Because the best things in life are free.

 
Does Arnold Consider Bush a Lost Cause?

It is a story which is being underplayed, but probably tells us a lot about 2004 election. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, was supposed to appear in Ohio earlier this week with President George W. Bush. Ohio is a state in dire economic straits, and one that no Republican has been able to forgo when winning the presidency. Schwarzenegger has reneged a couple times, and now has said he will only appear once in Ohio, this weekend. While the official story is that Arnold is just being fickle, the truth is probably that Bush is in trouble.

Schwarzenegger won the recall election in California because he convinced a core Democratic constituency, African Americans, to choose him instead of Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamente. Latinos and blacks tend not to see eye-to-eye in California, but misery still makes them odd bedfellows. Karl Rove's idea is that in suburban Ohio, places like Cleveland and Cincinnati, which have significant black neighborhoods are fertile ground for a moderate like Schwarzenegger to sway just enough to tilt the state in Bush's favor. Hence, Arnold hasn't been used in razor-thin showdown states like New Mexico or Iowa, or even Florida, because there swing voters are not likely to be black. Still the common thinking is that wouldn't Arnold want to help put Bush over the top and help the Republicans rebuild in California?

Some would speculate that Schwarzenegger simply is worried about being reelected in 2006. Very true, but it is more likely that Schwarzenegger believes that Bush will lose. We say this because Arnold has a long history of reversing himself to always be on the winning team. Most recently, he endorsed Proposition 71 only after polling indicated that the measure would pass. Before that he was ready to negotiate the construction of the state's first Indian casino in a Bay Area suburb until it appeared sentiment in Contra Costa County was against it.

So what indication does Schwarzenegger have that Bush will lose? We say it has a name: Pete Wilson. Good ol' Pete was the governor of California throughout the 1990s, and ironically he found himself in much the same paradox as Schwarzenegger. Elected in 1991, Wilson soft-pedaled his support for then incumbent George H. W. Bush in California. Thanks to Ross Perot, Clinton was the first Democrat since LBJ to carry California. Wilson might simply think that Bush is going to lose, but he is also likely to suggest that Schwarzenegger's energies must be directed in state versus out. The economic malaise of the early 90s was far worse than currently, but they underscore the same sources. Wilson's popularity in 1992, in light of the Los Angeles Riots, was a meager 15%.

Yet somehow, even as divisive as Wilson proved with measures like Proposition 187...he found himself reelected with broad support in 1994. And perhaps this is what he is suggesting to Arnold, cut a bold profile out of state and lose. Yet Wilson himself wanted to run for President but was undercut in 2000 but support by George W. Bush and the unpopularity of Proposition 209 nationally. But Wilson knows that Schwarzenegger cannot run for President yet, while 2006 is only 14 months away. Machinations aside, does Wilson have reasons to suspect Bush is done for?

This is the ominous question, and it's tremendously hard to guess what his rationale could be. Make no mistake, Arnold was not shy in September at the GOP Convention, begging the question why he's suddenly missing now.



posted by Thomas at 8:53 PM 0 comments

 
DRAW!

After serious contemplation, Unpaid is prepared to call the 2004 for election for Bush. The final electoral count… about 30-25. What is that you say, doesn’t a candidate need 270 votes to win the Electoral College? Unpaid thinks the Electoral College will deadlock, leaving the House of Representatives on January 8th to re-elect George W. Bush. Under the Constitution, each representative does not get a vote, but rather each state’s delegation of representatives. Currently the GOP controls about 35 delegations, and the Democrats only 20. The new Congress votes in the President, however, leaving there chance for the margin to change. The only reason Kerry is seemingly hopeless here is that most seats in the House are gerrymandered to be “safe” and noncompetitive.

Still, with national polls titling Bush by a small margin nationwide, you might wonder why Unpaid is certain the Electoral College will be tied. There are two scenarios, one commonly accepted the other not.

