My Thoughts on the Outcome of the Election

After months of intense campaigning, Obama emerged as the projected victor of the 2012 US presidential election. I care about the outcome of the presidential race, but there were three other contests, four including my own state’s senatorial race, whose outcomes worried and excited me almost as much as that for president. They were the ballot votes on gay marriage in Maryland, Maine and Washington.

What is unique about this particular ballot vote is that it had never before succeeded. Massachusetts, Iowa and the other four states that currently allow same-sex marriage were not decided by a popular vote: their courts deemed such discrimination unconstitutional. When attempting to pass same sex marriage via the popular vote, even Maine shot the proposition down 53% to 47% several years ago (http://bruni.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/maine-and-maryland-say-we-do/).

Now in 2012 things are starting to change. Obama is the first president to openly support gay marriage. Maryland and Maine passed gay marriage in their respective states with promising results thus far predicted for Washington (their submit their ballots in the mail so actual numbers take longer to determine). Wisconsin elected the first gay senator, Tammy Baldwin. To me, these results symbolize a change in attitude in the American population. People have finally realized that the failure to include all people and families in law is flat-out discrimination, religious preferences and propaganda aside. It’s acknowledgement that we are not so different after all and do not deserve to be denied our rights.

There is still a lot of work to be done. Thirty states have banned gay marriage in their constitutions. But if the number of states allowing gay marriage can jump from six to nine states overnight, there may just be hope that those numbers will be reversed by the time by moms turn 65.

Thank you, American voters, for supporting my family last night.  

Do I Politicize my Dollars?

Momentary deviation from the appropriation of my tax dollars to an issue concerning November's election. 

Watching the news Saturday morning, I overheard the opening lines to a story about an Ohio resident heavily campaigning for the legalization of marijuana in Massachusetts. Such out of state lobbying, especially in the form of lavish donations, is not uncommon. Yet having recently sent in my absentee ballot, this man’s unsolicited interference in my state’s election felt oddly unsettling.

Such uneasiness got me thinking: should such intervention in state elections be allowed? What’s its advantage? What is the disadvantage? Would I do it?

In doing research for this blog, I learned that while there are caps on how much a person or organization can contribute to state and federal elections, no such restrictions exist for ballot measure campaigns. That made me feel slightly better. Critics argue that such sky’s-the-limit policies favor special interest groups with deep pockets.  For example, opponents of the second question on the Massachusetts ballot regarding physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients have generated over $900,000. Less than $25,000, approximately 2%, of that sum has originated in Massachusetts (http://www.wcvb.com/news/investigative/Out-of-state-cash-shaping-Massachusetts-ballot-measure-prospects/-/12520878/17158100/-/item/2/-/b1kpmjz/-/index.html).

A summary of question 2 on the Massachusetts ballot. Various special interest groups have intervened on behalf of both sides of the controversial legislation but a lot of money has filtered in from groups opposing it. 

Photo credit: http://www.bostonglobe.com/2012/10/15/bgcom-ballot-graphic/7dHMyt8p1HzsTcm5ME1QkO/story.html 

The obvious disadvantage is that the deeper the pockets, the deeper the influence. Political superiority goes to the group who supplies the most funds, not the group who should have the most power: the voters.  

I assume one of the advantages to forceful lobbying in one state is to encourage the passage of the same or similar legislation in another state. One sets an example, the nation watches the outcome, and ideally the other states respond supportively. The practice of “peer pressure” goes all the way to the signing of the Constitution. But in my opinion, the only body allowed to tie the hands of other states is the Federal Government. If the Federal Government decides to apply legislation to the entire country, fine. But if a special interest group not even from my state makes a point to ensure the passing of legislation that does not even affect them, then that is not fine.

To answer my last question, I eventually resolved that I would not interfere with another state’s election, even if my financial situation allowed me to do so. Although I disagree with a lot of the policies of other states (someone explain to me why it’s legal in some states to marry an animal but not to marry someone of the same gender), their legislation is not my call. If I become a legal resident of that state then it becomes my call. In that situation I also relinquish my claim to impact anything Massachusetts decides. But as a current Massachusetts resident, what happens in Massachusetts should be up to the voters OF Massachusetts. 

Romney and My Tax Dollars

Opening Safari this morning, I noticed that my homepage, nytimes.com, displayed an intriguing headline: "The Mitt Romney Who Might Have Been"

Huh?

He’s the Republican presidential candidate and a former governor. He is already a very well known and publicized figure. As such, most if not all Americans around or above voting age know his name. What else could he have been? Curious, I shoved my current homework aside, clicked on the link and began to read.

In a two-second summary of the article, author Robert Draper evaluated Romney’s role as an informal McCain advisor during the 2008 race and his performance as Massachusetts governor. The point? Romney aimed to please.

I highly recommend reading it if you wish to see a preview of President Romney. 

Rather than remain steadfast to his promises or convictions, Romney preferred to go along and do what would win him support and favor. A perfect example of this is his revelation about Roe vs. Wade. Once the potential of a presidential campaign emerged mid-way through his term as governor, his position on a woman’s right to choose reversed from support to opposition. His loyalty never lay with Massachusetts. One of his environmental officials told the Times, “Clearly, in retrospect, he was weighing what was right for Massachusetts with how it would play nationally." (nytimes.com) 

Melanie's Law, a law targeted at getting more drunk drivers caught repeatedly off the road, is seen as one of the big success stories of Romney's term as Massachusetts governor. While it has been successful at getting repeat offenders off the road, seeing as it was introduced as a result of the tragic death of a young girl by a repeat offender drunk driver, there was little political resistance to its enactment. IID stands for ignition interlock device: you must blow into it and pass or else the car will not start. 

photo credit: http://www.mass.gov/rmv/rmvnews/2008/iid_removals.gif

Now imagine a president weighting what was right for the United States with how it would play on the international stage. Not good. 

I do acknowledge that the Times tends to lean toward the left and therefore this evaluation of Romney is somewhat biased. However, as a Massachusetts resident, much of its criticisms about his performance ring true. Who wants a governor who spends the last two years of his term away forwarding his own presidential campaign? Should he get elected, will he spend the latter years of his term focused on his re-election campaign instead of our nation’s current crises? I want my president here and actively engaged in the needs of the United States. I want him to take a decisive stand on issues and not allow his hopes for re-election to taint his decisions. He must preside in the present: not in the prospects of the 2016 race.

Funny how he approved a similar health care system in Massachusetts that took effect while he was governor that is viewed as one of his other big successes and he now rejects such a system on a nation-wide scale. You no longer hear Bostonians complaining about the state-wide health insurance requirement. Massachusetts also has some of the best health statistics in the nation. 

Photo credit: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-TO311_0628sc_G_20120628120827.jpg

Obviously the 2012 presidential election is a huge determinant in the future of my tax dollars over the course of the next four years. I make no secret about the fact that I am a liberal: I favor big government, I support a woman’s right to choose and I applaud universal health care. But in some ways, I view myself as a fiscal conservative. I dislike when my hard-earned tax dollars are wastefully and ineffectively spent. I especially grapple with the concept of welfare systems. My philosophy is simple: live within your means. If you fail to do so, then that is your financial problem, not mine and certainly not my tax dollars’.

That being said, obviously I will not vote for Romney.  But in addition to our ideological differences, I do not trust him to be responsible with my tax dollars because he flip-flopped so many times on issues and policies as governor. If elected president, which Romney are we actually going to get?