A single alternative perspective on the election

This is my first forey into the political forums and I know that my ideas are in the minority. I am doing this because I miss Palooka's Saturday morning chats. They have caused me untold deaths in WOW but were amazing conversations.

Now back to my perspective. I do generally identify myself with the Democratic party for numerous reasons but I have never voted a straight ticket anything and for each candidate I do actually look at what I am voting for.

In this election my decisions came down to these very personal economic decisions.

1) Governor
I voted for the democratic candidate because the Republican candidate had a policy stance, regarding stem cell research that I found hostile to my line of work. I work in molecular biology research and particularly cancer. If the Republican was elected the state would have become more hostile toward biological research and stem cell research in particular. I thought this would diminish my long term prospects for job opportunities in the state. In addition, my particular area of research is to discover why cells choose a particular tissue fate because cancer is essentially embryogenesis in reverse. (This is of course a gross simplification.) So I could see a day when I would need to colaborate with individuals who work with stem cells.
The main point is not whether you agree or disagree with my reasoning, we can argue that later, but only that you see it was a personal economic decision that had little to do with party affiliation, the war in Iraq, or the national economy.

2) The House of Representatives
Again I voted for the representative because he has an excellent record of sending money to the home district. ( I also checked his voting record on several issues important to me and his record was acceptable if not stellar). In case you are wondering, yes, in Texas I often voted for Republican candidates for this reason as well. Again it's a small scale economic decision.

Perhaps you disagree with my small scale view point, we can argue whether it is better in the long run to look at the forest or the trees. However what you cannot say is that I went in blindly and pulled a lever.

If you would prefer me not to share my input I can do that as well since I am well aware that I am in the minority and the probablility of changing another's mind is remote. I can certainly refrain from intruding, because everyone needs a place to go to gripe.

The stem cell thing is knotty because there's the whole question of faith, when life begins, etc. I'm generally pro-stem cell research, but it doesn't factor into my voting decision. Research on the topic does not halt due to a lack of federal funding.

On the other issue... "sending money to your district" is nice, but that money comes from somewhere. It comes from YOU. Some argue that it is better off to leave all of that money in the hands of the people, rather than relying on a representative to redirect some of it to their area.

I'm not sure where I stand on stem cell research. I haven't done enough research on it yet to make an informed decision, and personally, I'm not one to jump on any bandwagon without reading up on the issues.

As far as getting federal dollars into the local economy, I'm against any system of wealth redistribution. I'm not sure where in the Constitution it states that taxpayers in Ohio have to pay to discover new uses for wild-berries in Alaska. Why should the DOD's annual budget gives $5.6 million to Ernest & Gallo wine makers for research into alcoholism?

I am however, a firm believer in a limited constitutional government in which the only aspects of government are to handle disputes between states, address states' concerns with foreign government over issues such as trade and immigration, the protection of the states from foreign invaders and protect the rights of the people as stated in the constitution. That's it.

I don't believe that the U.S. Government should be involved in any way with the creation of any laws or the spending of any tax dollars unless it supports those concepts listed above. I don't understand why my tax dollars go to the U.S. Dept of Education, where they are divvied up, sent to my state, divvied up, sent to my county, divvied up, set to my school district, divvied up, and sent to my school which is two block from my house. Departments of the Federal Government should only set standards. It's the states' responsibilities to ensure the safety and prosperity of their citizens.

If a state can't afford road repairs, then they shouldn't have it. Why do people in one state have to finance the infrastructure of another? Near my office, federal tax dollars are being used to basically rebuild an off-ramp. How again do the people in Texas benefit from this? This is not an interstate highway. It's not a point of trade between two nations or two states. It's an off-ramp that leads to a neighborhood and a gas station.

Federal Dollars being pork-barreled in Texas:

$6.8 million for a Gym at Fort Hood (there are already 6 gyms!)
$4.2 million for 'shrimp aquaculture research"
$1 million for natural gas buses
$250k for renovation of the historical Globe Theater
$300k 'wool research'
$100k for Lance Armstrong
$50,000 for the Today Foundation in Dallas for the Imagination Station Literacy Program to deliver reading curricula over the Internet using animation
$90k National Cowgirl Hall of Fame
$375k for a bicycle commuting project in Austin
$12.8 million for a gym at Dyess Air Force Base
$750k for a 'trolley study' in Forth Worth
$625k for a lighted bike trail Lake Waco

Kay Bailey Hutchison really knows how to bring home the bacon. And on behalf of the people in California, thanks for using our taxes dollars wisely. I can't wait to ride the trolleys of Forth Worth

:)

And there's nothing wrong with being in the minority. Try being a straight, white male right-wing nut job in San Francisco!

My political views are very simple -- they are based on my gun case and my pocketbook.

I watched the Dems vote the straight party line on a number of gun control measures back when Clinton was in office in the early '90s. That included "conservative" Dems from rural areas -- voting against their constituents' wishes. Ever since then, I have voted straight-ticket Republican.

I do not subscribe to the wealth redistribution and the collectivist outlook of the liberals. I want to keep as much of my earnings as possible -- I worked for it. I would vote Libertarian, but they have no chance of winning.

I saw a news story today where Hillary said Health Care Reform is coming back. I hope that works out as well for the libs as it did the last time.

I looked into Libertarian as well a few years back. And while I agree with their philosophy, the way in which they would enable their views scares me a bit. "Get rid of the FCC". Ya sounds nice in concept, but can you imagine completely unregulated airwaves? Every Tom, Dick & Harry broadcasting on any frequency under power they wish? I may be looking at it too basically but in some areas you need control.

Yeah, it is also unfortunate that the Libertarians are also obsessed with the legalization of marijuana. That appears to be one of their primary goals, and condemns them to being a fringe movement.

As for stem cell research ... I do not have a position on that or on abortion. Between the dems and the GOP, it appears to come down to which "rights" are important. No major party out there is defending all individual freedoms.

In many ways, it is the local governments that stiff you the hardest on taxes. My local school district just barely passed $200 million in construction bonds (I voted against all of them). These will directly impact MY property taxes, and I have no kids in school or plans to have kids in school.

Why am I paying for facilities I will never use, and why does my vote count the same as that of someone who does not own property and is not directly affected by this levy? Seems unfair to me. Now, if it was a flat 2 percent sales tax, it would not upset me as much. I just want everyone to feel the pain, not just property owners.

Bonds are a funny thing. They come waving the flag of 'Save our Schools' but they really mean, "Let's pass the debt onto our children!"

I have to big issues with abortion. 1)The U.S. Supreme Court granting the 'right to privacy' which is not a constitutional right. 2)If a gunman shoots a pregnant woman and kills her unborn child, it's considered murder. So, the courts are clearly stating that the unborn are protected. Hence, an abortion is murder but in this case, they call it 'choice'. Who else in society has a 'choice' to murder someone. I can't even help a dying family member commit suicide. I just don't like all the double standards. You can't have it both ways.

Wasn't there a story about a teen girl that had her boyfriend kick her until she mis-carried? He was sent to prison, she got off scott free. Laws are funny.

I am going to reply to all you guys I just don't have time during the week to write a cogent response so look for it later this weekend

If yall are interested still, I know the internet accentuates short lil spans of attention