Scenario One: John Kerry wins Ohio and New Hampshire. If this occurs, even if Wisconsin, New Mexico and Florida stay red, both candidates get 269 votes. George W. Bush can defeat this strategy a myriad of ways, most notably by winning populous New Jersey. But that requires buying time on New York City and Philadelphia television stations. While Bush-Cheney already considers Pennsylvania in play, it is not hopeful for New York, and that gives Kerry and edge in that regard.

Scenario Two: Much has been made about an initiative to split electoral votes in Colorado. The state is not as big a prize as Florida to be sure, but it’s not even as big (in electoral terms) as Wisconsin, a former “blue” state that seems firmly in Bush’s grasp. Still if Florida and Ohio both tilt for Bush, how would the “Colorado” effect have an impact? If the initiative fails, and Bush wins Colorado…Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico would have to select Kerry. Bush is ahead in polls in all three states. Each poll is probably done incorrectly. In Nevada, large numbers of blacks have moved in since 2000 from California. We doubt they will vote Republican. In Arizona, immigration is an issue which Kerry has not bludgeoned the incumbent on, but still could be a way to make tremendous hay. New Mexico went for Gore last, time and while Bush is ahead, again undersampling ethnic minorities probably means a razor thin blue shade. Because of the reliance on Arizona, this is unlikely.
If Kerry wins Colorado outright, getting Nevada and New Mexico still tip the election to Bush. As a result, there would have to be another state on the fence that could switch from “red” to “blue”. There is such a state, and it is Arkansas. Bush barely musters a one percent lead in the Ozarks, with Nader getting a healthy chunk as well as the undecided vote. Undecided voters tend to pick change over the status quo, and even if that does not hold, the sampling again likely means Arkansas might already be a blue state. Combining it with Colorado and New Mexico would be a tremendous coup for the challenger.
So how does the intiative passing chance the equation? If Bush gets 5 votes, and Kerry 4 in Colorado, then Kerry would need Nevada, New Mexico, and Arkansas for a tie. If Kerry wins a qualified election 5-4 in Colorado then he would need Nevada New Mexico, or West Virginia to pull even.
Of all these possibilities, Unpaid believes that Bush winning a split in Colorado is the reason the for the draw. Voter registration and irregularities here smack of Florida but only in terms of how overworked the staff will be counting over-votes and the like. Arkansas probably has large number of Latino voters who are new to the state undercounted by the polling organizations, and along with a strong black turnout suggest that it already may be a blue state. The President has to counter Yucca Mountain, a planned repository for nuclear waste set to be deposited in Nevada. With the state’s powerful Democratic Senator Harry Reid running for reelection, Reid can run against Bush for the purposes on the ticket, giving Kerry plenty of oxygen in addition to demographic changes which we think favor Kerry, not Bush. Add a contentious victory in New Mexico, and we will have overtime once again.

posted by Thomas at 5:57 PM 0 comments

 
Time to Show Initiative

It was Thomas Jefferson who believed the US Constitution ought to be rewritten from time to time. Jefferson’s dream has been realized in California, where no matter who you elect, the people have the power to circumvent the officials by means of ballot initiatives. Nothing has a greater impact on California than these measures, and as hard as candidates fight for offices, the propositions make everyone, from the junior assemblyman to the governor irrelevant by comparison. “Unpaid” is here to help by cutting through pages and pages of the voter guide to give you the unvarnished reasons why to vote for, or against.



Proposition 1A No. The reason to vote no on this measure is incredibly simple, yet abstract. The idea behind the measure is to prevent the Legislature from making new spending appropriations until the amount of money it sends to local governments are satisfied. So why is this a bad idea? Well, is there anything to prevent cities and counties from overstating what they need in an attempt to reduce the state’s general revenue? And if even if they don’t, some revenue shortfall comes from the federal government not coming through on its requirements in the form of unfunded mandates. So as abstract as it seems, you vote for your local government, you vote for your national representatives, and you vote for your person in the state legislature. You do not get to vote for other districts’ representatives, other states’ senators, and so forth. This measure impedes the state and appears to be harmless, but what it ensures is that the federal government will continue to cut spending to local governments knowing that local leaders won’t resist and instead shrink the size of the state’s cushion for revenue. Unlike the feds though, California is not authorized to run a deficit, ensuring that taxes will rise precipitously at the state level if this measure is passed. Sales, vehicle licensing fees, university fees…it does not matter…Proposition 1A could be the most ill-considered idea since 1978’s Proposition 13.


