California Prop 75
I believe that the November 8 California election could have waited until next June. There is nothing in this election that will have an immediate impact upon the government or citizens of California.
With that said, I have spent time reading through the “Official Voter Information Guide”. This includes the text of the proposed laws. If it wasn’t my responsibility to understand what I am voting for/against I would suggest that I really have too much free time on my hands.
I noticed during my scan of the Michelle Malkin Blog that she had not taken time to understand the election. She linked to Big Lizards with a post called “Everybody's Gone Survey, SurveyUSA - Page 2”. This post indicates that a SurveyUSA poll shows that Props 73 – 77 are leading at this time. All but Prop 74 have double digit leads.
The poll indicates that Prop 75, the so called “Paycheck Protection” initiative has a significant 14% edge. Frankly, this proposition will likely end with a 3 – 5% edge (for or against).
The proponents say that Prop 75 will protect “public employees from having political contributions taken and used without their permission.”
The opponents of Prop 75 state that this initiative would “silence” workers. The opponents state that workers are already protected and that unions work as a democracy.
I must provide the proper disclaimer that I am not necessarily independent on this issue as I once held a union card and a member(s) of my family have belong (ed) to unions.
I was leaning toward voting for Prop 75 until I read the link from Big Lizards to the California Insider Blog run by Sacramento Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub. On October 17, 2005, Weintraub posted “LA Times: Yes on 75”. I new from the title that my logic must have been faulty as I seldom agree with Pravada – West (the LA Times).
Weintraub posts a three paragraph “key passage” from the Times editorial. I read the passage 3 times to make sure there was no trickery included. Couldn’t find it. I then went to the actual linked editorial to find that the Times actually did some homework. The editorial discusses why Prop 75 is different from Prop 226 (1998).
I will take some more time to digest this proposition. Finding myself on the same side as the LA Times on this issue is most troubling.
With that said, I have spent time reading through the “Official Voter Information Guide”. This includes the text of the proposed laws. If it wasn’t my responsibility to understand what I am voting for/against I would suggest that I really have too much free time on my hands.
I noticed during my scan of the Michelle Malkin Blog that she had not taken time to understand the election. She linked to Big Lizards with a post called “Everybody's Gone Survey, SurveyUSA - Page 2”. This post indicates that a SurveyUSA poll shows that Props 73 – 77 are leading at this time. All but Prop 74 have double digit leads.
The poll indicates that Prop 75, the so called “Paycheck Protection” initiative has a significant 14% edge. Frankly, this proposition will likely end with a 3 – 5% edge (for or against).
The proponents say that Prop 75 will protect “public employees from having political contributions taken and used without their permission.”
The opponents of Prop 75 state that this initiative would “silence” workers. The opponents state that workers are already protected and that unions work as a democracy.
I must provide the proper disclaimer that I am not necessarily independent on this issue as I once held a union card and a member(s) of my family have belong (ed) to unions.
I was leaning toward voting for Prop 75 until I read the link from Big Lizards to the California Insider Blog run by Sacramento Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub. On October 17, 2005, Weintraub posted “LA Times: Yes on 75”. I new from the title that my logic must have been faulty as I seldom agree with Pravada – West (the LA Times).
Weintraub posts a three paragraph “key passage” from the Times editorial. I read the passage 3 times to make sure there was no trickery included. Couldn’t find it. I then went to the actual linked editorial to find that the Times actually did some homework. The editorial discusses why Prop 75 is different from Prop 226 (1998).
I will take some more time to digest this proposition. Finding myself on the same side as the LA Times on this issue is most troubling.
<< Home