its cost), but the choice of language makes that unlikely. It seems more like Mugabenomics: require that a warranty be provided without additional charge, and the builder will simply give the warranty to the new homeowner for free.
Proposition 201 is not only unneeded, but it would also drive up the cost of housing in the state and forbid buyer and seller to enter into favorable contracts. It is unwelcome during this housing-market downturn and would be unwelcome during a period of growth. Vote "no". And I cannot emphasize it enough: If you are a member of the Sheet Metal Workers union, switch to "agency fee" dues and move to decertify. Don't let your hard-earned wages be wasted on baloney such as this.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Proposition 202: "Stop Illegal Hiring" by making bad policy permanent.
Federal immigration policy allows fewer visas to be issued than are demanded by market forces. As a result, Arizona (and several other states) is host to a substantial number of aliens who reside and work here unlawfully.
To a reasonable person, this is an example of Federal policy harmful to the states, that ought be reformed. But why be reasonable when you can believe that changing a bad law without first punishing everyone who broke it will, like gay marriage, throw the universe into disorder?--turning policy questions into black-and-white, right-and-wrong matters of morality is so much easier on the brain. Arizona plays host to a rather large "unreasonable" subculture, of whitebread types who worry disproportionately about catching diseases from foreigners, who see every immigrant laborer as a sign that somewhere a Good White Person is slipping into poverty, who scream "No Amnesty!" and "What party of ILLEGAL don't you understand?", and who consequently would like to see Arizona enforce the failed Federal law.
That the motive is xenophobic bigotry is rather clear. No decent, non-bigoted person would hold it against someone that he didn't get into a queue that doesn't exist. (Check for yourself; there's no process for temporary or permanent immigrants from Mexico to simply fill out some paperwork, wait for it to be processed, and then come, Ellis Island-style.) Ordinarily this attitude is confined to poor illiterates, but in AZ it has a few exponents in high places, such as Russell Pearce, of Mesa. Pearce is to Mexicans what Captain Ahab is to Moby Dick; he lost an appendage abusing his badge and has had it out for brown folk ever since.
Led by Pearce, the legislature passed an employer-sanctions law in 2007. Illegal immigrants started to leave the state before the law even took effect. Victory to Pearce ("They broke the law. They're criminals," he said, apparently ignorant of the fact that being in the country without the right visa is merely unlawful, not criminal.) but to the rest of us, it looks like an economic contraction, and it has resulted in business moving out of the state, sometimes even to Mexico.
As things stand now, this policy, detrimental to all save those kooks who breathe easier when they see fewer Mexicans in the neighborhood, could be repealed by a simple act of the legislature. Passage of Proposition 202 would change that. On this 'blog I ordinarily go over the text of a measure with the readers. For this, I make an exception. I won't speak to the question of whether the employer sanctions law established by Prop 202 is better or worse than the one Pearce pushed through the legislature and got Governor Napolitano to sign in the mistaken belief it would stop him from trying for an initiative.
It's better in some ways, and worse in some ways, but more importantly, it is still just plain bad, and could only be repealed by another initiative. That means another million dollars and a vote that includes those mouthbreathing folk who hate the scary brown people for not waiting in the nonexistent queue.
Don't get caught up in some sort of "better employer sanctions law vs worse employer sanctions law" calculus. Vote "No" on Proposition 202 this year, to make it easy to repeal employer sanctions. That is, unless you really believe Jim Click should lose his license to sell cars if his manager "turns his head" while making a hire. But if you believed that, you probably wouldn't be reading this 'blog.
To a reasonable person, this is an example of Federal policy harmful to the states, that ought be reformed. But why be reasonable when you can believe that changing a bad law without first punishing everyone who broke it will, like gay marriage, throw the universe into disorder?--turning policy questions into black-and-white, right-and-wrong matters of morality is so much easier on the brain. Arizona plays host to a rather large "unreasonable" subculture, of whitebread types who worry disproportionately about catching diseases from foreigners, who see every immigrant laborer as a sign that somewhere a Good White Person is slipping into poverty, who scream "No Amnesty!" and "What party of ILLEGAL don't you understand?", and who consequently would like to see Arizona enforce the failed Federal law.
That the motive is xenophobic bigotry is rather clear. No decent, non-bigoted person would hold it against someone that he didn't get into a queue that doesn't exist. (Check for yourself; there's no process for temporary or permanent immigrants from Mexico to simply fill out some paperwork, wait for it to be processed, and then come, Ellis Island-style.) Ordinarily this attitude is confined to poor illiterates, but in AZ it has a few exponents in high places, such as Russell Pearce, of Mesa. Pearce is to Mexicans what Captain Ahab is to Moby Dick; he lost an appendage abusing his badge and has had it out for brown folk ever since.
Led by Pearce, the legislature passed an employer-sanctions law in 2007. Illegal immigrants started to leave the state before the law even took effect. Victory to Pearce ("They broke the law. They're criminals," he said, apparently ignorant of the fact that being in the country without the right visa is merely unlawful, not criminal.) but to the rest of us, it looks like an economic contraction, and it has resulted in business moving out of the state, sometimes even to Mexico.
