Yes, I know I took my sweet time getting back to this, but I have a one-word excuse: midterms. Anyway, I’ll resume where I left off in my analysis of Colorado’s proposed amendments and referenda.
Amendment 54 is the third and final union-weakening measure on the Colorado ballot. In a nutshell, this amendment prohibits labor unions from participating in the political process if their companies hold contracts with the state. It keeps labor unions from being able to participate in the political process or contribute to a political party, organization or candidate. The time frame of this restriction extends two years past the end of the contract. The best way I can explain it is through analogy: you work for a company that makes widgets, and your company is a union shop. You make the best widgets around, and the state gives you a contract to supply them with widgets for the next five years. Under Amendment 54 because your company accepted this state contract, your union is forbidden from participating in the political process in any way for the next seven years. Amendment 54 silences the voice of organized labor, and is a very bad idea.
AuntieM’s vote: NO on 54.
Amendment 55 – Wow, what happened? An amendment that’s actually pro-worker rights made it onto the ballot? What is this state coming to? Seriously, Amendment 55 restricts the reasons that employers can fire employees, albeit to a pretty broad list, but all of the items on the list are legitimate misconduct-type offenses that, in my opinion, would warrant termination. Under Amendment 55 an employer may fire an employee for any of the following reasons:
· Incompetence
· Substandard performance or neglect of job duties
· Repeated violations of an employer’s written policies and procedures related to job performance
· Gross insubordination or willful misconduct that affects job performance
· Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
· Employer bankruptcy
· Documented adverse economic circumstances that directly affect the employer.
These reasons are considered “just causes” under Amendment 55. Under current Colorado law, an employer may fire an employee for any reason or no reason whatsoever, and the employee has no recourse because Colorado is an at-will employment state. That’s a tricky way of saying you’re on your own when it comes to employment issues, unless you are protected by a union. Amendment 55 will go a long way to rectify that. This amendment also makes it possible for an employee who believes he or she was fired or suspended for an invalid reason to sue the employer, presumably for back wages, emotional distress, damage to reputation, etc. This measure will help provide job security and protection for Colorado workers.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on 55.
Amendment 56 requires employers to provide health insurance for employees and dependents, either through a private plan or through a plan to be set up by the state, and places percentage caps on how much an employee may be required to contribute toward the cost of this coverage. In all honesty, I wrestled with this decision for quite a while, and Hubby and I spent some time talking this one over. I was on the fence about requiring small employers to purchase health insurance because I know just how painfully expensive it can be to cover a small group – when a group is too small to establish a decent-sized risk pool, the premiums are simply obscene. Then I thought about this state plan and realized that it would most likely present an affordable option, and even if it’s simply a way to buy into Medicaid, that’s better coverage than thousands of Coloradans have today, namely none. Plus, reducing the number of uninsured is the best way to curb increases in health care and bring health insurance premiums down into a reasonable range. When hospitals and doctors aren’t having to increase their rates to cover the unpaid bills of the uninsured, because insurance is now affordable, then everyone wins. After I worked through all of this, my choice was clear: Amendment 56 will benefit all Coloradans, either directly or indirectly, and the creation of a state-established health plan will give employers an affordable choice.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on 56.
Amendment 57 is another amendment that will help improve conditions for working Coloradans by stiffening the standards of workplace safety and health with which employers must comply. Under Amendment 57 an employee will also have the right to sue an employer if the employer fails to maintain a safe and healthy working environment and the employee is injured or sickened as a result. We all deserve safe and healthy workplaces, and until we all have unions to fight for them on our behalf, we need legislation to mandate them, as well as a penalty (in the form of the lawsuit portion of this amendment) for employers who choose not to comply.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on 57.
Amendment 58 ends a tax credit for energy-producing companies, which was enacted way back when as a means to encourage energy exploration (mining, drilling) in Colorado. We don’t need to spend tax dollars to subsidize energy companies that are making record profits while we struggle to fill our gas tanks and pay our heating bills. Opponents of this measure have tried to use scare tactics that predict skyrocketing energy bills due to energy companies trying to recoup the lost subsidies through rate increases. We may indeed see increases in our energy bills, but that’s all part of the wonder that is capitalism. (Please note sarcasm.) The loss of these tax credits will increase the amount of severance tax these companies pay, which goes to support education, scholarships, wildlife, clean energy, and open spaces. I’d rather take my chances on a higher energy bill and know that my tax dollars are no longer helping to line the pockets of energy company executives.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on 58.
