Forums

[Spanky]

Is any California voting gainst 74,75,76 or 77. Here is a detailed reason of why you are a moron if you do (from a guy named John Gable).


BACKGROUND ON SPECIAL ELECTION

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called a special election in order to pass initiatives he thinks are necessary to reform the way California government works. His opponents disagree with the reforms and think the special election is a waste of money. There are 4 other statewide initiatives also on the ballot plus potentially some local issues depending on where you live.

Gable's opinion: The money being spent on this special election will break records. The unions have already spent over $140 million against these propositions, more than twice the Governor's various committees supporting these reforms (and they are raising serious money, too). And don't believe the polls in the papers. They are quoting the same pollsters that were off by over 10 points for the recall election (and wrong in other past elections), but the polls that were accurate during the recall election show these four initiatives close, with two or three leading in the polls, and the forth in striking range.

In other words, this election is important and some of these races could be very close, so be sure to vote.

PROPOSITIONS

These are 4 propositions that the Governor has endorsed and are the emphasis of the special election.

Prop 74: "Teacher Tenure": Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal

Prop 75: "Paycheck Protection": Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement
Prop 76: "Live Within Our Means": State Spending and School Funding Limits
Prop 77: "Voter Empowerment Act": Redistricting


* Prop 74: "Teacher Tenure": Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal *

What is it: Increases length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from 2 to 5 years, and makes it easier to dismiss a teacher after two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations.

Pro Argument: Prop 74 is real education reform. Regardless of their performance, once teachers have completed just two years on the job, they are virtually guaranteed a job for life. Under the present system, poor performing teachers can have multiple unsatisfactory evaluations and it is still virtually impossible for them to be dismissed. This changes that, giving local principals more freedom to get and keep only the best teachers.

Despite the fact that education is about 50% of the state budget and was increased by $3 billion last year (about twice the rate of increase for all other government spending combined), it is not good enough. Our education system needs real reform.

Supported by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Schulz and Karla Jones (2004 Educator of the Year, Orange County)

Con Argument: Prop 74 is designed to punish hardworking teachers - it is deceptive, unnecessary and unfair. It does nothing to deal with the real problems in our schools (class size, textbooks, computers, safety in schools, funding), it has nothing in it to reward high quality teachers, and there are no facts to prove that a longer period before tenure means better performance.

Supporters of 74 misstate the law. Today, teachers do not have a guaranteed job for life but can be, and are, fired. These changes will cost millions of dollars in administrative expenses.

Supported by Mary Bergan (President, CA Federation of Teachers), Monica Masino (President, Student CTA), Manny Hernandez (VP, Sacramento City School District).

Bottom line question: Do you believe that this initiative will improve schools (and student performance) or do you think it will hurt?

Gable's opinion: This initiative is not some conspiracy designed to hurt teachers, but is designed to improve education. Leaving the emotions to the side, does this help or hurt our education system? I can not see how it could really hurt the quality of our education, but can see many ways how it could help. Though dismissing a bad teacher is possible today, it is extremely difficult and rare. So rare in fact that school districts talk internally about "passing the lemons", the act of passing the worse teachers from one district to another, frequently with them ending up in the worst districts (where we need the most help). I also think that by giving the principals and school boards more freedom to hire and fire, we give them more ability to succeed.

Vote Yes. It definitely can't hurt our schools, and it can help, possibly help significantly over the years.

* Prop 75: "Paycheck Protection": Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement *

What is it: Requires public employee unions to obtain annual written consent from each member in order to use a portion of that member's dues for political activity.

Pro Argument: It is fundamentally unfair to force hundreds of thousands of public employee union members to contribute their hard earned money to political candidates and issues they may oppose.

Supported by Milton Friedman (Nobel Prize Winner), Lewis Uhler (National Taxpayer Limitation Committee), Allan Mansoor (Member of Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs)

Con Argument: Prop. 75 is unnecessary and unfair. It's hidden agenda is to weaken public employee unions and strengthen the influence of big corporations.

Supported by Lou Paulson (CA Professional Firefighters), Barbara Kerr (California Teachers Association), Sandra Marques (Local President, United Nurses Association of CA).

Bottom line question: Do you believe that the current system is fair to union members, or do you believe that the new system would be an improvement?

Gable's opinion: To me, it is about freedom of speech. Spending money for a political cause is "speech", so spending my money to support something that I oppose is taking away my freedom of speech (even worse, requires me to say what I do not believe). Unions say that members can opt out, but in reality that is difficult, a bit scary for the union member, and not at all the same thing. If it was the same thing, why are they so against it?

Even though about 100% of union money was spent against the recall election, about half of union members supported the recall. The money was spent AGAINST the wishes of about half of union members, and that is just wrong.

Some people justify this unfairness because they believe in the causes that the unions support. But that "ends justify the means" argument doesn't fly with me, especially when it comes to fundamental, constitutional rights. Some people think this should not be limited to just public service unions, but should also apply to all unions and to any other organizations guilty of this kind of intimidation. I would agree - freedom of speech is sacred, and no one should be forced to pay to support something they don't want.

Vote Yes. It protects (or returns) freedom of speech.