As things stand now, this policy, detrimental to all save those kooks who breathe easier when they see fewer Mexicans in the neighborhood, could be repealed by a simple act of the legislature. Passage of Proposition 202 would change that. On this 'blog I ordinarily go over the text of a measure with the readers. For this, I make an exception. I won't speak to the question of whether the employer sanctions law established by Prop 202 is better or worse than the one Pearce pushed through the legislature and got Governor Napolitano to sign in the mistaken belief it would stop him from trying for an initiative.
It's better in some ways, and worse in some ways, but more importantly, it is still just plain bad, and could only be repealed by another initiative. That means another million dollars and a vote that includes those mouthbreathing folk who hate the scary brown people for not waiting in the nonexistent queue.
Don't get caught up in some sort of "better employer sanctions law vs worse employer sanctions law" calculus. Vote "No" on Proposition 202 this year, to make it easy to repeal employer sanctions. That is, unless you really believe Jim Click should lose his license to sell cars if his manager "turns his head" while making a hire. But if you believed that, you probably wouldn't be reading this 'blog.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
I again ask for evidence: vote "No" on Proposition 300
Proposition 300 this year is the question of a pay raise for the legislature, referred to the voters by the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers. It's more modest than that proposed in 2006: a $6000 raise to $30,000 per year, as opposed to a $12,000 raise to $36,000 per year.
In the voter guide, the Arizona Advocacy Network recommends that we pass the measure so that the legislators don't have to come to rely on special interests to pay their keep. Baloney!--bribery is prosecutable and we can vote out of office those who offer legal quid pro quo. There is nevertheless something to be said for raising the salary: running for the legislature is currently unattractive to those of modest means who simply cannot abandon their jobs or businesses for a third of the year. I'd say that the low salary keeps class warriors out, but it doesn't: socialized medicine proponent Phil Lopes is an obvious example of that.
Perhaps if we raise the salary a bit, we can in the long term attract not only those of more modest means, but those of more modest attitudes. To take the financial hit being a legislator entails, one must value power more than the lost income. For "crusader" types, who see themselves as God's gift to Arizona--I'm thinking of Lopes, and Russel Pearce, too--the choice is clear. But this is mere speculation; I have no real-world reason to believe that the legislature will become less ideological at the margin were salaries to be raised.
Most arguments in favor of a "no" vote are stupid. The most common is simple disapproval of the current legislators: they don't "deserve" a raise. That's not what this question is about; the proper ballot line on which to show disapproval of a legislator is that corresponding to the legislative race. Similarly, Governor Napolitano's take, that the legislators shouldn't get raises because many other Arizonans aren't getting raises, is stupid. We don't determine wages and salaries by a toddler's concept of fairness (the "Daddy Model"), we determine it based on our guess as to what the extra money spent will get us.
I've noted that libertarians of the vulgar sort are very uncomfortable with the idea that laws can change and dead set in their flighty utopianism against mechanisms to change the law: Libertarian Party candidate for US Congress Powell Gammill gives us an example of this in his piece in the voter guide (linked above). We get a daffy anarchist credo, followed by Ernest Hancock's insightless slogan ("Freedom's the answer; what's the question?"), followed by an assertion that the legislature ought simply pass a budget and go home. Nonsense!--the way Gammill puts it, the legislature oughtn't legislate, forget what's written in the AZ Constitution and forget the good of the people of the State!
Shake the stupid out of it, and Gammill is nonetheless on to something. The Legislature doesn't go home when it should. It delays important business to spend time on nonsense. A raise might benefit us in the long run by attracting marginally better candidates, but we have no short-run evidence that a raise would do us good. As was the case with Tucson Prop 403, I want to see some signs that this is needed: the legislators prioritizing important matters and hurrying to get home to run their businesses or work their jobs and pay the bills. Say "No" to the raise again.
In the voter guide, the Arizona Advocacy Network recommends that we pass the measure so that the legislators don't have to come to rely on special interests to pay their keep. Baloney!--bribery is prosecutable and we can vote out of office those who offer legal quid pro quo. There is nevertheless something to be said for raising the salary: running for the legislature is currently unattractive to those of modest means who simply cannot abandon their jobs or businesses for a third of the year. I'd say that the low salary keeps class warriors out, but it doesn't: socialized medicine proponent Phil Lopes is an obvious example of that.
Perhaps if we raise the salary a bit, we can in the long term attract not only those of more modest means, but those of more modest attitudes. To take the financial hit being a legislator entails, one must value power more than the lost income. For "crusader" types, who see themselves as God's gift to Arizona--I'm thinking of Lopes, and Russel Pearce, too--the choice is clear. But this is mere speculation; I have no real-world reason to believe that the legislature will become less ideological at the margin were salaries to be raised.
