My vote 2012

What better way to cap off this ridiculous election season than with an explanation of why I'm voting the way I am? Probably a party, or a day of no campaign commercials. I was watching regular TV the other day and EVERY commercial but one was a political commercial.  They were only for the props, if I lived in Ohio it probably would have been an extended commercial break and included lots more attacking of the president and Mitt Romney.  I wish I lived in Ohio so my vote would count, but NOT for the campaigning.  Anyways, here is my ballot explanation, skipping the ones like supreme court (because I need to do more research) and trustees because really, nobody cares about that explanation. (Ok, some people care, I don't have the time for it).

President: Barack Obama.
Prop 1: No
Prop 2: Yes
Prop 3: Yes
Prop 4: Yes
Prop 5: No
Prop 6: No


For the President.  I said at the beginning that if there was a republican that even had a chance of defeating Obama, it was Romney.  I said that because Romney was (before he got a little weird) a republican that I could at least consider as president.  And if the democrat wasn't Obama, who knows (well, who knew).

Everyone keeps asking if Obama has earned a second term, and yes he has. He's not perfect, but he's a little better than good enough. Let's start with Obama's bad side:

Issues on "life" (I so hate life being the term we use):  My friends always joke that I'm the most conservative because I'm really not pro-choice, or at least I really don't like knowing about people having abortions.  I also really really really hate the idea of partial birth abortion, there needs to be a cut off, I mean if you haven't figured out you don't want the baby by the third trimester, you've made it far enough you can do it, and put the baby up for adoption (also we need to make the adoption process easier. And less confusing for teen mothers).  I probably could justify voting for Romney on the life issue, except he took Ryan as his running mate and no abortions for rape victims is too much.  Plus, in my opinion, the best way to stop abortions is to increase education and contraceptives, not just make it illegal.  When is the last time a LAW prevented someone from doing what they needed to do to (in their opinion) live? If we make abortion illegal without education we will only increase back alley abortions and by default kill more teenage girls. Neither Obama nor Romney has the opinion I really feel comfortable voting for, but when it comes down to it, Romney took it too far by putting Ryan on the ticket.

On "women's" issues (which should really be everyone's issues): Barack Obama actually cares about women being equal.  He has a proven track record of caring about women. Lilly Ledbetter for example. Making it so women can get preventive care easily and more effectively, making contraceptives free (which by default decreases abortion), making college affordable (not a women's issue, but some women go to college soo...my point exactly all issues are women's issues). Romney will set us back 50 years, he will make it so that women can get paid less and have no legal recourse, he will control women's healthcare. Obama easily gets my vote here, there isn't even a debate.

Equality. My favorite thing people say to me is "I love my black/gay/hispanic/lady friends but...." But what? But you don't care about everyone being equal? What if I said that to my friend? "I love you but, I'm gonna leave you here on the side of the road because you're a minority."  During Barack Obama's presidency the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr act was signed, Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed, Lilly Ledbetter act was signed, the Defense of Marriage act was declared unconstitutional and no longer defended in court by the government, Affordable Healthcare act was passed, oh yeah and our first black president was elected. Romney on the other hand hired a few women to his cabinet after some women's groups told him to, he will probably re-defend defense of marriage, he would repeal DADT if he didn't think it would be impossible to shove all those soldiers back in the closet (he said so himself, in not so harsh words). Romney also favors "self deportation" (whatever that is) while Obama favors path to citizenship and not deporting people who have lived here their whole lives. I love my (insert minority) friends, and I'm going to prove it by voting FOR equality, not against it. It's also worth noting that we don't really know what Romney will do when he's in office since he's sometimes liberal (Romney-care) and sometimes conservative (against marriage equality, even though he's state allows all couples to marry...).

The economy.  I've said it before that I don't care the think too much about economics, probably because I'm female and therefore to simple minded to figure it out. OR because I just hate numbers a lot. Either way, an economy that says if the rich get richer so too will the poor get richer doesn't make any sense.  An economy that says lets strengthen the core of our country makes sense. An economy that taxes people that can afford it more, and people that can't less is an economy I support.  Also, Obama's record shows that he's on top of it, the economy is on the upswing, even Romney says "the slowest RECOVERY of our time". Why would we take out something that's working and put back the stuff that broke it in the first place? That doesn't even make sense. And yes, I will vote for someone who is a democratic socialist (even though Obam isn't) over a capitalist (which Romney is). Capitalism has it's place, but it NEEDS to be balanced out by socialistic policies or the greedy people win and the poor people end up sleeping in gutters. Everyone deserves a fair shot. Just saying.

Those are the biggest issues in my book for voting for Obama. This is long, I can't believe you're still reading. On the the prop's which will be shorter (maybe).

