California’s Propositions
Update Results - November 8 (8:35 p.m.)
On November 8 the voters of California will cast their votes on 8 ballot measures that could have waited until next June.
Here is a perspective.
Prop 73 – Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy Initiative Constitutional Amendment
Humans make important decisions every day. The arguments for and against this proposition are politically compelling but how do they square with reality? I must ask, when I am I no longer responsible for my kids decisions?
Let’s forget about Prop 73 and ask a simple question. Do you believe that your 15 year-old, male or female, is mature enough to leave home and live on their own? How about making important medical decisions for you (could they pull the plug)? Should they be allowed to vote? Obtain a drivers license?
How you answer those questions will dictate your vote.
Prop 74 – Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal. Initiative Statute
Is there any proof that 2 years is not enough time to evaluate a teacher? How was the 5 years determined?
Public education is not a consumer product. You don’t walk into the school and select teachers as you do in college. If you don’t like this school you can’t simply take your kids to another school.
I have been in the classroom. As an active parent, I went to my kid’s classes to see what was going on. I formed my own opinion. The majority of teachers range from Good to Outstanding. As in any profession, there are those who really don’t belong.
Should the public pay for remedial education of teachers who simply aren’t good? This is the union’s job, not the taxpayers.
There simply is no guaranteed job for life in our society. If society is going to offer such a position then the public has a right to know that the person receiving such a guarantee meets all acceptable standards.
The opponents fail to provide any evidence that a 5 year probation would be detrimental to any teacher.
Yes on 74
Prop 75 - Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement. Initiative Statute.
I have already posted the following:
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).
Here is what the LA Times thinks about 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.
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.”
Yes on 75.
Prop 76 – State Spending and School Funding Limits. Initiative. Constitutional Amendment
I am sure that the Sutter County Board of Supervisors support this concept since it is the basis they are using to claim control over the elected Auditor-Controller.
Our constitutional system requires a balance of power. No person shall have ultimate control of the taxpayer’s purse. This initiative sounds more like we are creating a king rather than extending the governor’s powers.
No on 76.
Prop 77 – Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment
It is troubling that incumbents seldom, if ever, lose re-election. I think that Californians are aware that they have limited impact on decisions made in Sacramento unless they have tons of cash.
The proponents want you to believe that 3 retired judges will have no political agenda. That is a far reaching concept that is not supported by the facts.
Republicans are hoping that redistricting would immediately catapult them into the majority even though the Democrats are the majority party in California. It is true that the voting map indicates that Democrats are strongest in a minority of the state’s geographic area but they still represent the majority of registered voters.
The proponents state that the people are not holding their elected officials accountable and that redistricting will reduce partisan politics.
I believe that the voters make the correct decision and are satisfied with their representation.
In today’s political environment, nothing will reduce partisan politics unless one major party simply goes away.
I did not find one reference in this initiative that would provide third-parties with even a glimmer of a chance to gain control of even one seat.
No on Prop 77
Prop 78 – Discounts on Prescription Drugs. Initiative Statute.
Prop 79 – Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates. Initiative Statute.
The voter must consider these two initiatives side by side.
My first impression is that both of these initiatives are poorly timed. California is in a fiscal mess and there is no guarantee that these initiatives wouldn’t exacerbate the situation.
The Legislative Analyst says:
Prop 78 – “The drug discount program established under this proposition could reduce costs to the state and counties for health programs.” “The net impact of these factors on state revenues and expenditures is unknown.”
Prop 79 – “This measure would have an unknown fiscal impact on state support for local trial courts, depending primarily on whether the measure increases the overall level of court workload.” “The net impact of these factors on state revenues and expenditures is unknown.”
When you clear away the politics of each proposition we are simply looking at a Medicare Part D program for California citizens.
Prop 78 pertains to individuals earning about $29,000 and a family of four at $58,000.
Prop 79 pertains to individuals earning about $38,000 and a family of four at $77,000.
