Gosh, didn’t mean to have this thread turn out this way.
Come on guys. Kiss and make up or shake hands?
Hespder, thanks for all your help!
Had to write about this.
A vote from me will come down essentially to goal, duty, and what benefits the greatest number of people. There will be sacrifices made with budgeting. Goal would be the step by step process in improving education. My moral and civic duty would be to participate in making sure our legiislature has checks and balances to ensure that the laws do take care of everyone. However, making an informed decision during any crucial election is confusing with each side using tactics that appeal to pity, appeal to one’s emotions, and even using the fallacy of inappropriate authority such as movie stars.
Again, I believe my best approach is to utilize and develop critical thinking skills to siphon through all this info. Some more thoughts…
[quote]gold’s wrote:
Had to write about this.
A vote from me will come down essentially to goal, duty, and what benefits the greatest number of people. There will be sacrifices made with budgeting. Goal would be the step by step process in improving education. My moral and civic duty would be to participate in making sure our legiislature has checks and balances to ensure that the laws do take care of everyone. However, making an informed decision during any crucial election is confusing with each side using tactics that appeal to pity, appeal to one’s emotions, and even using the fallacy of inappropriate authority such as movie stars.
Again, I believe my best approach is to utilize and develop critical thinking skills to siphon through all this info. Some more thoughts…[/quote]
If even half of the people in this state took this election as seriously as you we would be so much better off in general.
[quote]hspder wrote:
randman wrote:
Now you starting another issue. Worth every cent of the $175,000 average salary and benefits we pay them??? Talk about a cush job. I need to become a fireman.
So become a fireman. Just go to the nearest fire station and I’m sure they have openings – they always do.
randman wrote:
Bull crap they are worth every cent of it. Another California union that has set up their workers in a pay paradise for life. Never mind the unbelievable pensions they get. Hopefully Arnold can rewrite that proposition for next year to kill pensions for this little piece of paradise we call fantasy land.
That is just too much. I’m through with you, randman. I could bother to actually do some more research to respond to the rest of your stuff, but the above paragraph tells me that it would be wasted. At this point, everybody that has made up their mind has made up their mind, so I’m through arguing with you. I do have other stuff to do.
I’m still wondering how the heck did you end up in California and what are you still doing here, but at this point I think that you don’t know that yourself…
[/quote]
Firemen work for free around here. I have a hell of a lot of respect for firemen, but $ 175,000 a year? You guys must be joking about that one.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
hspder wrote:
randman wrote:
Now you starting another issue. Worth every cent of the $175,000 average salary and benefits we pay them??? Talk about a cush job. I need to become a fireman.
So become a fireman. Just go to the nearest fire station and I’m sure they have openings – they always do.
randman wrote:
Bull crap they are worth every cent of it. Another California union that has set up their workers in a pay paradise for life. Never mind the unbelievable pensions they get. Hopefully Arnold can rewrite that proposition for next year to kill pensions for this little piece of paradise we call fantasy land.
That is just too much. I’m through with you, randman. I could bother to actually do some more research to respond to the rest of your stuff, but the above paragraph tells me that it would be wasted. At this point, everybody that has made up their mind has made up their mind, so I’m through arguing with you. I do have other stuff to do.
I’m still wondering how the heck did you end up in California and what are you still doing here, but at this point I think that you don’t know that yourself…
Firemen work for free around here. I have a hell of a lot of respect for firemen, but $ 175,000 a year? You guys must be joking about that one.[/quote]
Average salary AND benefits but yes, I kid you not, $175,000 per year. And according to hspder, worth every penny of it. Ha, ha, ha! Most upper level executives at private companies in the US don’t make that much money. It’s unreal.
And who’s paying for it? The California tax payers. And the firefighter’s union has the gall to actually try and get more money by putting another initiative (Measure D) on the ballot to take away some of the money generated from the sales tax that is currently going to the police union (not that I’m a fan of theirs either) but nonetheless, it’s despicable.
Okay, this is becoming like a football game. Already, I’m inundated with radio, tv, print ads, and phone calls as the election draws near. Whenever I vote, I always get the jitters.
Today, I received an advertisement on Prop. 75 paid by the Democratic Party that states " the law already protects public workers so they don’t have to contribute to politics they oppose.- US Supreme Court #475 US292, CTU v Hudson) Prop. 75 is about limiting our political voices according to the groups of teachers, nurses, police and firefighters.