Amendment 59 permanently funnels excess funds into a newly-created education savings account, to be used specifically for preschool-12th grade education. Under TABOR any excess funds collected by the state must be refunded to the taxpayers. Amendment 59 does away with these TABOR refunds permanently. Funds from the education savings account may be spent at the discretion of the legislature with a 2/3 majority vote, unless the state experienced less than 6% growth (as it will in many years), and then only a simple majority is required. This is another amendment I wrestled with before making a decision, because on the one hand education needs funding, but on the other hand this amendment may not actually increase education funding – if the state is able to draw from this savings account to cover education expenses, they are likely to funnel existing education dollars from the budget into other projects such as roads. So Amendment 59 is actually smoke and mirrors, a way for the state to utilize TABOR funds in perpetuity without actually committing to using those funds for any specific purpose. Yes, education needs funding but this isn’t the way to do it.
AuntieM’s vote: NO on 59.
Referendum L lowers the minimum age for serving in the state legislature from 25 to 21. According to the Blue Book, “All 50 states have age requirements for members of their state legislatures, ranging from 18 to 30 years old.” Also, “Twenty-six states, including Colorado, require that members of the senate be at least 25 years old, with seven of those states having an even higher age requirement.” I wonder just how many 21-24 year olds would run for office if given the chance? I think that requiring a few years’ experience as an adult is a good thing for a publicly elected official, because there’s no denying that age does bring perspective. While I do believe anything that encourages younger people to participate in the political process is a good thing, there are entry-level local offices open to people under age 25. It’s not like they’re completely barred from running for office, and the period between 21 and 24 is a vitally important opportunity for these precocious politicos to get some much-needed experience. I think that Referendum L is unnecessary and unwise.
AuntieM’s vote: NO on Referendum L.
Referendum M eliminates a no longer needed tax incentive for planting orchards by not taxing the increase in land value that the orchards created. This measure was put into place in 1876. This is an attempt to clean up unneeded legislation that is cluttering Colorado’s constitution. This measure is no longer viable because another section of the constitution defines allowable tax exemptions, so this item is simply clutter that needs to be removed.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on Referendum M.
Referendum N removes another obsolete constitutional measure that set standards of purity and regulation for alcoholic beverages, functions that have since been taken over by the federal government. Since this measure no longer serves a viable purpose, it should be removed from Colorado’s constitution.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on Referendum N.
Referendum O changes the process of putting amendments and referenda on the Colorado ballot. It increases the number of signatures required for a constitutional amendment and specifies that a certain percentage of signatures must come from each congressional district, indicating statewide support for an amendment. The exact number of signatures required varies from year to year, and will continue to vary – currently to get anything on the ballot you have to collect 5% of the number of votes cast for Secretary of State, or 76,047 signatures to get an amendment or referendum on the 2008 ballot. Referendum O will increase that number to 6 percent of votes cast for governor, which would have equaled 93,497 signatures in 2008, and of these signatures 8 percent would have to come from each of Colorado’s congressional districts. Referendum O actually makes it easier to get a referendum on the ballot by reducing the number of signatures required to 4 percent of the number of votes for governor, or 62,331 signatures for 2008, with no requirement of demonstrated statewide support. In my opinion Referendum O seeks to reduce the number of frivolous amendments (hello Amendment 48!) pushed onto the ballot by small but vocal minorities) and amendments that seek to benefit only specific geographic areas or persons within those areas (hello Amendment 50 – did you know that almost all of the petition signatures were gathered in Black Hawk from visitors to the casinos? True.) I like Referendum O because it may well work to prevent massively long ballots such as the one we’re facing this year, and allow us to spend our time considering better thought-out legislative changes.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on Referendum O.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Local politics matter too
National politics have kept me pretty busy lately, you betcha! Especially with the debates being so entertaining (wink, wink). But in the midst of all of that, we mustn't forget about our local political scene and the issues that, if passed, can have a direct impact on our lives. It's easy to let local politics slide, especially in the middle of a hotly contested, and, let's face it, highly amusing national election cycle, but right now I want to change my focus. Today I'm taking a short break from national politics to focus on state-level issues.
