Still Not Sure How to Vote? Some Hints and Tips…

First of all what do you classify yourself as and what do the candidates classify themselves as?

Basic Definitions
Classical Liberal: Juris naturalist. One who believes that the country should have a small, weak government, and free markets, and that the individual is endowed by his Creator with inalienable rights to his life, liberty, and property. Also, one who believes in Natural Law and common law, or Higher Law.

Centrist: Moderate.

Conservative: A person on the right side of the left-right political spectrum. Conservatives believe in economic freedom and social control.

Democrat: A person on the left side of the political spectrum.

Juris Naturalist: syn. Classical liberal. Believes in Higher Law or Natural Law, that right and wrong are not matters of opinion. Believes political power corrupts both morals and judgment. Wants a government that is small and growing smaller.

Liberal: A person on the left side of the left-right political spectrum. Liberals believe in social freedom and economic control.

Moderate: One who is in the middle of the left-right political spectrum. Moderates advocate both economic encroachment and social encroachment, but perhaps not to the extremes that left and right do.

Progressive: One who is on the left side of the political spectrum.

Republican: Conservative.

See my Terms Defined page for more info.

According to the News Miner the candidates have classified themselves as:
Dukes: “I’m conservative. I believe we need a government, but I believe we need a government that is as small as can be but can deliver the needed services.”

Lawrence: “I think politically I’m a centrist who wants to make government work effectively and efficiently for the people.”

Aaron Bennett: A classical liberal, dedicated to upholding the Constitution and representing the people. “We’re supposed to be a constitutional republic. The Constitution is supposed to limit government, and obviously we’ve gotten away from that.”

King: “I would say that I’m very moderate and non-partisan. I don’t follow any political party lines.”

Kohler: “I’m a jumble. I would say I’m a fiscally conservative, pragmatic classic Republican type. Call me a moderate, I guess.”

McFarlane: “I’m a conservative, but on the assembly I will look at each proposal on its worth, not judge it politically.”

Palembas: A registered independent, he said he’s voted in both Democratic and Republican primaries in recent years. “I have no hidden agenda. I think there’s a lot of party agenda being played out in the Borough Assembly right now, and I don’t think it belongs there.”

Sattley: Describing himself as a fiscal conservative and social moderate, Sattley said he’s earned a reputation for being tight with funds. “I don’t waste money, whether it’s my own or public money.”

Joshua Bennett: “I’m limited government. I don’t want to get rid of the government, but I want it to be limited. The purpose of government is to protect private property.” *In an interview I had with Mr. Bennett he said he could also identify himself as a Juris Naturalist.

Blanchard: “I feel I’m a moderate conservative. I’m not anti-government, but it needs to be as small as possible to work best.”

Davies: “You could describe me as a progressive. I believe that we need to work together in a variety of ways, including through local government, to improve the quality of life.”

From my interviews/assessment the School Board candidates appear to be:

John Thies: Unknown

Sean Rice: Classical Democrat (based on interview from 2010)

Ryan Smith: Classical Liberal aka. Juris Naturalist (based on phone interview 9/11)

Sharon McConnell: Unknown

More hints and tips:

• If you’re really not sure on an issue, try applying the Golden Rule or ask yourself if you willing to accept the costs associated with passage of the issue. Ask yourself if you have a right to compel your neighbor to accept those costs.


• It’s okay to leave a blank circle if you feel neither answer/candidate fits your view. Just fill in the circle where you have conviction that your choice is a good one.


• Look at who is sponsoring the candidates. Generally they will be in the same political classification.


• Unions tend to support bigger government legislation. Also, Unions lean toward the social freedom and economic control ideals.


• Centrist/moderates appear to be trying to get as many votes as they can, thus identify themselves as centrist/moderate to hit what they feel the majority of the population leans to. This is not necessarily desirable if you have strong ideals where you feel your representative should be unwavering.
  

