**POLITICS WARNING** - The G.F. Voting Guide

I'm going to be on a business trip next week, so I'm voting absentee for the first time ever. It's a very easy process here in Payne County, as I dropped a form off at the Election Board office and they mailed me a ballot. The only small hassle is the requirement of a notary on the ballot return envelope, but I work two desks away from one of these selfless public servants, so it's no big deal.

In looking over the ballot, I thought you faithful readers out there might be interested to know how I vote.  The notarized affidavit I just swore says I didn't show the marked ballot to any other person (pay-for-votes didn't end with Tammany Hall, people), so I'm posting here pictures of the unmarked ballot (just like you can find on the county's website), and giving you a bit of commentary on each. Before you fire off an angry comment, remember, this post is for entertainment purposes only (unless I happen to convince you of my position).

Starting at the top:

This should be illegal.  Please don't check one of these boxes.






It may be naive, but I view the President as chiefly a decision maker rather than a policy maker. The office is designed to be more reactive than proactive, so I see the ideal candidate as someone with the wisdom and character to weigh complex circumstances, make difficult judgment calls, and explain to the public why his decision was the best possible one. A Presidential candidate's position on public policy issues should be low on the list of voting criteria. It rarely matters what a candidate's personal position is on a hot button issue because Presidents (generally) don't have the power to unilaterally make new policy.  I'm not really interested in voting for a candidate based on these kinds of issues, and I don't like candidates that spend a lot of time talking about them. I care about general philosophy of government, experience, and character.

Based on this analysis, I'll probably skip this part of the ballot entirely. 

These guys make policy, and Lucas is a strong advocate for the ag industry in Oklahoma.  Good enough for me. 

I don't really know what the County Clerk does, or why it's necessary to declare a party to run for the office. I read a story in the NewsPress on both of these candidates, and they both seem competent and experienced, and they both know a lot more than I do about what the clerk does.  In the case of equal candidates in local offices, I usually vote against the incumbent. (Though they don't indicate who that is on the ballot for some reason.)

This is what taxes are for.  I'm a much bigger fan of dedicated local taxes than those that go into the general Federal budget.















VOTE YES!  VOTE YES!  VOTE YES!

VOTE YES!  VOTE YES!  VOTE YES!

I'm not going to list all 12 state, county, and municipal judges up for retention votes. I don't know anything about any of them, but my general rule is to vote against retention. Judges at this level should not have life-time appointments. 

I can't say that I'm a fan of the premise behind affirmative action programs. But I also can't say there's never a time or place for such a program, and neither can the drafters of this state question, seeing as how they had to include exceptions.  My favorite exception is the federal funding one.  "You can't discriminate against white people! ... unless the feds stop giving us money."
















I've read a little on this one and I'm still not sure what to think about it. And I guarantee the 95% of voters won't understand the details or implications of the amendment.

This doesn't seem like a very good topic for public referendum, and I generally don't go for constitutional amendments when I have no idea about their purpose.













This is another one I don't get.  We're abolishing DHS why?  I can only imagine that this is the idea of someone who doesn't like certain parts of DHS (welfare programs, I expect), but if this isn't the proverbial throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I don't know what it.

Yawn. The point here seems to be further limiting how much my property taxes can go up on a yearly basis.  The current cap is 5%, the new one would be 3%.  This seems to me one of those deals that allows its drafters to crow about lowering taxes, but without much actual effect.

Also, if my property value goes up 25%, why shouldn't the assessed value also increase?

I'd like the parole powers to remain in the hands of an elected official, accountable to voters, thank you very much.



















I saw an ad in the paper this week supporting this measure, claiming it eliminates double taxation.  I suppose the argument is that if you own a patent on a widget, and you make money selling the widgets, you pay income tax on that profit. An ad valorem tax on the value of the patent itself would be a double tax.

But that doesn't make sense. If I own a taxi, and make income off the fares, I'll pay income tax.  The car itself is also subject to property tax based on its value. That's because the asset has value on its own, whether it's currently throwing off income or not.

When a business buys another business that owns patents, the valuation of the purchased company will take into account the income generated and the independent value of the patents. The income and the underlying value are separate, and should each be subject to taxation.

**Politics** - PBS Funding

** Warning - Politically Tinged Rant **

I love PBS.  I grew up with Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, Reading Rainbow, 3-2-1 Contact, Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?, reruns of great BBC stuff -- All Creatures Great and Small, Fawlty Towers, Keeping Up Appearances, and lots more.  My first blog post was on the OETA Movie Club, with BJ Wexler. We never had cable in my house and my dad refused to watch just about anything that wasn't on PBS.

All that said, the idea of cutting federal funding of PBS is such a non-issue in the Presidential election that it makes me crazy.  Romney is an idiot for suggesting it, and everyone else is an idiot for taking the bait and reacting to his statement.

I'm especially disgusted by the Sesame Workshop's indignant response, and use of Big Bird as a scare tactic.  The SW makes millions and millions of dollars licensing its trademarks to sell Tickle Me Elmo and Big Bird pajamas.  They don't need federal money to keep Sesame Street on the air.

Federal money makes up a very small portion of PBS's budget and of the budgets of local public TV stations.  Not a single one would go off the air in the absence of Federal funding. Not a single one.

At the same time, the amount of money the Feds spend on PBS is so insignificant in the larger budgets picture that to suggest cutting it will somehow help the gagillion dollar deficit is asinine.  Romney is pandering to those yahoos who think PBS is the poster child of liberal media bias.

Here's my suggestion: give it a rest. Romney and his supporters need to find a better example of how he'll fix the financial problem in this country. PBS lovers need ignore petty political antagonism and worry about larger philosophical differences.

The state of political discourse in this country is absolutely appalling, at every level.

** End of Rant **