Originally Posted By cmpaley >> Bruce Cain, director of the UC Academic Center in Washington and an expert on California politics, said Schwarzenegger seems to recognize "the implicit failure of the confrontational strategy" he pursued this year. "The question now is: Have you burned your bridges?" Cain said. "Can you win back trust" from Democrats and others "after having such a confrontational and vitriolic election? I think all of us would question whether that is even possible."<< Not in a million years. He's proven himself to be a bald-face, unashamed liar and cannot be trusted anything ever.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>On labor, business and fiscal issues, the governor tilts right.<< "Tilts" right? More like falls over to the right and can't get up. The man is pro-business and anti-labor to the max.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Left out of Darkbeer's post above (snip or edit indications, pretty please?) >>As usual, the governor, a business owner himself, vetoed nearly every bill tagged by the state Chamber of Commerce as a "job killer," from the minimum wage measure to a bill expanding unemployment benefits and a measure making it easier for employees to sue their bosses. His one exception: He signed a bill prohibiting the sending of "junk faxes" - unsolicited advertising - in California. Schwarzenegger also vetoed a bill to expand health insurance for children, even though the expansion is something he has long said was a personal priority. The governor said he still supports the goal but doesn't see where the state would find the $500 million that the bill would cost at a time when the government is already at least $6 billion short of paying for the services it already is providing.<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Left out of Darkbeer's post above (snip or edit indications, pretty please?)<< The snip and edit indications would imply that there was information left out. That's a tactic typically used by the Right. They intentionally leave important information out (or deemphasize it) and don't let you know that they're doing it...sometimes even in the pious name of "following the rules."
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Back on topic.... <a href="http://www.modbee.com/opinion/story/11373481p-12120386c.html" target="_blank">http://www.modbee.com/opinion/ story/11373481p-12120386c.html</a> >>Under Proposition 75, that process would be turned around. Public union members would have to "opt in" to have a portion of their dues used for political causes. Simply put, the burden of seeking permission would be shifted from the members to the unions. Records of the member's choice would have to be kept and recorded with a state agency. Some say that Gov. Schwarzenegger is trying to diminish the power of public employee unions. That's true — and understandable. These powerful unions are one contributor to many of the problems that afflict state and local governments and make the state essentially ungovernable. Whether the measure would have lasting impact on union power is open to question. Unions are likely to find ways to get around the law. And if the unions are truly representing the political inclinations of most of their members, they would have little less in dues to spend on candidates anyway. We support Proposition 75 because it would be much fairer to public union members who want the bargaining ability of a union, but who not believe in the political candidates or causes that union leaders back with their dues.<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley One fact that the right-wing supporters of Prop 75 refuse to mention is that public employee work is inherently political. Part of representation must, by definition, include political issues, it's the nature of the beast. Let's take the recent REAL gubernatorial election as an example. The Democrats reran Gray Davis and the Republicans put up the lackluster Bill Simon. Bill Simon ran on a platform of cutting public employee pay and benefits and Gray Davis ran on a platform of, at the very least, allowing public employees to hold their place. Hmmm...what candidate would public employee representatives support? Now, let's move forward to today. The economic right-winger, Schwarzenegger, gets routed at every turn by public employees and their unions. Of course, that would make sense. His plan involves eliminating thousands of jobs, cutting pay and eliminating pensions, among other things. Again, since public employment is INHERENTLY political, it stands to reason that one of the tools that public employee unions would use in representing the interests of those employees would be POLITICAL in nature. But the Republicans can't have that. They don't like dissent. So they put up this proposition to eliminate, or at the very least effecitvely silence, the voice of public employees in the political sphere...which, of course, makes it easier to reach the goal of eliminating most, if not all, public services and returning California and the rest of the country to the gilded age.