See? This is why I and many others are torn. We don’t know what is the truth. How does a voter even determine the truth value of each argument?
I’m actually fascinated at how advocate groups target each segment of the CA population. Normally, I feel put off by all the ads when the voter guide explains each prop. clearly. Maybe the more hype, the more turnout of voters?
Some more thoughts as the time draws near.
[quote]gold’s wrote:
Today, I received an advertisement on Prop. 75 paid by the Democratic Party that states " the law already protects public workers so they don’t have to contribute to politics they oppose.- US Supreme Court #475 US292, CTU v Hudson) Prop. 75 is about limiting our political voices according to the groups of teachers, nurses, police and firefighters.
See? This is why I and many others are torn. We don’t know what is the truth. How does a voter even determine the truth value of each argument?
[/quote]
I don’t care what that supposed law says, that’s is so much bull crap. I was just reading a few articles about this issue in the local newspaper yesterday and they were talking about how many of the teachers are breaking rank with the union on this issue. One teacher was commenting on the fact that they take $75/month out of his paycheck and the line item says “voluntary contribution”. He jokes that he wishes he it actually was voluntary and he could stop contributing.
The special interests and unions are doing their level best to throw out as much FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) as possible to keep things as status quo. You’ve got to look at whose sending these messages and what they have to gain and/or lose from keeping the status quo or changing it. They’ll use half-truths and outright lies to further their own self-interest goals.
I wanted to add that if your making your decision to vote one way or another based on TV commercials and print ads alone you’ll be severely misguided.
Read independent analyses of the issues. Dig, get to the bottom of them.
Prop. 75 is pretty simple, taken from the california voter foundation:
http://www.calvoter.org/voter/elections/2005/special/props/prop75.html
“Prohibits public employee labor organizations from using dues or fees for political contributions unless the employee provides prior consent each year on a specified written form. Prohibition does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance, or other purposes directly benefiting the public employee. Requires labor organizations to maintain and submit to the Fair Political Practices Commission records concerning individual employees? and organizations? political contributions; those records are not subject to public disclosure.”
It’s pretty simple really. Why would need prop. 75 if indeed what the unions say is true “that the law already protects individuals and they can opt-out”. The answer is becasue it doesn’t. That’s an outright lie.
[quote]gold’s wrote:
…
Today, I received an advertisement on Prop. 75 paid by the Democratic Party that states " the law already protects public workers so they don’t have to contribute to politics they oppose.- US Supreme Court #475 US292, CTU v Hudson) Prop. 75 is about limiting our political voices according to the groups of teachers, nurses, police and firefighters.
…[/quote]
This is true, as far as it goes, but is very misleading. Workers are allowed to ask for a what is essentially a line-item refund for their dues used for political causes with which they disagree. In practice, that means they are required to protest specific expenditures, and are refunded their portion. So if they dislike a particular commercial, they can get back the percentage of their dues spent on such a commercial. No one is going to spend the time to ask for line-item refunds to get back a dollar or two in total – the forms and the research required to complete them cost a lot more in effort than they are worth, which is the point (from the perspective of the unions).
What they can’t do is preemptively opt out of spending for Democratic or Republican (fat chance!) political candidates, or for spending on political advertising campaigns generally. That would be powerful, and would allow people to vote with their pocketbooks when they are displeased with the general political tack of their union.
I wouldn’t care nearly so much if it weren’t for the fact that for many unionized fields people are forced to join the union in order to even get hired (“closed shops”).
Oh! I see. I knew there was more info. behind the scenes…
And around here, everyone is painting our governor as the good or bad guy.
[quote]gold’s wrote:
Oh! I see. I knew there was more info. behind the scenes…
And around here, everyone is painting our governor as the good or bad guy. [/quote]
Arnold’s doing exactly what we voted him in office to do. The groups that are painting him as a bad guy have a lot to lose from a power standpoint. Just look at the barrage of commercials against Prop 74 through 77.
The unions are spending untold millions of dollars fighting each one of his propositions with the money they now extort out of union members that have no choice. Prop 75 is designed to seriously curtail this freewheeling spending unless the majority of union members agree with the position taken by the union leaders.