Most arguments in favor of a "no" vote are stupid. The most common is simple disapproval of the current legislators: they don't "deserve" a raise. That's not what this question is about; the proper ballot line on which to show disapproval of a legislator is that corresponding to the legislative race. Similarly, Governor Napolitano's take, that the legislators shouldn't get raises because many other Arizonans aren't getting raises, is stupid. We don't determine wages and salaries by a toddler's concept of fairness (the "Daddy Model"), we determine it based on our guess as to what the extra money spent will get us.
I've noted that libertarians of the vulgar sort are very uncomfortable with the idea that laws can change and dead set in their flighty utopianism against mechanisms to change the law: Libertarian Party candidate for US Congress Powell Gammill gives us an example of this in his piece in the voter guide (linked above). We get a daffy anarchist credo, followed by Ernest Hancock's insightless slogan ("Freedom's the answer; what's the question?"), followed by an assertion that the legislature ought simply pass a budget and go home. Nonsense!--the way Gammill puts it, the legislature oughtn't legislate, forget what's written in the AZ Constitution and forget the good of the people of the State!
Shake the stupid out of it, and Gammill is nonetheless on to something. The Legislature doesn't go home when it should. It delays important business to spend time on nonsense. A raise might benefit us in the long run by attracting marginally better candidates, but we have no short-run evidence that a raise would do us good. As was the case with Tucson Prop 403, I want to see some signs that this is needed: the legislators prioritizing important matters and hurrying to get home to run their businesses or work their jobs and pay the bills. Say "No" to the raise again.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Yes, my ballot initiative review has started.
About a month later than I intended, I have begun my de rigueur review of each ballot question that I will see this general election. Yesterday's local Tucson question kicks things off; I will treat each in turn, in reverse numerical order.
If you can't wait, I have quietly made a few remarks about the initiatives on Associated Content. (Note that the article titles are not my own).
(Propositon 101) Arizonans to vote on Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act
(Proposition 200) In Arizona, "greedy" payday loans at issue
(Proposition 100) Arizonans may vote to pre-empt real estate transfer taxes.
If you can't wait, I have quietly made a few remarks about the initiatives on Associated Content. (Note that the article titles are not my own).
(Propositon 101) Arizonans to vote on Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act
(Proposition 200) In Arizona, "greedy" payday loans at issue
(Proposition 100) Arizonans may vote to pre-empt real estate transfer taxes.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
No blank checks for public schools: Tucsonans, say no to Prop 403
I'll offer a modest compromise to the Tucson Unified School District: You give us merit pay for teachers, and we'll give you a budget override.
Proponents of the override would like to tell us that this is not the same district that simply lost $1.6MM in assets, that having a new superintendent and a few new board members, TUSD should be given a clean record by the public. I say, "Show us you're different!"
Why should we believe that TUSD could improve public education if we simply give it more money? (Private schools, after all, operate on less per pupil.) Have enough reforms been put into place that administrators can honestly say "our hands our tied"? I need, and you should need, convincing of the district's bona fides, signs that they're not asking us to fork over more of our wealth or income so they can worry less about the budget while doing business as usual. Standing up to the teachers' union and insisting on merit pay is the clearest signal that can be sent that TUSD is operating for the benefit of the taxpayers, not its employees. Absent that, we ought to be shown some very clear reforms before, not after, we fork over the money. Reforms--fundamental changes in the way the district educates children--not promises involving trendy buzzwords like "smaller class size". An end to social promotion costs nothing.
Until I see either concerted reforms or the breaking of the Tucson Education Association, I will not vote for any TUSD budget override. (A dollar-for-dollar private school/homeschool parent tax credit wouldn't hurt, either, but that's asking too much!) Call it the "do not feed" principle. You don't give spare change to the bum if you think he's just going to spend it on wine. The people asking are different, yes, but it's not clear that they're not bums.
Proponents of the override would like to tell us that this is not the same district that simply lost $1.6MM in assets, that having a new superintendent and a few new board members, TUSD should be given a clean record by the public. I say, "Show us you're different!"
Why should we believe that TUSD could improve public education if we simply give it more money? (Private schools, after all, operate on less per pupil.) Have enough reforms been put into place that administrators can honestly say "our hands our tied"? I need, and you should need, convincing of the district's bona fides, signs that they're not asking us to fork over more of our wealth or income so they can worry less about the budget while doing business as usual. Standing up to the teachers' union and insisting on merit pay is the clearest signal that can be sent that TUSD is operating for the benefit of the taxpayers, not its employees. Absent that, we ought to be shown some very clear reforms before, not after, we fork over the money. Reforms--fundamental changes in the way the district educates children--not promises involving trendy buzzwords like "smaller class size". An end to social promotion costs nothing.
Until I see either concerted reforms or the breaking of the Tucson Education Association, I will not vote for any TUSD budget override. (A dollar-for-dollar private school/homeschool parent tax credit wouldn't hurt, either, but that's asking too much!) Call it the "do not feed" principle. You don't give spare change to the bum if you think he's just going to spend it on wine. The people asking are different, yes, but it's not clear that they're not bums.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