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Lets go back to the LA Times editorial supporting Prop. 75... >>Proposition 75 opponents argue that this is unfair because there is no similar move to curtail the discretion of business lobbyists to invest shareholder resources in politics. But the analogy is flawed, given that this initiative applies only to public employee unions. It's not private businesses that sit across the negotiating table from public employee unions; it's the taxpayers and their elected representatives, acting as stewards of the public interest. If this notion sounds almost quaint, it is, because it has become so divorced from reality. At many levels of government, public employee unions, aided by their political war chests, have gained control over both sides of the negotiating process. When public employee unions wield the type of influence they now do in California, too much governing becomes an exercise in self-dealing.<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>At many levels of government, public employee unions, aided by their political war chests, have gained control over both sides of the negotiating process.<< This is a lie. Even when Davis was in power, most State employee unions had to fight tooth and nail for the most modest of pay increases. The only difference is, Davis didn't come to the table mocking the public employee unions and the work done by public employees. Schwarzenegger's folks have been openly hostile and mocking from the get go.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www2.dailybulletin.com/opinions/ci_3134919" target="_blank">http://www2.dailybulletin.com/ opinions/ci_3134919</a> >>Many members of government-employee unions – a sizable proportion of law enforcement personnel, for example – are basically conservative in their political outlook, yet the union bosses give a vast proportion of their unions' campaign money to liberal candidates. If that's the way individual members want it, fine; but Proposition 75 will give them the option. That's the high-minded, freedom-of-choice argument for Proposition 75. The second argument for it is more practical: Public-employee unions' massive campaign spending gives them undue political clout at the expense of other groups that don't wield the same kind of monetary influence over state legislators, or can't mount the same kind of campaigns. For example, the California Teachers Association this year imposed an additional $60 fee on its 335,000 members to fight the governor's ballot measures, including Proposition 75. By cutting the unions' campaign funds, presumably, Proposition 75 would reduce their undue influence over state legislation. After all, every public employee's salary is paid by taxpayers. Having a portion of that taxpayer money automatically put toward influencing legislators, who are supposed to represent all the voters, is not favorable to taxpayers and voters – the public at large. Vote yes on Proposition 75 on Nov. 8.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www2.dailynews.com/theiropinion/ci_3136199" target="_blank">http://www2.dailynews.com/thei ropinion/ci_3136199</a> >>Frankly, I've had enough of the CTA's militant brand of politics, and I'm not alone. That's why a group of teachers and professors have joined me in filing a class-action suit against the union for forcing us to pay for its massive $60 million political campaign this fall. As a fifth-grade schoolteacher in the San Francisco Bay Area, I am forced to hand over part of my paycheck to the CTA because of California's compulsory unionism laws. Even nonunion members like me still have to pay roughly 70 percent of full dues to a union we want nothing to do with. Many teachers don't even know about this right not to join and to pay less than full dues. Recently, I learned that CTA officials had decided to increase all teachers' dues by another $60 a year, purely for the purpose of fighting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's reforms on the ballot this November. They never asked our permission, nor even informed us of the purpose of the new fee. I found out purely by chance. Furthermore, when I asked for the money to be returned to me, CTA officials indicated that I could have to wait one or two years. Even if teachers like me are able to get the money back in a year or two, forcing us to give a loan to union bosses so they can play politics violates our constitutional rights. An election cannot be undone. The merits of Schwarzenegger's ballot propositions are beside the point. Union members and nonmembers should have the right to object to this extraordinary use of their dues. This outrageous treatment of thousands of teachers like me proves that CTA officials are much more interested in maintaining their political power than in respecting the wishes of teachers they claim to represent. <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www2.dailybulletin.com/opinions/ci_3134919" target="_blank">http://www2.dailybulletin.com/ opinions/ci_3134919</a> >>Under Proposition 75, each public-employee union member would have to opt in each year by signing a consent form to route part of his or her dues into the union's political spending. That offers the member a real choice compared to the current system. Those who support the kind of political causes and candidates their unions give money to can easily take part, while those who do not can abstain without giving up valuable union benefits.<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley Once again: 1. Under current law, public employees can opt-out from having their dues used to partisan politics at any time they choose. 2. Opting out will NOT result in a dues increase...even under Prop 75. 3. Public service is inherently political. Since public employee unions are supposed to represent the interests of their members, they tend contribute to politicians that support the concept of public employment. Why contribute money to someone who doesn't even believe that you have the right to EXIST?
