Go ahead! Try not to cry.

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.

A propensity for intensity

Personalities don't just come in different types and shapes, they come in different sizes too.
I have a larger than average personality.
Our personalities are not only made of up of individual traits, but how they mix and combine together. 
When you magnify charisma with a big personality, you end up with someone that's "larger than life".  Enlarge a less charismatic personality and you'll often just end up with someone that is "over the top".  I, unfortunately, am the latter.
This is not something of which I am completely ignorant.  But all too often awareness dawns just a little too slowly, leading to regret and remorse. 
With conscious effort I've learned to hold it in check most of the time.  But sometimes it seems to just come pouring out like a salt shaker cap someone failed to secure properly.  The results are similar too: someone ends up with more of my personality than they wanted. Sometimes a LOT more.
To people with normal size personalities, surrounded by other normal people, I can appear stressed, upset, or even angry when I'm not.  They mistake a sudden change in VOLUME of personality as a mood change. This is where the regrets come in because I can make people uncomfortable. That in turn sometimes leaves me feeling somewhat foolish.
I'll continue to work on managing it. It doesn't always fit with my desire to be more Christ-like. Meanwhile I hope those to whom I am close have, or will, come to understand. 

Saving Arizona

For those of us that are troubled and frustrated by friends that cannot yet see through this "most transparent president", isn't it nice to know that because of the Electoral College there is nothing quite so irrelevant as an Obama voter in Arizona?

A tax by any other name.......

President Obama is employing more scare tactics than his economy is people.
The latest is that Gov. Romney's fiscal plan would mean a tax increase for the Middle Class of up to $2000/household/year.  This is patently false of course.  Romney neither proposes nor supports any such increase. It is a complete fabrication.  But as President Obama said himself in 2008, "When you don't have a record to run on you paint your opponent as someone to run from."  A prophetic statement.
He also promised he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making under $250K/year. (He has directly broken that promise with the taxes to pay for Obamacare.)  He made that promise, obviously, because people don't like paying taxes. (They only like other people to pay taxes)  I believe he has also indirectly broken that promise. I call it the Economy Tax.
Since Pres. Obama took office median household income has dropped over $4,000/year. Before you utter the name Bush here, understand that it has dropped EVERY YEAR since he took office. In addition to that the cost of living has increased rapidly.  Any of you that go grocery shopping or use gasoline are painfully aware of this. (Interesting that when calculating inflation the government excludes fuel and food: the two most necessary items)  As a result of higher fuel costs, the devaluation of the Dollar due to unrestrained printing of money, and increasingly burdensome regulation on businesses, we will continue to see prices of everything that we need go through the roof.  These expenses effect our families just as adversely as does any direct taxation, yet the administration responsible for it largely escapes scrutiny.
Suddenly a $2,000/year tax increase, especially a fictitious one, doesn't seem so scary.

Decoding the DNC

If you watched or listened to any of the Democrat National Convention last week, you likely heard some phraseology that sounded great, but weren't really sure what it meant.  That is by design. The idea is to use buzz words that pluck emotional chords, but leaving the audience feeling instead of thinking. Both parties do it, but the Democrats have mastered the art.
I offer the following to help you find your way through the rhetorical maze.
Glossary of Terms:
Invest -- To spend taxpayer money. Used in conjuction with things that people universally favor. (Education is a favorite.) Rarely, if ever, comes with any details of how it would be spent. Giving details would defeat the purpose by allowing the audience think.
Working people -- (usually coupled with 'fighting for' or 'working for') Particularly cynical term. Intentionally vague. Specifics would only muddy the waters. Most people believe they work hard, so regardless of the actual context they believe the speaker is speaking of them.
Level the playing field -- A focus-group tested phrase designed to capitalize on the fact that most people tend to be envious of others and believe they had some unfair advantage.  To complete the metaphor imagine a field with high spots and low spots. To level it means to take from the high spots to fill in the low spots.  Redistribute, if you will. (Being accustomed to working dirt, I find this metaphor quite accurate. Once leveled the soil in the low spots is soft, with no real foundation but what's left of the high spots is firm. The wind and elements blow away the soft soil leaving the low spots low once again. It's a never ending process that eventually results in soil lost forever and the overall level of the field becoming lower and lower.)
Fair share -- undefined in terms of actual numbers so that everyone can mentally insert their own definition. Always means taking more from someone else. In the same cynical vane as working people. Ironically used to demand more from those that are already paying a higher percentage than the listener.
Play by the same rules --  Appeals to the cynical view that the successful must have cheated. Again intentionally vague to allow the listener to apply their favorite pet peave.
Tax Cut -- this one is a bit tricky because it has an actual definition that differs from how the Dems use it. They refer to "giving" tax cuts. This relies on the paradigm that the money for which you worked belongs, by default, to the government and that confiscating less of it is a "gift" to you.
Spending Cut -- Another tricky one. In the real world it would mean spending less tax money on something than the previous period.  In the Dem universe it means spending less on something than they intended to spend, even if it's more than in the previous period. (Example: Your family spent $100 on entertainment this month. One of your kids proposed spending $200 next month. You decide to spend $125. You have actually increased your entertainment budget by $25, but in Dem-speak you SLASHED entertainment spending by $75. You jerk!)
The Wealthy -- (as intended to be interpreted) The source of all societal ills in America. They are wealthy because they are greedy, have exploited the weak and cheated the system. The only reason you don't have more is because they have held you down.  Also the potential resource to justify all future spending increases.

I'll come back occasionally and add to this glossary, so check back.  For now I need to take a break from writing. I've spent the last hour trying to think like a liberal and don't want the resulting shrinkage in my brain to become permanent.