Here in Colorado we've got a longer ballot than we've had in the last 100 years, due to 14 different constitutional amendments and 4 different referenda, not even considering city and county-level issues. It's confusing to the point that I've started compiling a cheat-sheet to take with me to the polls, because I don't want to try to figure out important issues on the fly. Yes, I could get a mail-in ballot like all of the campaigns encourage, but call me stubborn, I like showing up at the polls on election day, that's kind of a ritual for Hubby and me. Our polling place is just a short walk from our house so we grab jackets and head on over after breakfast, enjoying the fall weather and discussing the issues and our hopes for the future. It's nice and I don't want to give that up, even for the convenience of voting from my couch.
Anyway, I've reviewed the first seven amendments to the Colorado Constitution, and here is what I've found so far: Not a single one of them is worthy of a yes-vote, either because I disagree with the basic reasoning behind the amendment, or because the amendment is procedurally flawed. Let's take them in order:
Amendment 46, in essence, revokes Affirmative Action, stopping short of reversing any federally-mandated programs. I'm kind of conflicted on this because on the one hand I don't want the legal system working from the position that I need special treatment because I'm female (like I can't compete with men on a level playing field), but on the other hand we haven't exactly achieved parity for women and minorities in employment and education, so I think some level of legal protection is still needed. In the end I chose a No vote because the amendment as written fails to define certain specific terminology that, in today's litigious society, would certainly result in numerous lawsuits. Once true racial, ethnic and gender equality is achieved, affirmative action legislation will no longer be needed, but it's too early to force such a sea change, our society just isn't ready.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 46.
Amendment 47 allows workers to work in a union shop without having to join the union. Hubby and I have had some intense conversations on this one because he's not a fan of unions while I am. He buys into the whole "right to work" line that proponents of this amendment are trumpeting, while I see this amendment as a potential union-busting tool that employers can (and will) use to weaken the power of collective bargaining. The labor laws of the past century are directly attributable to those union members who put their futures and sometimes their lives on the line to improve working conditions for all Americans, and legal tools such as Amendment 47 will work to undo their efforts, and invalidate their sacrifices. This is a rare occasion in which Hubby and I had to agree to disagree, but I'm firm in my resolve: Amendment 47 would be bad for all Colorado workers.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 47.
Amendment 48 is the most onerous amendment in this entire massive ballot. It decrees that personhood begins at the moment of conception, and if passed, will instantly outlaw all abortions, regardless of the reason. This amendment will eventually be used to overturn Roe v. Wade. It also potentially can prohibit certain forms of birth control, and will open up doctors to murder charges if they treat pregnant women and the treatment causes harm to the fetus. It may also open up pregnant women to child abuse charges if they don't live squeaky-clean lives while they are pregnant. Oh you had a drink? Child abuse! You smoked a cigarette? Child abuse! Amendment 48 will turn back the clock for the women of Colorado to a time before reliable birth control and safe and legal abortions, when we were completely at the mercy of our biology and had no legal protection or recourse. Do we really want to go back to back-alley coathanger abortions, and let the state tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies? NO!
AuntieM's vote - NO on 48.
Amendment 49 is another union-busting measure in disguise. It prohibits employers from taking payroll deductions for certain expenses and is being presented as a worker protection measure, but when you read the fine print the only deductions being prohibited are union dues. Proponents of this measure claim that those who want to pay union dues can arrange for automatic drafts from their own banks, but don't want employers to be able to take those deductions directly from paychecks. This measure simply creates more hassle for those who wish to belong to unions by making them take extra steps to pay their dues. It's a ridiculous measure that has no business being included in the Colorado Constitution.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 49.
