Originally Posted By cmpaley Statistics don't lie but liars definitely use statistics. Scharzenegger's entire "reform" agenda based on nothing but lies. It is a barely disguised right-wing power grab and an attempt to weaken the voice of the people and return California to the Gilded Age.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<It is a barely disguised right-wing power grab and an attempt to weaken the voice of the people and return California to the Gilded Age.>> Come on, you don't really think this I hope. The state needed changes ( reform ) and Arnold has the guts to ACTUALLY do it. It's why he is a very unique person.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Come on, you don't really think this I hope.<< As a matter of fact, I do. >>The state needed changes ( reform ) and Arnold has the guts to ACTUALLY do it.<< No one denies that there needs to be reform. The question is whether or not turning California over to absolute corporate rule is the answer. Schwarzenegger's plan is to turn California over to Corporate rule.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'm not sure what youy mean by corporate rule, cmpaley. Can you explain?
Originally Posted By cmpaley As it stands now, corporate and business interests give a much greater amount of money to political campaigns than unions and grassroots organizations do. Eliminating unions would only make that influence that much greater. Schwarzenegger has not signed a single bill aimed at protecting working people. On the contrary, he has signed numerous bills that remove existing protections from working people. Part of his "California Performance Review" program included massive contracting out of work performed by the state (which has no interest except to provide the service) to corporations (which has money as its only interest). Additionally, on a national level, corporations have gained more and more protection from the people while the people have lost more and more protection from corporations. It's time for the PEOPLE to rule this country again, not corporate special interests.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I don't believe that every corporation is nothing but greedy monsters -- many do good work, provide good jobs, good products and services. But I do agree with you that there is way too much money flowing into politics, and that those who kick in the money generally benefit from that contribution the most. It shouldn't be that way.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And also, just because something is backed by a union doesn't mean the "people's" best interest is being protected. I think between corporate money and union money playing tug of war with our representatives, both those special interests have way too much say in what happens to "the people."
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I don't believe that every corporation is nothing but greedy monsters -- many do good work, provide good jobs, good products and services.<< And I never implied that I believe taht they are nothing but greedy monsters. I do believe that if it weren't for the profit motive, then they wouldn't provide any services at all and, in general, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with corporations that abrogate their moral responsibility to their employees and the communities where they operate into account. I have a major problem with corporations that, in the name of profit, cut employee pay and benefits and/or throw their waste into the air, the water and the land and make no attempt at cleaning up after themselves. That's why I think there should be some regulations on business to ensure that they, at least ACT in a way that respects their employees and communities. I also don't naively believe that corporations can provide most of the services that the state provides in a way that is actually responsive to the needs of the people. Corporations should stick to what they do best and the government should continue to provide the services that the private sector cannot, in good faith due to inherent conflicts of interest, provide. >>But I do agree with you that there is way too much money flowing into politics, and that those who kick in the money generally benefit from that contribution the most. It shouldn't be that way.<< And eliminating one kind of interest is not the way to do that. Prop 75 is not about campaign finance reform, it's about silencing public employees, the lying rhetoric of its supporters notwithstanding. If you want to reform the way campaigns are financed, I'll join you in that fight.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>it's about silencing public employees, the lying rhetoric of its supporters notwithstanding<< I don't disagree that that is likely their goal. However, is it possible that there are sizeable numbers of union members who disagree with their money going to certain causes? I mean, what if your union backed a far left candidate who campaigned on a string pro abortion front, or some other cause that ran counter to your beliefs. Sure, that candidate may have policies in mind that benefit union workers, but there is that strong pro abortion stance. Would you want your money going there?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>And also, just because something is backed by a union doesn't mean the "people's" best interest is being protected. I think between corporate money and union money playing tug of war with our representatives, both those special interests have way too much say in what happens to "the people."<< Unions tend to support Democrats more than they do Republicans. Gee...I wonder why that could be. Could it be that Republicans tend to advocate for the interests of business over and above the interests of working people and the poor? Could it be that the Democrats tend to advocate for the interests of working people and the poor? Since unions, as a rule, are working people united for a common cause, it would stand to reason that they would support Democrats. Do the Democrats always do the best thing for the people? Not always. But neither do the Republicans. The way I see it...the Republicans do well when they speak on issues pertaining to personal morality (although their practice of morality is ATROCIOUS!) but on issues pertaining to public morality (economics), they show that money is more important than human persons. Democrats have major issues when it comes to personal morality, but they do well in advocating for public morality in that they put human persons before money. It's sad that I can't, in good faith, go along with the full program of either party.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I don't disagree that that is likely their goal. However, is it possible that there are sizeable numbers of union members who disagree with their money going to certain causes?<< Under current law, they have the right to opt out. The fact of the matter is, this is not about allowing members to opt out. >>I mean, what if your union backed a far left candidate who campaigned on a string pro abortion front, or some other cause that ran counter to your beliefs. Sure, that candidate may have policies in mind that benefit union workers, but there is that strong pro abortion stance. Would you want your money going there?