Election 2010

Here's how I'll be voting tomorrow:

U.S. Senator:

Robin Carnahan - she is a far better choice than Roy Blunt, a.k.a., Tom DeLay's butt boy, and father of former Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, the Boy Blunder. It's too bad Robin probably won't win, though.

Also, a note to the person who told me "I'm never voting for a Carnahan, not after Missouri elected Mel even though he was dead." -- that's a completely ridiculous argument and you know it. That was ten years ago. Get over it already. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to vote for a certain candidate, but that's not one of them.

State Auditor:

Susan Montee - Montee has done an excellent job as auditor so far. There's no reason not to keep her in office.

U.S. Representative, District 3:

Russ Carnahan - Sure, Russ is about as charismatic and charming as a dead fish, but his views are in line with my own, his office is responsive to my inquiries, and he's a much better choice than Ed Martin, who as the Boy Blunder's chief of staff, cost Missouri taxpayers quite a bit of money through e-mailgate.

State Representative, District 108:

Jacob W. Hummel - Jake is a friendly guy, and his campaign materials didn't have any misspellings, like his token Republican opponent's did.

Constitutional Amendment 1 - re: requiring the office of county assessor to be an elected position:

YES - I'll be honest, this amendment only affects a small number of counties, and as such, should not be a statewide issue, however, I'm in favor of making public servants more accountable to the public, and this achieves that.

Constitutional Amendment 2 - re: property tax exemptions for former prisoners of war:

NO - don't get me wrong, I appreciate everything our troops have done for us, especially those who were captured and held by the enemy. However, our state is in a bit of a budget crunch, and now is not the time to start granting tax exemptions to specific groups. First it's the disabled former POWs, next it's all veterans, then soon it's everyone over the age of 50. I see this as a slippery slope issue.

Constitutional Amendment 3 - re: real estate transfer taxes:

YES - first of all, let me acknowledge that this is a solution without a problem, as no politicians are even thinking about imposing a real estate transfer tax right now. However, I'd like to sell my home someday, and when I do, I don't want to pay a transfer tax on that sale. Nor do I want to pay another one when I buy a new house.

Proposition A - re: municipal earnings taxes

NO, NO, A MILLION TIMES NO! - billionaire Rex Sinquefield has spent millions of dollars of his own money to put this issue before voters tomorrow, and to sell his libertarian ideology, the groups he's funding are saying that passing this proposition will "let voters decide" on taxes. This is a lie. Voters already decide. It's called the Hancock Amendment. This would actually take away the ability of voters to choose an earnings tax -- one of the most equitable forms of taxation -- by outlawing it for every municipality in Missouri except St. Louis, Kansas City, and St. Joseph. And for those cities, a vote would have to be held every five years to decide to keep the earnings tax. And once it's gone, it's gone forever.

If this passes, St. Louis' bond rating will almost certainly plummet, because 1/3 of its revenue will no longer be guaranteed.

Proposition A is awful. Simply awful.

Proposition B - the "puppy mill bill."

I've heard lots of arguments for and against this measure. All of the arguments for it are very well-founded. Only one argument against it is, though, and that's the one about enforcement. There are laws on the books right now regulating the conditions in which breeders can keep dogs, but because the Missouri Department of Agriculture is responsible for the enforcement (and because of a lack of funding for enforcement), puppy mills still exist. There simply aren't enough people to enforce the existing laws, and Proposition B makes, at best, a minimal effort to address this, by enabling local law enforcement agencies to enforce it as well. Either way, the state will not be spending more money on the MDA's efforts to enforce whatever dog breeding laws we'll have after the election.

Some opponents complain about the 50 dog limit. Others say this is a deceptive effort by PETA to try to get us to stop eating meat. Others simply say it's a lie without elaborating further.

I've played the part of devil's advocate on this one quite a bit over the last couple of months, and as I said, I have only heard one legitimate concern about this bill, and that's with enforcement. However, because (as I understand it) it will enable other law enforcement agencies to enforce the law -- as opposed to MDA agents only -- I will most likely be voting for it. If you are a responsible breeder who keeps your animals in clean conditions and makes sure they see a vet when necessary, you should have absolutely nothing to worry about. If you are running a puppy mill out in the woods somewhere in rural Missouri, you're probably going to keep doing that anyway -- at least until you get caught. And hopefully that will be sooner rather than later since the MDA agents won't be the only people looking for you now. It's not a perfect solution, but it is a step in the right direction, and maybe, just maybe, the knuckleheads in Jefferson City will finally acknowledge the puppy mill problem and increase the MDA's funding accordingly.