Proposition 59: No. How much do you really want to pay for more access to your public records. While we do not have the equivalent of “sunshine laws” as strong as other states, so many other strong measures exist that make “59” window dressing. After all, confidential government meetings still are barred, so with that semantic trick, this is a dead letter.


Proposition 60: Yes. It’s usually a bad reason to vote for an initiative to avoid another initiative. But Proposition 60, designed to prevent any party from being denied ballot access is just such a reason. Chances are the party you vote for doesn’t have this problem, but if Proposition 62 passes, “60” limits the trickery by preventing an “open primary” where only two leading vote getters are placed on the ballot.


Proposition 60A: No. This measure is only here because it was stuck in a rider to Proposition 60. It’s not that there’s any reason to oppose it. But it’s because the Legislature can vote on this measure again later on should the initiative not be passed.


Proposition 61: Yes. It is true that this measure’s opponents are right. The reason this measure is on the ballot is that our healthcare system in America is broken. But the reason it comes to this in California is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s vicious redlining of the University of California. While its hospitals aren’t going under, it still needs money to make capital improvements and the losses are mounting because people are afraid of “socialized medicine”. Yes, it will cost money, but there’s really no other option, short of a total political change in the United States away from myopia on health care and immigration.

Proposition 62: No. As much as people seemed to have liked the open primary, where anyone can vote for primary candidates, the parties went all the way to the Supreme Court to rid themselves of it. So now, a new initiative says, you can have your open primary back, but the only two top voter getters will be sent to the general election. This is how they do it in Louisiana, which perfected the situation to ensure that if one Democratic nominee did not win the election, the runoff would consolidate the votes to defeat the challenger. This wouldn’t quite happen in California; instead it would just kill the primary process into no third parties and the two major parties having coronations. Sure, we don’t live in a democracy as much as a republic…but still…

Proposition 63: Yes. Los Angeles and San Francisco seemingly have an out of control homeless problem, but in reality most are just disabled people or mentally impaired folks turned loose with no ability to handle them. Proposition 63 does not solve the eternal problem, but it does create an interesting solution. It raises income taxes only on the rich as an attempt to pull many of the mentally ill off the streets. The odd surprise is this is supported by law enforcement because surprise, they often have to be the ones to marshal the downtrodden. The less street people, the more time they have to tackle more serious problems. Again, if the federal government would get serious about replacing the money it used to spend on mental health in the 1980s and earlier, this would not be necessary.

Proposition 64: No. Chances are you never heard of the Trevor Law Group, a bunch of thieves who happened to be lawyers running wild with California’s Unfair Competition Law. Unfortunately their abuse does not warrant this. It’s a strong-armed measure which prevents real legal champions taking on unfair and incorrect marketing and business practices.

Proposition 65: No. This was what Proposition 1A was before Arnold Schwarzenegger made his suggestions. It’s still a bad idea.

Proposition 66: Yes. Now here’s a thought, why send a person to jail for life for stealing a slice of pie. Sure, recidivism is a problem in state prisons. Still, when your state incarcerates more people than any other country or state on earth…including much more populous ones like China…you can see where this “budget deficit” really comes from. As fun and exciting as the “3 Strikes Law” was during the crime-ridden early 90s…we really don’t want to have a geriatric ward disguised as a penitentiary in 20 years. Why do we claim society will be so much safer locking up offenders for life when in fact recidivism is neither likely in some cases, nor likely as a person ages. Even the most dangerous or deranged individual will become pretty harmless as they grow longer in the tooth, and if not, they probably need to be committed anyway.

Proposition 67: Yes. Though it has a different mechanism than Proposition 63, this is the same idea. The uninsured have strained hospitals and EMTs to the breaking point, and we need new revenues to pay for closing hospitals. Sure there is another solution, but it’s unlikely to happen.