Originally Posted By cmpaley That should read: Opting out will NOT result in a decrease in dues even under Prop 75.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Looks like all of Arnolds measures are ahead. Can't wait till Arnold gets re-elected. 1 Asked of 609 Likely Voters Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4% First, Proposition 73. Proposition 73 requires that physicians notify the parent of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion. If the special election were today, and you were standing in the voting booth right now, would you vote Yes on Proposition 73? Or would you vote No? 60% Yes 38% No 2% Undecided 2 Asked of 613 Likely Voters Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4% Next, Proposition 74. Proposition 74 extends the probationary period for new teachers from 2 years to 5 years, and makes it easier to dismiss teachers with unsatisfactory performance evaluations. If the special election were today, would you vote Yes on Proposition 74? Or would you vote No? 53% Yes 45% No 1% Undecided 3 Asked of 609 Likely Voters Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4% Next, Proposition 75. Proposition 75 prohibits public employee unions from using union dues for political purposes without the written consent of union members. If the special election were today, would you vote Yes on Proposition 75? Or would you vote no? 56% Yes 42% No 2% Undecided 4 Asked of 594 Likely Voters Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4.1% Next, Proposition 76. Proposition 76 limits growth in state spending so that it does not exceed recent growth in state revenues. If the special election were today, would you vote Yes on Proposition 76? Or would you vote no? 54% Yes 41% No 5% Undecided 5 Asked of 600 Likely Voters Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4.1% Finally, Proposition 77. Proposition 77 changes the way California draws boundaries for Congressional and legislative districts. District boundaries would be drawn by a panel of retired judges and approved by voters in a statewide election. If the special election were today, would you vote Yes on 77? Or would you vote no? 54% Yes 41% No 5% Undecided
Originally Posted By cmpaley Beau's been hanging out on Schwarzenegger's website, I see...you know, the one with the polling numbers from the source that talks up the propositions instead of giving the complete facts about them.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy cmplaey, want to bet a churro that at least 3 out of 4 masures will pass? Once arnold takes his message to the people, their is no stopping him. It's also why he will be re-elected.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Heck, lets see what the Stanford Review says (I guess they will be called right-wing also <a href="http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXV/Issue_3/Opinions/opinions3.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.stanfordreview.org/ Archive/Volume_XXXV/Issue_3/Opinions/opinions3.shtml</a> >>Ironically, unions have exacerbated the problem of wrongfully taking workers’ wages without consent to fight the paycheck protection initiative in the current election. The Orange County Register Editorial Board wrote that: “The need for Proposition 75, Paycheck Protection, was graphically demonstrated by the actions of two unions: The Correctional Peace Officers Association - the prison guards’ union – ‘voted to assess themselves $33 a month for the next 17 months to raise money for additional political spending, a spokesman for their union said,’ according to the July 7 Sacramento Bee. That’s $561 for each employee, raising about $18 million…The California Teachers Association has imposed a $60 extra assessment for three years on its 335,000 members, reported the June 22 Glendale News-Press, to fight Props. 75… That would raise above $50 million.†That’s $50 million state workers will not be able to take home to their families. All the unions had to do was hold executive committee meetings, and they were able to arbitrarily fundraise $50 million. Polls show rank-and-file union members support Paycheck Protection and often disagree with their union leaders’ political agenda. Allan Mansoor, an Orange County Deputy Sheriff and the mayor of Costa Mesa, wrote that “regardless of your political views, permission should be obtained before spending funds on political causes that you may not want to support. As Thomas Jefferson said, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.†It’s not just public employees who support this common sense worker right protection. Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman is a vocal proponent and sponsor of this measure. John McCain (the ultimate reformer) traveled to California last week to campaign with Arnold Schwarzenegger for Proposition 75. McCain called it a common sense reform that will make elections fairer and respect the rights of public workers. It’s too bad that we need to have a special election to hold unions accountable to their members. Unions can be a wonderful resource for workers in collective bargaining, health care, and other services which employers sometimes don’t provide. Unions are an important part of our economy. Proposition 75 is not anti-union; it is pro-worker. <<