Ultimately, no matter what a candidate classifies themselves as, it could change in actual policies they end up supporting. This can be due to a desire to compromise with the perceived “other side” or it could have been the plan to begin with. We all know some candidates will do or say whatever they feel will get them the winning vote. This is why we need to look at records, keep up on issues, and call them out if they seem to change from their running platform once they are voted in.

Thanks for informing yourself to vote!

Assembly Seat H: John Davies Summary

John Davies has served in state politics in the past. He has also worked at the Cold Climate Housing Research Center.

Prop. 2: Will vote Yes, believes voluntary measures will not solve the problem.
Natural Gas: “The assembly can play a significant role in the development of a plan. We should do whatever we can as long as it solves the problem of delivering low-cost gas to homes.”

Pay Freeze: Thought “it was a really bad idea.”

Accepting Federal Money: No reason why we shouldn’t take it. It helps our economy. He indicated some consideration for purpose in selection of funds.

Goals for Borough if elected: “My main goal is to bring a more thoughtful discussion to the assembly. One of the biggest issues facing the borough is energy, and that’s where I have expertise.”

Political Stance: “You could describe me as a progressive.”

This summary extracted from this article.

Assembly Seat H: Joe Blanchard Summary

Joe Blanchard is the incumbent. He works at the Princess Hotel and studies political science at UAF.

Prop. 2: Thinks the education, voluntary, and change-out programs are doing well in dealing with the issue.

Natural Gas: The borough can help via private partnership.

Pay Freeze: “That people got automatic pay increases without merit was a bit insulting to the taxpayer. It was never my intention to deprive them of funds but to provide a new mechanism for evaluating the increase in funds to them. It’s not a cost-saving measure, but we need to be more accountable to the folks that we’re taking money out of their wallets.”

Accepting Federal Funds: Blanchard believes they help with infrastructure but the borough needs to be prudent selecting which federal funds to accept.

Goals for Borough if elected: Costs need controlled. “In public works and transportation there is this major ramping up from the federal government from regulation. We need folks on the assembly that can push back and not just embrace regulations.”

Political Stance: “I feel I’m a moderate conservative. I’m not anti-government, but it needs to be as small as possible to work best.”

This summary extracted from this article.

Proposition 2: Real Numbers and a Prediction

Okay, this should be my final post on the Proposition 2: PM2.5 issue. Post before last I mentioned a coal boiler. This boiler is running with more heat output and less fine particles per million BTU of heat then the wood pellet stoves that are still "approved" according to Prop. 2. Here is the test result:

Note the heat output of 273,041.69 BTU’s/hr with Average Emission of 0.035 lb/MMBtu.

Now compare this number to several of the EPA approved wood pellet stoves link here. The top two listings are:

1) Northwest Manufacturing, Inc. Flex-Fuel 30 KW indoor/outdoor Heat Output 110,167 BTU/hr and Average Emission Level 0.04 lbs/million BTU output

2) Central Boiler Maxim M250 Heat Output 212,453 BTU/hr and Average Emission Level 0.06 lbs/million BTU output

The Titan II has better heat output with lower emissions then the EPA list of "Cleaner Hydronic Heaters" using wood pellets. If meeting EPA PM 2.5 requirements really is part of the goal of Prop. 2 why are less efficent wood pellet stoves still approved under this proposition yet coal burners for homes are not. Why are the various coal burning commercial industries accetable and how did the research delineate the difference of PM 2.5 from these commercial sources from individual home devices? Update 9/30/11 Mr. Muir sent a link to video footage of the Titan II.

Information above provided by Mark Sanford of Alaska Interior Transport and North Pole Gravel Products who had his commercial Titan II Coal Boiler tested.

Did you know that the scientific paper recommendations used as the basis for Proposition 2 was written in part by Mr. John Davies who is running for Borough Assembly Seat H? You can find the paper here. The title is Reducing PM2.5 Emissions from Residential Heating Sources in the Fairbanks North Star Borough: Emission Estimates, Policy Options, and Recommendations.