Proposition 68: No. If we are going to legalize gambling in California, we can’t give it away this cheaply. Considering how lucrative it can be, this is just a bad deal, no matter who is the beneficiary, card club owners or Native Americans.

Proposition 69: No. The reason to vote this measure down is because of what was left out. Instead of forcing all people arrested (DUI and domestic violence types take note) to give their DNA to the database, it places no evidentiary guidelines how that would be treated in court. In other words, even though the State would be able to show how close the DNA match would be in court, it would smell like OJ. And ultimately you know that it will actually have the reverse effect. More of more people would be suspicious of the State’s discretion using the DNA drops as evidence without requiring DNA matches to either hold, arrest, or convict a suspect. Barry Scheck is going to be a rich man if this passes.

Proposition 70: No. We repeat, it’s not that legalized gambling is an anathema to California. It is merely that if we need the revenue generated in its taxes, we need to cut a better deal than this. Proposition 5 stands in any event, allowing the Native Americans more or less sovereign gaming rights on their reservations anyway.

Proposition 71: Yes. This is huge. California is the biggest biotechnology state in the country. Massachusetts nips at our heels. The University of California hangs by a thread thanks to a coordinated reduction in funding at the state and local level. So why stem cells? The answer is that this would create lots of jobs in California, high paying, while offsetting the amount of money certain UC program would need. The bottom line, don’t think of this as a bond measure, think of a tax break that actually works out even better should President Bush be reelected.

Proposition 72: Yes. Here’s a novel idea. If you hire people at minimum wage and they cost the state money for being uninsured, why not force employers to buy insurance. This is the bottom line in the health care “crisis”, a restaurant owner is covered under the small business exception of providing health care because he or she bought the franchise rights, not into the company itself. Now companies supposedly would put out of business. Please, trauma centers are being shut down and the state is being forced to mortgage its future for Walmart? Note, small businesses under fifty people are still exempt, causing you to wonder just who is against this idea.

posted by Thomas at 5:31 PM 0 comments

 
The End of Walmart

There was a time when Wal-Mart did not conjure up the negative stereotypes it does today. There was a time when the discount retailer had a much lower profile, maintaining strongholds in the South and Midwest. Slowly but surely, Wal-Mart pushed east and west simultaneously, causing a culture war. Wal-Mart has been blamed for everything from grocery store strikes to the oppression of Chinese workers. Marked by more and more rapid expansion, and cutting prices, the question remains: what happens when there is no new place to open a Wal-Mart? Will stores raise prices when they are the only store in town?
Wal-Mart has found itself unable to make inroads where it is weakest: California and the Northeast. Some cities, like Rosemead, California have capitulated to the desire of the retail giant to open Supercenters there. Others like Inglewood, have resisted bitterly. And surprisingly, of all the things that you could imagine the corporate officers fear, this inability to open new stores is chief among them. Growth is a principal concern for the company; if new stores do not open, it is not as profitable. But there are finite limits to where stores can be opened, and the question remains what happens when there is a Wal-Mart on every corner.
The answer may be more visible than every person thinks. After all, while Wal-Mart is a publicly traded company, it has the majority of its stock owned by the Walton family. And the value of the stock has fluctuated from the 1990s into the new millennium. But if growth powered the stock’s rise, will lack of growth cause it decline, and the rich family’s fortunes with it? The answer appears to be yes and no. Currently, Wal-Mart does not have higher wages because of an anti-union environment. Healthcare and other benefits are non-existent for the majority of employees. Raising those standards could cost the company its bottom line.
Even if the only limit to growth is Wal-Mart’s own success, it still seems possible that the ultimate end-game for the Waltons would be to sell their stock. And had the stock market not crashed in 2000, perhaps this would have been fait accompli. With the economy rebounding, and investors moving back into stocks after cautious avoidance in light of such corporate scandals as Enron, the Waltons may be ready to start selling their stock.

posted by Thomas at 9:56 PM 0 comments