This reaction to Arnold has been no surpise whatsoever. He was voted into office to shake up the status quo and that is exactly what he’s doing.
Unfortunately, a lot of sheeple get their information from tv so they form negative opinions of him based on the multi-million smear campaigns by self-serving groups that live off of tax payer money. Hopefully there are enough people like yourself willing to dig deeper into these issues to decide what’s right and wrong for yourself. This is a critical election to set California back on the right path.
Hippo (Randman),
Swear to me that you don’t work for Arnold S. or any of anti Prop. 75 groups. I have to ask this so hope you understand. One always needs to be careful when looking at the source of info. Thank you.
[quote]gold’s wrote:
Hippo (Randman),
Swear to me that you don’t work for Arnold S. or any of anti Prop. 75 groups. I have to ask this so hope you understand. One always needs to be careful when looking at the source of info. Thank you.
[/quote]
Ahahahaha!!! Good one, gold’s. I swear. I’m a software sales engineer by day. I’m just passionate about getting the state back on track so it is an attractive place to live for many years to come. I really do love it here. I just could do without most of the politics. But such is life.
A voting post from UCLA corporate law professor and political conservative Stephen Bainbridge:
California’s Special Election: How I’m Voting
Proposition 73 WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY ( http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/prop73/title_summary.shtml ). Easy call. I’m pro-life and pro-parents. There’s an appropriate judicial bypass to deal with abuse cases, but if kids need parental permission to, say, get a driver’s license, they ought to at least let their parents know they’re about to kill an unborn child. FOR.
* The California Catholic Conference's pro-73 website: http://www.cacatholic.org/ppresponsibility.html
Proposition 74 PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS. WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMANENT STATUS ( http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/prop74/title_summary.shtml ). Tenure has at least two important functions: First, it protects academic freedom. Second, it’s an implicit part of the compensation package, which makes teaching attractice despite it’s relatively low pay. California’s current two-year probationary period, however, is way too short to adequately sort out good from bad teachers. FOR.
* Pro-74 website: http://www.joinarnold.com/site/c.itJUJ9MTIuE/b.695319/k.AFD8/Proposition_74__Put_The_Kids_First_Act.htm
Proposition 75. Public employee union member paycheck protection ( http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/prop75/title_summary.shtml ). The LA Times endorsed Prop 75 and got it exactly right ( Times endorsements ):
[i]By forcing public employee unions to get permission from members before using a portion of their dues to pay for political campaigns, this measure would lessen the overwhelming ? and often destructive ? power of these unions in Sacramento, where their influence can be unhelpful. It would also reinforce the right of union members to insist that their contributions not be spent on causes they don't support. [/i]
I would add that behavioral economics argues for opt-in rather than opt-out rules. In rational choice theory, it shouldn’t matter whether employees are required to opt into or out of contributing a portion of their union dues to political causes. In practice, however, the inertia implied by the status quo bias suggests that some substantial number of employees simply will not make a choice. Under such conditions, an opt-in rule favors union leaders over employees. FOR.
* A Yes on 75 website: http://www.caforpaycheckprotection.com/
Proposition 76 STATE SPENDING AND SCHOOL FUNDING LIMITS ( http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/prop76/title_summary.shtml ). California is in an economic mess because the legislature spent the massive but predictably time-limited revenues associated with the dot-com bubble instead of saving them (or, heaven forbid, rebating them to taxpayers) and, over an even longer period, allowed spending to grow faster than the state economy could support. Unlike the federal government, which can simply prinot more money, California must live within its means. Prop 76 unwinds some prior legislation that allows spending in certain areas to grow unconstrained by economic growth and, in general, limits the overall growth of state spending to the average growth of revenues in the three preceding years. FOR
* A pro-76 site: http://www.joinarnold.com/site/c.itJUJ9MTIuE/b.695305/k.2296/Proposition_76__The_Live_Within_Our_Means_Act.htm
Proposition 77. Redistricting ( http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/prop77/title_summary.shtml ). To my amazement, I again find myself in agreement with the LA Times, which correctly opines ( Times endorsements ):
[i]One reason for the partisan bickering that has paralyzed Sacramento and Washington is the gerrymandered boundaries for legislative and congressional districts. Because these lines are drawn by politicians, they concentrate Republican or Democratic voters in specific districts, thus protecting seats for both parties. As a result, candidates see no reason to appeal to voters in the center, and extremists reign. This measure would take the power to draw boundaries out of politicians' hands and give it to a panel of retired judges.[/i]
I’m not sure this will end up helping the GOP, as many claim, since California judges are often pretty partisan folks, but it’s one of those good government things one ought to support regardless of party loyalty. Gerrymandering is fundamentally anti-democratic and promotes polarization. FOR
* A pro-77 website: http://www.yeson77.com/
Propositions 78 ( http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/prop78/title_summary.shtml ) and 79 ( http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/prop79/title_summary.shtml )Drug Pricing. It’s a choice between the drug companies’ version (78) and that supported by an alliance of trial lawyers, unions, self-appointed "consumer activists, and other commie pinkos (79). A plague on both their houses. NO on both.