Here is a screen print:



According to the report (Table 4 p. 25) estimated numbers of Hydronic heater devices is 1500. I have personally contacted know dealers of coal and wood outdoor boilers and the actual number of known hydronic heaters sold in this borough is 389. About 6 in the past 3 years from Ken Hansen the WoodDoctor. No more than 200 units from Don Trometter of North Pole Pipe and Supply (a Central Boiler Dealer) since 2004. Mr. Kelsch, a former dealer for Alaska Warm Wood in 2008 sold 12 combined coal and wood boilers, 1 to someone in Delta Junction. Robert Dibble of Arctic Spas and EcoWater Systems (no longer sells hydronic heaters) has sold 125 combined wood and coal boilers since 2008. Ron Muir and Mark Sanford have sold 46 coal boilers since 2008, they are part of North Pole Gravel. Granted there is potential for wood/coal boilers to have been purchased outside the limits of dealers in the area and outside the quoted business operation years so lets add 10% to the numbers. That gives us a potential of 428 actual outdoor heaters in the non-attainment area, still less than 1/3 the estimated number used by the white paper.

What does all this mean? The actual number of Hydronic Heaters is much less then what the white paper research is based on - which is the template for Prop. 2. So the real impact of removal of banned heating burners and fuels will not be enough because there were not that many to begin with. It means that no matter what is implemented with this proposition we are destined to fail reaching the EPA goals. None of this takes into account the particulates we get from China in the spring, how will we stop that?

So, here is a prediction if this passes. The EPA PM 2.5 goal will not be attained in the non-attainment area by the due date of April 2014. There will be a push within that time frame to do more to meet the requirement. This push will bite into home owners’ indoor fireplaces and woodstoves. Although Healthy Air Now proponents claim this proposition will not affect woodstove owners many woodstove owners will face fines regardless of proper burning technique. Opacity limits of smoke plumes will be lowered from 30% to 20% or less. More outright bans will be instituted; this could be bans of ever increasing home heating devices and/or fuel types, burn days (think super cold days), even particular areas of the cities of Fairbanks and North Pole (think School zones). In fact, I predict that all of this could happen even if Prop. 2 doesn’t pass!

The long term effects of FNSB trying to attain the ever changing, unattainable, and arbitrary requirements of an entity of the Federal Government manned by appointees will crush us. We need to tell them to go fly a kite! We do, can and will do our best to educate and voluntarily adapt to keep our air as clean as we can reasonably do so.

This is not about PM 2.5; it’s about filling the Borough coffers with revenue. This is not about healthy air now; it is about producing greater reliance on expensive fuels and government. This is not about safe breathing, this is about warm homes. This is not about EPA; it’s about our liberty to choose self-reliance.

No on Prop. 2

Update 10/4/11 Just found an article for No on 2 view. I found it because it had a link to this site. I didn't read it all, just browsed it; it appears to be all Q & A format. So here is the article: Where's The Smoke?

Assembly Seat H: John Davies and other Candidates

Still waiting for a response from Mr. Davies but he does have a website and here is a link to his "Why I Am Running" letter. It's very informative as to his stance on many issues.

I have yet to interview School Board Candidates but am getting closer to that.

I have spoken with Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Dukes, and Mr. Blanchard and am expecting email answers from them soon.

Mr. Davies, Mr. Aaron Bennett and Mr. Palembas are in my to call cue.

Follow Up Questions to Round 1 Q & A

I sent out follow up questions to 3 of the 4 respondants. So far there are only 2 return answers(I still plan to send more questions). I will include answers by both in this post. Please note that I am simply copy and pasting from my email messages. If there are any typo's or mis-spellings I left them as is so as not to misquote anyone.

Follow Up to Joshua Bennett
Based on your answer to the political career question, and knowing you ran for Borough Assembly last year I’m curious what your goal is in this bid, especially considering your statement, “If I did anything different, it would be to not run for a political office at all.”