Amendment 50 is another one that Hubby and I have discussed in great detail, but on this one we are in agreement. Amendment 50 seeks to allow residents in the three gaming towns to vote to increase the betting limits in Colorado casinos to $100, allow casinos to stay open 24 hours, and let them add games such as craps and roulette. Currently the limit on a single bet is $5, casinos must close between 2am and 8am, and they may only offer slots, video poker, blackjack and blackjack-type games, and live poker. This amendment is near and dear to both our hearts because I worked in Colorado casinos for 11 years, and Hubby still works in the casinos and has recently begun his 13th year in the gaming industry. So Amendment 50 is very pertinent for us. In addition, this amendment specifies that 78% of the increase in gaming revenues will go toward Colorado's community colleges, institutions that are near and dear to my heart because I graduated from one and hope to return to that very school as a remedial English instructor once I have my BA. Hubby and I both have a very personal stake in this one. So you'd think we are unified in our support of this amendment, but that's not the case. We're both quite opposed to it, for a variety of reasons. Hubby is concerned that if the above changes are in the hands of gaming town residents, the largest gaming town (Black Hawk) will immediately implement all the changes proposed and will drive Central City (where he works) out of business becaues Central City isn't as well positioned to take advantage of those changes. Black Hawk has spent the last decade building up its infrastructure to support just such a change (incidentally, in violation of current Colorado Gaming laws, though nothing has been done about that) while Central City has been hamstrung by a building moratorium that was passed by its residents in about 1994, severely restricting construction of new casinos in order to remain in compliance with gaming laws and to preserve the small-town character of their city. This is Hubby's biggest reason for not supporting this measure.
Corruption is also a significant issue in Black Hawk, and we both feel that this will present the Black Hawk powers-that-be with a brand new opportunity to line their pockets at taxpayers (and students) expense. I don't have much faith that the casinos would willingly funnel the full 78% of increased revenues to the community colleges, and so far I have not been able to determine adequately how those increases in revenues will be calculated. Without that information I am unwilling to support this measure. Plus, while I was in gaming, I always swore that the day they put in these changes would be the day I handed in my notice. The gaming industry is a real pressure-cooker of a work environment, and you wouldn't believe how high the burnout rates are. None of the casinos are unionized, so the workers are at the mercy of the casinos and must comply with some pretty draconian rules. If this measure passes, casinos will put even more pressure on their employees to work longer hours with shorter turnarounds between shifts, to avoid hiring additional staff, or to cope with the immediate growth created by such an amendment. Without union protection, employees who stand up against unreasonable demands will be subject to termination without recourse. It has happened before, it will happen again.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 50.
Amendment 51 is for a 0.2% sales tax increase, with the proceeds to go towards services for people with developmental disabilities. While this is a noble goal and a population in need, right now our economy is in such sorry shape that I don't think we need to jack up the sales tax rate right now. Sometimes I wonder about including stuff like this as a constitutional amendment; is it really appropriate? Do we want to mandate specific sales taxes in our constitution, or should it be considered at some other legislative level? Too many questions make it impossible for me to support this amendment.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 51.
Amendment 52 proposes that a chunk of state severance taxes (the tax the state receives for coal, oil and natural gas extracted) be funneled toward roads. Right now they fund water projects, wildlife conservation, low-income energy assistance, varous wildlife conservation, renewable energy, state parks and environmental programs, and regulatory needs. All of those programs are necessary, but they all lack vocal advocacy groups, while in every single election there is at least one initiative to increase road funding. I'm opposed to changing this funding structure because in recent years we've allocated millions upon millions toward roads, and at some point we simply have to say "enough, there are other worthy projects out there that should also be funded."
AuntieM's vote - NO on 52.
Amendment 53 deals with ethics in business, and creates criminal penalties for corporate executives, officers, directors, managing partners or proprietors of for-profit or nonprofit entities if their specific entity fails to perform duties that are required by law. On its face it sounds reasonable, but the fine print reveals that there's a loophole big enough to drive a corporate jet through: an executive can avoid any criminal liability by disclosing his company's activities to the attorney general at any time before criminal charges are filed. This measure won't improve corporate ethics, it will simply allow crooked executives to write their own get-out-of-jail-free card in the form of a letter to the AG, and as long as their lawyers are fast enough to get it delivered before charges are filed, the executive walks away scot-free. It may snare a few careless small businessmen, but the ones who commit theft and fraud on a gigantic scale will always be able to skate.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 53.
This weekend I hope to review the rest of the amendments, as well as the referenda, and will write about them in a subsequent post. In the meantime, I hope that each one of you is doing what I'm doing, finding unbiased information on political issues, learning about both sides, considering that information against your own beliefs and making rational choices. Only with that level of involvelement and dedication by citizens can a representative democracy truly function as such. Anything less and the elected politicians simply become shills for the loudest voices and deepest pockets.
