Scott's Picks

That time has come that I've begun fielding phone calls asking about my picks on the ballot.
I have decided to post them on here this time too as an added resource.
As always remember that I am unabashedly conservative and all these picks come from that perspective. This also presumes that you live in the appropriate districts.
For candidates I will just give names.  No comments where there's only one name on the ballot.
I'll include a brief synopsis for the ballot initiatives. You can ask specific questions in the comments section and I will answer ASAP.

President - Mitt Romney
US Senate - Jeff Flake
US House - Matt Salmon
(9th District - Vernon Parker. Behind the scenes Kyrsten Sinema is an exceptionally vile person)
State Senate - Steve Yarbrough
State House - Tom Forese and J.D. Mesnard.  Remember to vote for both.
Corporation Commission (I know, yawn) Burns, Stump, Bitter Smith
County BOS - Denny Barney
County Attorney - Bill Montgomery
Sheriff - Flip a Coin (I'm no Arpaio fan)
Water Conservation District - Whatever. Just don't vote for Terry Goddard. For anything. Ever.

I always vote NO on all the judges.  Not because I want to kick them out.  What most people don't seem to know is that we cannot vote them out.  If they win the retention vote they are automatically retained.  If they lose the vote it simply puts them up for a review board that will decide based on their individual merits.

PROPOSITIONS (buckle your seat belts)
(FYI - Propositions numbered in 100s are amendments to the state constitution. Those numbered in the 200s are statutory.)

114 - Yes.  No brainer.
115 - Undecided. Some reasonable reforms, but will give more power to the Governor in making court appointments. Sounds good when you like the governor, not so good when you don't.  Of course the current procedures tend to be 'left friendly', so the risk may have more upside than risk for conservatives.  But there is risk.
116 - Vague.  Seems to be a solution looking for a problem.
117 - Yes. If we see quick increases in property values again, this would limit the increases in property taxes to 5% per year.
118 - No opinion
119 - Sounds reasonable.  I haven't studied the precise language to check for possibilities of abuse.
120 - YES. 
121 - NO NO NO NO NO
204 - NO. This is a contentious one. Largely because people will misunderstand the ultimate effects.
This will be a PERMANENT increase in the state sales tax. This proposition will tie the hands of the legislature in unacceptable ways. It is a great example of the rule of unintended consequences, for which Arizona's initiative process has become renowned. The writers of this initiative, in an effort to assure the new revenue would actually increase education funding, have included restrictions that would restrict the legislatures ability to decrease the current sales tax base EVER, and annually increase education funding without being able to exercise discretion.  And thanks to Prop 206 from years ago, the legislature is forbidden from amending any statutes passed by initiative regardless of changing conditions.  It is short-sighted and will result in regret.

That's it folks.  I won't comment on City elections because I don't live in the city and honestly couldn't care less. 

What will we leave our children?

Our founders, having fled the tyranny of an overbearing government, envisioned a nation with liberty as its foundational principle.  This principle of self-mastery and individual sovereignty, designed my God, eloquently expressed in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution enabled a relatively young nation to become the most productive, innovative, successful and powerful nation in the world's history.  This was due, in no small part, to the struggles faced by the generations: taming the land, expanding our reach, surviving by their wit and industry.  Through difficult eras of expansion, depression, and wars our resolve to our founding principles brought us through. 
But there is a consequence to such prosperity.  Well-meaning people began to forget that it was liberty that crafted our success and struggle that forged our character.  Many people began to believe, and many still do, that it is somehow compassionate to shield their children, and others, from such struggles and instead to ease their burdens.  Our national character suffered.  Now a large part of our population believe that the government should provide security rather than protect liberty.  This has spawned a generation now vying for leadership of the nation that has and fosters an entitlement mentality. Like any other Ponzi scheme it is short-sighted and ultimately unsustainable.
I believe the result will be that future generations, perhaps our children or grandchildren, will have neither liberty nor security.