"I do not believe the "political system" is a very valuable way to effect change. It usually comes down to the two "sides" dividing the people and getting the people to be against their neighbor, which is anti-Liberty at its core. The problem is because of the "other guy", and takes the focus off of the actual problem, the political system itself. All we do when we see one of the partys come to power, is they use political force to push their way on others.
Where does that system and freedom coexist? It can't. So when I said if I did anything different, I would not run, its because I am not seeking to force my ideals on anyone. I hope to use the forum that candidates get when they run for office to get the message of Liberty out (as I see it, based on history) to as many people as possible who might have otherwise never heard the concept.
If I won the seat, I would simply continue to use that "bully pulpit" to try and show the fallacy of the system that steals and forces submission ,and contrast it with Liberty, with the hope some people would get it. If we can change people way of thinking, then we have real change, and an honest change that isn't forced on anyone. Freedom.
But, there are other ways to spread the message, which is what I meant by "not running at all"."

Follow Up to Edward King

You said, “I believe in letting the free market work so long as it is working, but I also believe in correcting its failures.” Can you provide any examples where a free market failure would need correcting and how that would be done?

"On classic example in a market failure is pollution. When the costs (such as deteriorated air quality) are not being paid in monetary terms, there tends to be an excess produced than the community would prefer. In these cases, some sort of non-market inference is needed to correct the failure. Other cases include situations in which the society would benefit in a situation was in place, but there is not an individual incentive to provide the service and an opportunity to free ride if they try. Police, fire protection, road services, etc, are examples of this. Finally, the market fails when the citizenry does not have the dollars to drive the market toward the desired outcome. Think public education where the parents may not have the education to teach or the money to pay for an education for their children. In these cases, the general population is improved by providing a service that is needed where the direct beneficiaries cannot pay for it themselves."

Assembly Seat H: Joshua Bennett Round 1 Q & A

Each time I have asked Mr. Joshua Bennett questions I have recieved very prompt answers. Here are the Q & A for round 1.

What would you say are the top 3 attributes in a candidate?

1. Understanding the Constitution of the United States of America, and the State of Alaska, being willing to follow it even if it's not popular, and knowing that the Constitution limits the candidate if he is elected and not the citizen.

2. Understanding that private "property is surely a Right of mankind as Real as Liberty" and that government is instituted by the people to protect property and who knows it is unjust for a government to deny a citizen the free use of his own property.

3. Understanding that Liberty is for all people, and the elected official is required to see to it that all Citizens Rights are protected, knowing that compromising even one Citizens Rights is wrong, and that using force to tax one Individual to give to another is wrong.

What top five principles do you try to live by? Why?

I can narrow it down to two principles:

1. Love the Lord with all your heart.

2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

If you love your neighbor as yourself in all aspects of your personal, business, and public life, which means practicing self control and respecting the Rights of our neighbors, you can sleep at night knowing you always try to do Right by your fellow man, and you can live without the worry of accusations of wrong doing being brought against you.
And it's how I want my children to live, so I need to show them by example.

What makes a community a great place to live?

A community that practices the "Golden Rule", if we all would, it would be evident that we do not need the government to regulate every aspect of our lives, the freedom that would come with that would encourage the free market and industry to thrive in our local community, and our local society would take care of those less advantaged through neighborly means, and not through the force of government. That would make a great and prosperous community to live in.

Have you ever made missteps in your political career? Care to elaborate or say what you would do differently today?

I have never had a career in politics, and don't intend to make it a career. I believe career politicians are a detriment to our society. Most have never known life outside of the public life, and have never created any real wealth, growth, or contributed to society from the private sector whatsoever. Instead, they take the wealth of the People to empower and entrench themselves, they stifle growth in the private sector by regulating it, and the contributions they make are of other people's wealth, and never their own. No I don't think I want this to be a career.
If I did anything different, it would be to not run for a political office at all.

Many politicians (whether they run for Senate or School Board) always claim their best for the job due to “experience”, is experience all its cut out to be or are there more attributes we should be looking for?

As I said above, being an "experienced" politician is no attribute at all. Experience in the private working sector would be good, but knowledge of the fundamentals of Liberty and the relationship between the Citizen and the state are attributes I look for.

Website: Bennetts for borough on Facebook. Blog: Patriotslament.blogspot.com. I also have a radio show on Saturdays on KFAR at 10 a.m.