Peace,
AuntieM
Here in Colorado we've got a longer ballot than we've had in the last 100 years, due to 14 different constitutional amendments and 4 different referenda, not even considering city and county-level issues. It's confusing to the point that I've started compiling a cheat-sheet to take with me to the polls, because I don't want to try to figure out important issues on the fly. Yes, I could get a mail-in ballot like all of the campaigns encourage, but call me stubborn, I like showing up at the polls on election day, that's kind of a ritual for Hubby and me. Our polling place is just a short walk from our house so we grab jackets and head on over after breakfast, enjoying the fall weather and discussing the issues and our hopes for the future. It's nice and I don't want to give that up, even for the convenience of voting from my couch.
Anyway, I've reviewed the first seven amendments to the Colorado Constitution, and here is what I've found so far: Not a single one of them is worthy of a yes-vote, either because I disagree with the basic reasoning behind the amendment, or because the amendment is procedurally flawed. Let's take them in order:
Amendment 46, in essence, revokes Affirmative Action, stopping short of reversing any federally-mandated programs. I'm kind of conflicted on this because on the one hand I don't want the legal system working from the position that I need special treatment because I'm female (like I can't compete with men on a level playing field), but on the other hand we haven't exactly achieved parity for women and minorities in employment and education, so I think some level of legal protection is still needed. In the end I chose a No vote because the amendment as written fails to define certain specific terminology that, in today's litigious society, would certainly result in numerous lawsuits. Once true racial, ethnic and gender equality is achieved, affirmative action legislation will no longer be needed, but it's too early to force such a sea change, our society just isn't ready.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 46.
Amendment 47 allows workers to work in a union shop without having to join the union. Hubby and I have had some intense conversations on this one because he's not a fan of unions while I am. He buys into the whole "right to work" line that proponents of this amendment are trumpeting, while I see this amendment as a potential union-busting tool that employers can (and will) use to weaken the power of collective bargaining. The labor laws of the past century are directly attributable to those union members who put their futures and sometimes their lives on the line to improve working conditions for all Americans, and legal tools such as Amendment 47 will work to undo their efforts, and invalidate their sacrifices. This is a rare occasion in which Hubby and I had to agree to disagree, but I'm firm in my resolve: Amendment 47 would be bad for all Colorado workers.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 47.
Amendment 48 is the most onerous amendment in this entire massive ballot. It decrees that personhood begins at the moment of conception, and if passed, will instantly outlaw all abortions, regardless of the reason. This amendment will eventually be used to overturn Roe v. Wade. It also potentially can prohibit certain forms of birth control, and will open up doctors to murder charges if they treat pregnant women and the treatment causes harm to the fetus. It may also open up pregnant women to child abuse charges if they don't live squeaky-clean lives while they are pregnant. Oh you had a drink? Child abuse! You smoked a cigarette? Child abuse! Amendment 48 will turn back the clock for the women of Colorado to a time before reliable birth control and safe and legal abortions, when we were completely at the mercy of our biology and had no legal protection or recourse. Do we really want to go back to back-alley coathanger abortions, and let the state tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies? NO!
AuntieM's vote - NO on 48.
Amendment 49 is another union-busting measure in disguise. It prohibits employers from taking payroll deductions for certain expenses and is being presented as a worker protection measure, but when you read the fine print the only deductions being prohibited are union dues. Proponents of this measure claim that those who want to pay union dues can arrange for automatic drafts from their own banks, but don't want employers to be able to take those deductions directly from paychecks. This measure simply creates more hassle for those who wish to belong to unions by making them take extra steps to pay their dues. It's a ridiculous measure that has no business being included in the Colorado Constitution.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 49.