* The LA Times editorial urging a no vote on both 78 and 79: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/elections/editorials/la-ed-drugs27oct27,1,6199855.story?coll=la-headlines-elect2004-oped
Proposition 80 Energy Reregulation ( http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/prop80/title_summary.shtml ). Hoping to belatedly capitalize on voter dissatisfaction with Enron and the energy crisis of a few years ago folks want to reregulate energy in the state, make it harder to build new energy plants, and carve these rules into stone by requiring a supermajority vote to change them. NO.
* An anti-80 site: http://www.noprop80.com/main.html
Boston,
this a ton of info. Appreciate your viewpoint.
I’ll keep my fingers crossed tomorrow. I’ve already turned in my ballot.
(I’ve discovered that many decisions aren’t black and white. There are always nagging doubts. Life forces people to make hard decisions and we have to live with the benefits or consequences. )
Taken from SF Chronicle, Nov. 9,2005
election results summary
Prop. 73-waiting period and parental notification before termination of minor’s pregnancy
yes 48.9% no 51.1%
Prop. 74 probationary period extention for teachers
yes 46.6% no 53.4%
Prop. 75 Public Employee Union Dues
yes 48.8% no 51.2%
Prop. 76 give governor new budget powers and limit growth in state
yes 39.6% no 60.4%
Prop 77 would take legislative redistricting power away from state law makers and give to panel of judges
yes 42.3% no 57.7%
Prop 78 discount prescription ( backed by pharmaceutical cos.)
yes 41.9% no 58.1%
Prop. 79 would set up discount prescription drug program ( backed by consumer and labour groups)
yes 38.5% no 61.5%
Prop 80 would change regulation of electricity market and ban consumers in the future from contracting directly with energy providers
yes 34% no 66%
I voted no on prop. 76,78,80. All the others, was a yes vote. The news headlines say that the intitiatives failed but some percentages reveal a close race. The governor basically is planning for a re-election as he gave a television appearance after the polls were counted.
(I don’t view myself adhering strictly to any party and continue to learn about the democratic process.)
edit.
I also voted no on prop. 74. Surprised Hspder? 
Don’t hate me hippo, Randman!
This is politics afterall and we’re all friends, aren’t we?
[quote]gold’s wrote:
edit.
I also voted no on prop. 74. Surprised Hspder? Don’t hate me hippo, Randman!
This is politics afterall and we’re all friends, aren’t we? [/quote]
Of course. And thank you.
Suffice to say I was very happy yesterday with the outcome of the elections. 
I was particularly worried about 73, because I thought that people were just blindly voting against Arnold, and the proposals that he did not sponsor might still get a yes. The fact that 73 did not pass either proves that the (few, actually) Californians that voted actually did their homework.
But, clearly, the major takeaway here is still that some pretty strong messages were sent to Arnold: he needs to realize that if he wants to cut expenses he needs to look harder, and it is definitely not acceptable to call for an interim election just for political strong-arming – and spend millions in the process.
Hopefully he’ll get back on track now that he realizes this IS California – call it “extreme liberal”, call it “hippy”, call it “commie”, call it whatever you want, but it’s where I was born and I’m proud of it – and the cost-cutting will have to be on wasted money (and there’s plenty of it – like these elections) rather than essential services like education and health.
I voted for a moderate, center, Arnold and I hope we’ll have him back now that he was severely slapped for trying to be a naughty right-wing Republican.