* Prop 76: "Live Within Our Means": State Spending and School Funding Limits *

What is it: 1) Smooths spending levels from year to year to avoid huge spending increases (during good years) followed by either huge spending decreases or major growth in debt (during bad years). 2) If a new budget is not enacted prior to the beginning of a new fiscal year, the prior year's budget remains in effect. 3) If a budget falls out of balance during the year (when a fiscal emergency is called), the legislature must act to correct it. If they do not, the Governor may make cuts to correct the budget (mid-year correction).

Pro Argument: California's budget system is broken. We have record deficits, unbalanced budgets, and out-of-control spending. Politicians can't say no to spending. Since 1999-2000, the state has increased spending twice as much as it has increased revenue. Pass Prop. 76 or they will raise your taxes to pay for more spending.

Supported by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Campbell (CA Department of Finance), Sandra McBrayer (Former National Teacher of the Year)

Con Argument: Prop. 76 will cut funding for schools, health care, police and fire. It undermines our democratic system of checks and balances by giving the governor awesome new powers without any oversight, and it opens the door to higher taxes. Prop. 76 overturns the minimum school funding protections in Prop. 98.

Supported by Brenda Davis (CA State PTA), Hank Lacayo (Congress of California Seniors), Wayne Quint (CA Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations)

Bottom line question: Do you believe that the current budget system is working well enough? Do you believe this proposition would be an improvement or would hurt the budget process?

Gable's opinion: Clearly our state's budget system is a mess that hurts Californians with huge deficits and terrible credit rates that cost us piles of money, and spending priorities that seem completely out of whack (criminally huge pension plans on one side, not enough money for education on the other). Would this make things any better?

First, any fiscal constraint is always attacked for cutting everything and hurting everybody. These are scare tactics that grow old. What's weird is that with the automatic spending formulas in law today, spending will always be larger than revenues. Since some of the spending formulas are based on tax revenues, raising taxes can not fix the problem because it will automatically raise spending (and often damages the economy so that we have more spending needs and less revenue as a result, making matters even worse).

So something must be done, some fiscal restraint is required. This proposition smooths our growth in spending (avoiding the spikes that killed us under Davis) which should help. If the legislature can't get a new budget, it prevents the next year's automatic spending formulas from taking over but instead limits the budget to last year's levels. It also allows for a mid-year correction, so if the new budget is way off and will lead to new deficits, the legislature has a chance to act and correct things mid-year.

The most controversial pieces of this are the two things that are designed to protect us from an inactive (or incompetent) legislature. If they don't pass a new budget, the old budget stays in place. If the legislature does not act during a mid-year fiscal crisis, the governor may act.

This could lead to problems. The old budget may have issues. The governor may make foolish cuts. But the alternative is worse. The old budget may have problems, but that is better than the government automatically increasing spending based on formulas they have no control over (and the politicians claiming it isn't their fault). The governor may make poor decisions, but at least he is help accountable (vs "it isn't my fault" excuse used by Davis), and can be rehired or fired.

Vote Yes. It is a desperately needed reform and improvement for a broken system.

* Prop 77: "Voter Empowerment Act": Redistricting *

What is it: It changes the way district lines (for state senate, state assembly and US Congress) are drawn so that it is no longer drawn by state legislators but instead by a panel of retired judges with guidelines to avoid splitting counties and cities. The final plan is approved by the voters.

Pro Argument: Of the 153 seats up for election last November, not one incumbent lost, not one seat changed party hands. This is because legislators from both parties got together and carefully drew the districts so no one could lose. As a result, politicians get to pick their voters to basically guarantee re-election, meaning that they are not accountable to the voters.

This would change that. With fairly drawn districts, we would again have competitive districts, and politicians would have to be accountable to their voters or lose their jobs.

Supported by Ted Costa (People's Advocate), Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Arguelles (Former CA Supreme Court Justice).

Con Argument: Prop. 77 makes things worse. This is a new scheme by politicians to get their way. It will cost millions, and three judges and two courts ruled that this proposition was illegally qualified for the ballot. Voters lose their right to reject redistricting plans before they go into effect, and three unelected judges will decide everything - that is not fair or balanced.

Another argument: this is a scheme not just of politicians, but of Republicans specifically, to get more power.

Supported by Daniel Lowenstein (Former Chair, Fair Political Practices Commission), Judge George Zenovich (Associate Justice Retired 5th District), Hank Lacayo (Congress of CA Seniors).

Bottom line question: Do you believe that the election process will be improved with a new process for drawing districts?

Gable's opinion: This is about democracy. When you understand the details, it is the easiest decision on the ballot. Vote yes.

Both Republicans and Democrats who are in office are against it. That's because it is NOT in their best interest to have open, fair elections. They might lose. Republicans, Democrats, independents and others are supporting it. That is because if you are not an elected official with your job on the line, you immediately understand that more competitive elections (which this proposition will give us) is a good thing for our state.

With the current system, everything is decided during the primary, which has the fewest number of voters and the greatest representation of the most extreme wings of both parties. That leads to a legislature that does not fairly represent California (which is more moderate overall) full of extremists who can't work with each other to get things done. In addition, since the general election is essentially a guaranteed win, they don't have to do much to keep the people they represent happy. As a result, they are even more influenced by special interests and political organizations than they would be otherwise.

Vote Yes. It is important for our democracy to work as it should - truly representing the will of the people. This one change may do more to reform and rebuild California than all the other propositions combined.