Amendment 50 is another one that Hubby and I have discussed in great detail, but on this one we are in agreement. Amendment 50 seeks to allow residents in the three gaming towns to vote to increase the betting limits in Colorado casinos to $100, allow casinos to stay open 24 hours, and let them add games such as craps and roulette. Currently the limit on a single bet is $5, casinos must close between 2am and 8am, and they may only offer slots, video poker, blackjack and blackjack-type games, and live poker. This amendment is near and dear to both our hearts because I worked in Colorado casinos for 11 years, and Hubby still works in the casinos and has recently begun his 13th year in the gaming industry. So Amendment 50 is very pertinent for us. In addition, this amendment specifies that 78% of the increase in gaming revenues will go toward Colorado's community colleges, institutions that are near and dear to my heart because I graduated from one and hope to return to that very school as a remedial English instructor once I have my BA. Hubby and I both have a very personal stake in this one. So you'd think we are unified in our support of this amendment, but that's not the case. We're both quite opposed to it, for a variety of reasons. Hubby is concerned that if the above changes are in the hands of gaming town residents, the largest gaming town (Black Hawk) will immediately implement all the changes proposed and will drive Central City (where he works) out of business becaues Central City isn't as well positioned to take advantage of those changes. Black Hawk has spent the last decade building up its infrastructure to support just such a change (incidentally, in violation of current Colorado Gaming laws, though nothing has been done about that) while Central City has been hamstrung by a building moratorium that was passed by its residents in about 1994, severely restricting construction of new casinos in order to remain in compliance with gaming laws and to preserve the small-town character of their city. This is Hubby's biggest reason for not supporting this measure.
Corruption is also a significant issue in Black Hawk, and we both feel that this will present the Black Hawk powers-that-be with a brand new opportunity to line their pockets at taxpayers (and students) expense. I don't have much faith that the casinos would willingly funnel the full 78% of increased revenues to the community colleges, and so far I have not been able to determine adequately how those increases in revenues will be calculated. Without that information I am unwilling to support this measure. Plus, while I was in gaming, I always swore that the day they put in these changes would be the day I handed in my notice. The gaming industry is a real pressure-cooker of a work environment, and you wouldn't believe how high the burnout rates are. None of the casinos are unionized, so the workers are at the mercy of the casinos and must comply with some pretty draconian rules. If this measure passes, casinos will put even more pressure on their employees to work longer hours with shorter turnarounds between shifts, to avoid hiring additional staff, or to cope with the immediate growth created by such an amendment. Without union protection, employees who stand up against unreasonable demands will be subject to termination without recourse. It has happened before, it will happen again.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 50.
Amendment 51 is for a 0.2% sales tax increase, with the proceeds to go towards services for people with developmental disabilities. While this is a noble goal and a population in need, right now our economy is in such sorry shape that I don't think we need to jack up the sales tax rate right now. Sometimes I wonder about including stuff like this as a constitutional amendment; is it really appropriate? Do we want to mandate specific sales taxes in our constitution, or should it be considered at some other legislative level? Too many questions make it impossible for me to support this amendment.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 51.
Amendment 52 proposes that a chunk of state severance taxes (the tax the state receives for coal, oil and natural gas extracted) be funneled toward roads. Right now they fund water projects, wildlife conservation, low-income energy assistance, varous wildlife conservation, renewable energy, state parks and environmental programs, and regulatory needs. All of those programs are necessary, but they all lack vocal advocacy groups, while in every single election there is at least one initiative to increase road funding. I'm opposed to changing this funding structure because in recent years we've allocated millions upon millions toward roads, and at some point we simply have to say "enough, there are other worthy projects out there that should also be funded."
AuntieM's vote - NO on 52.
Amendment 53 deals with ethics in business, and creates criminal penalties for corporate executives, officers, directors, managing partners or proprietors of for-profit or nonprofit entities if their specific entity fails to perform duties that are required by law. On its face it sounds reasonable, but the fine print reveals that there's a loophole big enough to drive a corporate jet through: an executive can avoid any criminal liability by disclosing his company's activities to the attorney general at any time before criminal charges are filed. This measure won't improve corporate ethics, it will simply allow crooked executives to write their own get-out-of-jail-free card in the form of a letter to the AG, and as long as their lawyers are fast enough to get it delivered before charges are filed, the executive walks away scot-free. It may snare a few careless small businessmen, but the ones who commit theft and fraud on a gigantic scale will always be able to skate.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 53.
This weekend I hope to review the rest of the amendments, as well as the referenda, and will write about them in a subsequent post. In the meantime, I hope that each one of you is doing what I'm doing, finding unbiased information on political issues, learning about both sides, considering that information against your own beliefs and making rational choices. Only with that level of involvelement and dedication by citizens can a representative democracy truly function as such. Anything less and the elected politicians simply become shills for the loudest voices and deepest pockets.
Peace,
AuntieM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)