<< This argument is one of those dilemmas that is difficult to answer because it's nearly impossible. It also demonstrates the problem with the way politics has come to be divided. That fact that one believes that working people are a priority shouldn't automatically make one pro-abortion. In fact, considering the way many Republicans think (humans have no value outside of the ability to exploit them as labor), I would think that they would be more pro-abortion than Democrats, but I digress. The truth is, in California, the way our laws are written, outside of a Constitutional Amendment, which would require a statewide vote of the people to change the laws relative to abortion, who gets elected to any state office is irrelevant on the topic of abortion. On the other hand, since unions are in the business of advocating for the interests of their membership as working people, other issues should not be relevant to whether or not a union contributes to a campaign or not.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Unions are a thing of the past. This proposition is going to pass along with the other ones Arnold is sponsoring.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051013/news_lz1e13crandal.html" target="_blank">http://www.signonsandiego.com/ uniontrib/20051013/news_lz1e13crandal.html</a> >>At the beginning of each new school year for my kindergarteners and me, many life lessons are taught including emphasizing the importance of asking permission and never taking things that aren't yours. It also is a time when I request my rebate from my teachers' union for expenditures which are deemed political and otherwise non-chargeable by the National Education Association, California Teachers Association and my local union. For the 2005-06 school year, roughly $922 will be seized from my paycheck and the other 300 teachers in my district for unified union dues, including the $60 increase CTA is using to fight the ballot propositions. No one asked my permission. Of that amount, CTA will rebate approximately 34 percent or $313 that it admits has used for expenses not related to collective bargaining. Those monies fund political causes, candidates and issues I rarely support. Although CTA is using the $60 increase primarily for politics, it will only rebate part of the increase. To get my money back, I have to ask permission. The union presumes I want it to have this money and to spend the money on politics. Any silence, inaction, missed deadlines or apathy on my part is interpreted as consent. To have the money returned to me, I must be a nonmember. Nonmembers are denied certain benefits such as the $1 million professional liability policy. Nonmembers can not hold office in the union or vote on the final contract. Learning about being a nonmember and triggering a rebate is difficult. The purpose of local union officials making presentations is to get teachers to join. Rarely is there a discussion of how dues are spent as it relates to politics or of the process of getting this money back. School officials have no obligation to notify employees of union membership options or union expenditures. They simply act as a collection agency for the union. No one else is allowed to make a presentation or place a flyer in teachers' mailboxes because the union has exclusive representation rights. Consequently, most teachers simply don't know their options. For those teachers who do know their rights, they still must identify themselves every year by writing and asking for their money to be returned. This must be done within a 30-day window. When a teacher does nothing because he or she may not know what to do or how to do it, the union presumes consent and spends a portion of the money on politics. Proposition 75, the Paycheck Protection Act, would change that presumption. Union officials would need to ask permission to take the portion of dues spent on politics. Consent would no longer be presumed by union officials but rather given by individual teachers. Proposition 75 is so simple – just ask permission – that even my Kindergarten children would understand it! <<
Originally Posted By cmpaley ^^^ This article is a retread and I believe that the "teacher" is a fake. Also, it is known that the San Diego Union Tribune does not allow non-Republican points of view on its op-ed page.
Originally Posted By Deogges Mom Instead of just stating that the teacher is a fake, why don't you dig up the facts to prove it. And while you're doing that how about a rebuttal of what she has to say. I'm not familiar with the San Diego Union Tribune or it's policies, but I've seen many newspapers that seem to have the opposite policy of not allowing conservative points of view on the op-ed or in their letters to the editors.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer The author, Sandra Crandall was Teacher of the Year for the 2004-2005 school year in Fountain Valley. And the letter is not a "retread", it was published in the Union-Tribune two days ago. Now, has she been in the news, yes, since she is part of the Yes on 75 campaign, so similar comments have probably been made.... But nobody is disputing the points made in the letter.
Originally Posted By cmpaley The talking points are based in falsehoods. I HAVE refuted them...over and over and over and over and over and over.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board says... YES ON 75!!!!! <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-paycheck16oct16" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/op inion/editorials/la-ed-paycheck16oct16</a>,0,5466247.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials >>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. To take one example, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has acknowledged it will take a "holy jihad" to assume control of the local school district because teachers unions are so powerful in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Although the mayor opposes Proposition 75, his statement illustrates the need for it. That said, this measure will hardly take public unions out of the political game. They will still be able to raise considerable sums to influence elections, and they will face no restrictions to continue spending on "issue advocacy." Nor are we under any illusion about the partisan motives of many of Proposition 75's backers, who see this as a means of making it harder for Democrats to raise campaign cash. But the tactical political repercussions here are not so easily discerned. Democrats may become more popular among voters if they are seen as less beholden to special interests. Moreover, this page will continue to support campaign financing proposals that help cleanse the political system, including more public financing of elections. For now, Proposition 75 constitutes an important step in the right direction.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.desertdispatch.com/2005/112948021666737.html" target="_blank">http://www.desertdispatch.com/ 2005/112948021666737.html</a> >>Teachers union heavily in debt A sworn affidavit from California Teachers Association, which represents more than 335,000 teachers, reveals the union is financially strapped and that the $60-a-year assessment levied on its members was needed to "maintain fiscal solvency." The affidavit shows that as of Sept. 30, the union spent the entire $50 million it raised to fight the governor. It also shows the union is attempting to secure an additional $40 million line of credit in addition to some $34 million in existing loans. The document states that failure to obtain this loan would result in "great financial harm" for the union.<<
