Kelley Ross for United States Congress; the results of November 7, 2006, are:

28th District:  100.0% ( 277 of 277 ) precincts reporting as of Nov 19, 2006 at 8:22 pm

* Howard L. Berman           Democrat      76,603   74.0 
  Stanley Kimmel Kesselman   Republican    19,859   19.2 
  Byron De Lear              Green         3,655     3.5 
  Kelley L. Ross             Libertarian   3,464     3.3 

Howard Berman had no problem getting reelected with a larger percentage than two years ago. The draw of the Republican candidate declines. With two Third Party candidates, my percentage and raw vote were significantly reduced, and the Green candidate beat me by 200 votes. While Arnold, the Great Gubernator, was decisvely reelected, California remains in the grip of the Socialists (i.e. Democrats). Arnold himself has dropped many of his attempts at reform and is taking the path of least resistance in cooperating with the State Legislature -- he has even decided that activism about Global Warming is a good idea. Seeing this coming, I voted for the Libertarian candidate for Governor and not for Arnold, whom I had been happy for vote for in the original Recall election. In a District as Democrat and leftist as the 28th, I suppose I should not have been surprised at the showing of the Green candidate. The Green Party, although fielding fewer candidates, is larger than the Libertarian Statewide. But the whole business, as usual, is discouraging. The Republicans seem more concerned about attacking Charles Darwin than in exploding the myths upon which the Democrat's appeal is based.


No More State Debt! No on 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, & 84!

Since the State cannot control spending, Arnold has decided to go along with the Democrats and just charge everything. If the State was otherwise pinching pennies and spending wisely, perhaps a case could be made here. But not the way things have actually been going. No on 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, & 84!

Unfortunately, all these Propositions passed. The State will have lavish supplies of money to spash around, until the bill comes due and the State's credit rating disappears. Then they will want to raise taxes. It is possible that Arnold could be persuased to go for that, although he otherwise has talked like the last thing he would ever do is raise taxes.


No Tax Money for Private Interests! No on 86!

Somebody else, a lot of them, want to get on Rob Reiner's bandwagon, i.e. tax smokers and then play with millions. Perhaps the smokers deserve it, but the special interests who want to target an unpopular group just to get tax money don't deserve it. The pro commericals say "stop big tobacco." But what is "big tobacco" actually doing here? Nothing. They just sell cigarettes, as they always have. (By the way, is there "little tobacco"?) They are just a target, but it is the smokers who will pay. No on 86!

A close (51.9%) but satisfying loss for the Tobacco Nazis, or whoever it was who wanted this money.


No Oil Tax! No on 87!

Al Gore made a movie called An Inconvenient Truth. However, for someone who believes in big government and a command economy, his environmentalism is the most convenient truth possible for him. Now we see what it means. Proposition 87. Tax the oil companies, create a bureaucracy, and hand out grants to everyone with an alternative energy scheme that sounds good to Al's friends. Actually, people have been working on all this stuff for years, and if Gore cannot get private investment for the projects, they must be stinkers. Indeed, the windmills prominently featured in the pro ads, as part of "wind power," disfigure a number of places in California already but are coming into disfavor with environmentalists. Why? Not only are they ugly, but they kill birds, including endangered species. Now we get, not just Al Gore pushing the initiative, but Bill Clinton himself. Wow. I'm going to trust him. But he seems to have actually replaced the Gore ads.

The pro ads state that the oil companies cannot increase prices to pay the tax on their profits. Since the tax is on oil pumped in California, the easiest thing to do is just not pump any. That will drive up the market price, and the oil companies can then bring in oil from elsewhere and charge the going rate. Good work, Al! No on 87!

A decisive loss (45.3% to 54.7%) for the Eco-Left. Al Gore must be mortified, not only with the loss but to have been dumped in favor of Bill Clinton in all the final campaign ads. Just about a week after the election, The Economist mentioned that about 10% of all venture capital is already going into alternative energy and fuels research. The real goal of Gore and Clinton is thus evident:  they don't want it unless the government does it.


No State Property Tax! No on 88!

Some of the best funded school districts in the country are among the worse, e.g. Washington D.C. Some of the worst funded school districts in the counry are among the best, e.g. in Utah. In general, private schools, which are better, have lower costs than public schools, which are worse. Nevertheless, the education establishment constantly harps on needing more money. Their only explanation for their failures is not enough money. Now they want an actual State tax on property, planning, obviously, to get around Prop 13 limitations on property taxes. They waste most of their money away, and manage to avoid teaching little things like reading, writing, and mathematics, so it is not going to help to give them more. No on 88!

A truly decisive rejection (23.1% to 76.9%) of this Proposition. Waving the red flag of "education" was not enough to overcome the dislike of home owners for property taxes.


No Tax Money for Politicians! No on 89!

The people who want tax money to run politics are behind this. The voters, and tax payers, are usually against it; but why not try again? When the Democrats put a dollar limit on campaign contributions, they thought this would help them, since they liked to believe that the Republicans only got money form the rich. Unfortunately, it has turned out that Republicans get many more small contributions. The Democrats would really be in trouble if it weren't for rich leftists like George Soros. So now the left wants "public financing" for campaigns, which means the Democrats don't need to worry about persuading people to give them money and, ultimately, they hope to control opposition (to them) by controlling politics itself. If private money cannot be used in politics -- their goal -- and if only those "qualified" will get public money, which means anyone can be shut out of politics, then paradise for Democrats, and just for politicians in general, is achieved. Don't give them an inch. No on 89!

A decisive lost (25.6% to 74.4%) for spending public money on campaigns. However they vote, I suspect that people just hate politicians. The desire to give them tax money is the conviction of political activists alone.


Protect Private Property! Yes on 90!

Proposition 90 is an attempt, not only to prevent eminent domain abuse, but to stop the abuse of "regulatory" takings, when the value of people's property is destroyed by land use, environmental, and other regulations. As it is, some politician or bureaucrat can render your property worthless without paying you a dime. The activists love this, because it gives the government control and virtual ownership of your property without the little inconvenience of compensating you for it. And boy, the activists are screaming about Proposition 90. Unfortunately, I have not yet seen a single ad for 90, so the pro people must not be very well funded. The lies and distortions of the anti ads are likely to carry the day. Nevertheless, protect your rights and vote Yes on 90!

A sad loss (47.6% to 52.4%) for private property. The "Yes" forced were unable to mount much of a campaign, and the lies and distortions of the "No" went unanswered. The media certainly had no interest in clarifying the issue.


More Public Housing? No on H!

Public housing is so wonderful, certainly we need more of it. Really? Hardly. This is supposed to be "affordable housing for the homeless," but politicians wrecked affordable housing for the poor themselves with their zoning and "redevelopment" laws. What we would get out of this construction bond probably would be the kinds of places, run by gangsters and lunatics, that most of the homeless don't want to go to anyway. No on H!

It sounded good, so the voter of Los Angeles passed it. Verily, they have their reward.


Sneaky Polticians Again! No on R!

This proposition was originally thrown off the ballot. It was a dishonest attempt to get longer terms of City Council members, getting around term limits, behind a smoke screen of "reforms." The only real reform would be to get rid of all of them. They subsequently got a pliant judge to keep R on the ballot, so the job is up to us. No on R!

I don't know how anyone could have been suckered in by this after all the publicity, but it passed anyway. Although the lawsuit against it was in the name of Libertarian activist Neal Donner, he was not financing the effort. That was the doing of the founder of Term Limits. When R won, the suit was dropped, because that man didn't believe in reversing the decision of the voters. The measure, however, may be challenged by other organizations.


(c) 2006 Kelley L. Ross