The state/county/city is an interesting issue. I suspect that the pull of local government is far too great to abolish, for the simple reason that it is the most personal form of representative government. The idea that we have counties is something that may be past it’s prime. Aside from maintaining the criminal and civil legal systems, and election mgmt I am not sure what else the county does that is that essential.

I’m generally against billion dollar state spending bills at a time when housing prices are starting to fall (San Diego County, San Mateo County, etc.) and there are some indications of an economic slow down. However, I believe that shifting energy production/consumption is going to be a great global challenge over the coming decades. While, I’d like to see a little more oversight than Prop 87 offers, I don’t think it possible to throw too much money at the problem right now. Furthermore, I’m optimistic that the state funding, unlike venture investing alone, will help ensure that California retains its leadership as the center for global technology as software and IT become more commoditized.

Lastly, I would take your comments about municipal government a step further. Why not just abolish local government entirely? Do we really need state, county and city government structures to keep the street lights on? I suspect that at least one of the three may not be necessary. For example, are my utility and policing needs as a resident of Palo Alto really that different from my neighbors in Mountain View? Couldn’t these issues be handled at the County? Furthermore, I have been told that the City of Palo Alto actually lost money when the World Cup matches were played at Stanford Stadium in 1994. City “beautification” projects like that silly egg at the corner of University Ave/Emerson and the roundabouts that replaced stop signs at a cost of 10X(?) really bug me when a new parcel tax for education seems to show up on the ballot every year.

Q: What do credit cards and government spending have in common?
A: Both are spending your money, but nobody seems to realize it.

-Andrew

I generally avoid talking politics at all online and the only reason I comment on your site about political opinions is because I respect your opinions and usually find your responses persuasive.

I will follow up on your suggestions for further reading regarding Prop 90.

As far as 85, apparently I should have taken the time to word my comment more carefully because you seem to be taking that as much more of an attack than I intended it.

I did not quote “as a parent” to mock you. I was trying to make a broader “libertarian oriented” point that people don’t people don’t vote for laws like 85 to protect themselves personally but to help “other people” who really may need this new government intervention in their lives. And I understand a lot of Democrats are for the proposition. On the surface who wouldn’t be. But the list of feel good, bi-partisan nanny laws we could pass is endless and many of these laws have unintended consequences, often for people who have a life situation we don’t understand and can’t envision.

I guess this a bit of a lesson not to dabble in a discussion that I don’t have time to word more thoughtfully. Your blog just seems to bring out the devils advocate in me because I’m surprised how often I agree with your business commentary and how often I disagree with your political analysis. So I enjoy wading in and making a point or being persuaded in turn by a good debater.

-Brian

Prop 90 is absolutely about Kelo because it explicitly prohibits local governments from seizing or condemning private property and turning it over to private developers. This is the essence of the Kelo case. You might want to read up about the Lake Ellsinore Redevelopment Project down in Riverside to see a real live eminent domain abuse that was only curbed when the residents fought back, or down in the City of Garden Grove where the city condemned a track of low/moderate income housing (well kept, even the city acknowledged) in order to build a Hampton Inn.

What 90 will do is make the cost of eminent domain seizures a lot more, and as a result cities are going to have to think long and hard about those costs before embarking on every redevelopment plan that seems like a good idea. This measure will also give homeowners and small business owners a tool that they can use to fight back when their city attempts to seize their property for that much needed strip mall with a Ruby Tuesdays and a Starbucks.

Insofar as 85, I really resent you mocking my position on it. I genuinely don’t believe that a teenage girl should be able to get an abortion easier than a tattoo. I think you are way off base in suggesting that this is just a partisan issue as well because with the polling going the way it is there is much to suggest that a significant percentage of democrats are for this measure.

You are more than welcome to come here and comment but I really don’t put this up to be attacked or mocked. If you want to debate it, fine but do so on the merits and not the name calling as there is enough of that in politics in general. Also, I’d appreciate just a small amount of respect as to my right to decide the issues the way that I see them. Unlike most voters, I do in fact read the entire voter guide and research the issues, ultimately deciding on a combination of ideological, common sense, and compromise positions.

BTW, look at each of my votes, I didn’t cast them according to party lines at all.

You could have at least strayed from the party line on the really nutty ones like Prop 90.

Prop 90 doesn’t have anything to do with Kelo, it just uses Kelo as an excuse to gut the power of local governments. I guarantee that if Prop 90 passes you’ll eventually wish it hadn’t. Just like the folks in Oregon already regret passing their version of a similar bad proposition. And McClintock is obviously lacking in either integrity or brains if he’s for it, because I’m sure he knows the true nature of the proposition in detail.

And I’m guessing that “as a parent” Prop 85 will never have any impact on you since healthy families don’t need State Government to intervene in family communication. But I guess restricting the options of kids from abusive families should make the “government knows best” Republicans feel good.

-Brian

I’ll be on it for ’08, promise!

Veek The Vote represents something wholly new in the history of election coverage. Anyone with a mobile phone equipped with a camera-—there are over 70 million of them in the U.S.–can send a photo or video to vote@veeker.com. No registration is requried. No special software is needed.

Fifteen to sixty seconds after a photo or video is sent, it will appear in a embedded player at veekthevote.com. This player, in turn, can be taken by anyone and embedded anywhere on the web: on blogs, MySpace pages, etc. Veek the Vote generates a completely open mobile video communication network, enabling complete democratization of election coverage. We take in video from anyone, and allow anyone to display it on their website.

We’re very excited about the prospects for Veek the Vote. It empowers Americans to be more than a statistic captured by exit polls on Election Day. Whether they’re taking to the streets in protest, waiting patiently (or impatiently) in line at the polls, or stuck behind a desk, Veek the Vote 2006 lets America show and see Election Day in a way never before possible.

Any help that you all might be able to give in helping us get this story out would be very much appreciated. The more people that know about Veek the Vote, the more powerful it will be.