Prop 1: Emergency Manager -no
I've been going back and forth on this one. I mean, obviously there are cities in Michigan that need some kind of financial intervention.  We can't just sit back and watch places like Detroit go bankrupt, that's not good for people, business, or the economy.  So yeah, the Emergency Manager thing seems ok. But the Emergency Manager thing gives absolute power, and absolute power is never good. It's good to create change in places that need it, and when the people resist change just because change is scary sometimes change has to just happen and people will adapt. But when that change is led by an absolute power that could potentially be looking out for corporate interests rather than the people, that's not ok.  There are a hundred ways to fall into the category that mean your city gets a review one of which is "other circumstances at the sole discretion of the state treasurer".  This also gives the financial manager the ability to override locally elected officials.  I guess my point is I think the idea is good, but it's obviously been taken to far. Essentially, if the state treasurer decides he doesn't like the locally elected officials of a certain town...he can declare it a financial distress.  With reform this idea might be ok, but as it is there is too much risk of absolute power.

Prop 2: Collective Bargaining etc. - yes
The only way to really protect collective bargaining is to put it in the constitution. Sure, it's already a law, but as we well know greed does not always follow the law. If it is already a law, what bad could come from putting in the constitution? none. What good? protecting something critical to making sure workers are treated fairly on the job. I'm not in a union, but that's not because it's illegal...it just is.  If someone works for a company, they should have the ability to unionize if they are treated unfairly. This is why we have unions, to protect workers. Again, this is something that may need reform, unions have gotten huge...but the idea that some old man is sitting in an office somewhere laughing and rolling around in union dues money is ridiculous. Sure, union bosses have issues, but is that worth taking away the protection somebody has on the job? Is it worth taking away someone's ability to strike for better conditions? No, it's not. I'm not 100% pro-union, but I'm 100% protecting workers ahead of corporations.

Prop 3: Clean energy - yes
I mean, what's cooler than getting to play putt putt with real windmills? (just kidding...but I would totally put a putt putt near a bunch of windmills if I could.) We NEED renewable energy, and for the michigan economy we need to start doing things that are forward thinking not backwards thinking. Clean energy is one of those things. Simple as that, anything that encourages a company like DTE to get it together I support. I also like breathing clean air. I mean...yeah that's it. Oh, and I like to protect the planet.

Prop 4: Home Health Care Workers - yes
I was really really undecided on this one for a long time. At first it seemed redundant to prop 2, which it's not but I had to sort that out, then it seemed sort of useless. But after reading that it will not require a person needing home health care to use a unionized worker, but it will just basically create a union for home health care workers...that was a selling point. Also, the idea of having something established to protect people from having criminals help them. Not everyone has the family support to make sure they get the best care, so having something that people can depend on to to know a background check has been run it worth it. Also, having something the worker can depend on is a good thing also. This means that if you want to be the home care person for your family member with a disability, you can do that without joining a union, but if you need home care and don't have anyone there to help you find someone you have something to trust. Yes and yes.

Prop 5: 2/3 majority to raise taxes. - no
Um, no. Also, no. No really, the only upside to this is that...um actually I don't know. Please feel free to let me know the upside. I don't hate taxes the way I'm supposed to, everyone seems to hate them, but why? Taxes pay for stuff we all need and use: roads, police officers, public school systems, etc. I like to have things around for everyone to use...and that happens with taxes. Now of course I also like to have my money in my pocket, but sometimes you gotta spend money to have stuff. New library? sure I'll help pay for that. I mean, I helped pay for a war, the least I can do is help pay for a library. (off topic about the library sorry). Also this could lead to a minority rule situation. If we are voting to raise taxes it should be 51% not 2/3. But we shouldn't be voting to raise taxes, it just happens. We should be voting in legislators that we trust to riase or not raise taxes.

Prop 6: voting on a bridge: - no
Can you imagine what it would be like if we had to vote for every construction project that was bothersome to a rich person? Every CEO of a company that has construction on his road would want the people to decide, and the people will always say no because the people for some reason don't understand that roads need fixing and bridges need building. Also, this bridge is free, so there's that. If someone offers you a free bridge you take it. This rich guy doesn't deserve for the people to decide anything, we need another bridge, it will create jobs in michigan and be paid for by canada, there is literally no downside.  Oh except this rich guy won't have a monopoly anymore, if you think that's a downside. Also, if you DON'T support this particular bridge, remember this will force us to vote on ANY international bridge forever, there is no end date to the voting. So what if they want another bridge in port huron? Or a bridge someplace else to get to Canada? We would have to vote.

The bottom line is this: for my decisions I took the approach of how it would impact people the most, and who it would most negatively impact. And yes, when forced to choose I choose working people over wealthy CEOs.  You don't have to vote with me, but at least vote.