Prop 79 appears to be a “let me get my foot in the door” initiative that specifically incorporates special interests groups in an effort to induce votes.
I personally understand the cost of drugs - they aren't cheap!
I think that the timing is wrong and that either of these programs will eventually become a bureaucratic mess and a drain on the budget.
No on Prop 78 and Prop 79 until our fiscal mess is fixed.
Prop 80 – Electric Service Providers. Regulation. Initiative Statute.
This is simple. Price control does not work. It avoids addressing the underlying factors.
California needs more power plants. They are needed where the people reside. Unfortunately the greens and the NIMBYs have blocked proposals or have made their costs so prohibitive that they are not economically feasible.
The proponents play on the feelings of the voter. They talk about competition. They don’t talk about realistic economics. How does an initiative protect against unknown factors?
Prop 80 will likely do the opposite of what the proponents claim that it will accomplish.
No on Prop 80.
(Typical disclaimer. I have a good history at predicting voter turnout and the winners for local public office. I am flat out terrible at determining the outcomes of propositions.)
Update:
Daffydd at Big Lizards provides another survey "Survey Says... Whaddit Say?" It appears as if the polls are going to be as accurate as I am.
More from PoliPundit.
On November 8 the voters of California will cast their votes on 8 ballot measures that could have waited until next June.
Here is a perspective.
Prop 73 – Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy Initiative Constitutional Amendment
Humans make important decisions every day. The arguments for and against this proposition are politically compelling but how do they square with reality? I must ask, when I am I no longer responsible for my kids decisions?
Let’s forget about Prop 73 and ask a simple question. Do you believe that your 15 year-old, male or female, is mature enough to leave home and live on their own? How about making important medical decisions for you (could they pull the plug)? Should they be allowed to vote? Obtain a drivers license?
How you answer those questions will dictate your vote.
Prop 74 – Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal. Initiative Statute
Is there any proof that 2 years is not enough time to evaluate a teacher? How was the 5 years determined?
Public education is not a consumer product. You don’t walk into the school and select teachers as you do in college. If you don’t like this school you can’t simply take your kids to another school.
I have been in the classroom. As an active parent, I went to my kid’s classes to see what was going on. I formed my own opinion. The majority of teachers range from Good to Outstanding. As in any profession, there are those who really don’t belong.
Should the public pay for remedial education of teachers who simply aren’t good? This is the union’s job, not the taxpayers.
There simply is no guaranteed job for life in our society. If society is going to offer such a position then the public has a right to know that the person receiving such a guarantee meets all acceptable standards.
The opponents fail to provide any evidence that a 5 year probation would be detrimental to any teacher.
Yes on 74
Prop 75 - Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement. Initiative Statute.
I have already posted the following:
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).
Here is what the LA Times thinks about 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.
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.”
Yes on 75.
Prop 76 – State Spending and School Funding Limits. Initiative. Constitutional Amendment
I am sure that the Sutter County Board of Supervisors support this concept since it is the basis they are using to claim control over the elected Auditor-Controller.
Our constitutional system requires a balance of power. No person shall have ultimate control of the taxpayer’s purse. This initiative sounds more like we are creating a king rather than extending the governor’s powers.
No on 76.
Prop 77 – Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment
It is troubling that incumbents seldom, if ever, lose re-election. I think that Californians are aware that they have limited impact on decisions made in Sacramento unless they have tons of cash.
The proponents want you to believe that 3 retired judges will have no political agenda. That is a far reaching concept that is not supported by the facts.
Republicans are hoping that redistricting would immediately catapult them into the majority even though the Democrats are the majority party in California. It is true that the voting map indicates that Democrats are strongest in a minority of the state’s geographic area but they still represent the majority of registered voters.
The proponents state that the people are not holding their elected officials accountable and that redistricting will reduce partisan politics.
I believe that the voters make the correct decision and are satisfied with their representation.
In today’s political environment, nothing will reduce partisan politics unless one major party simply goes away.
I did not find one reference in this initiative that would provide third-parties with even a glimmer of a chance to gain control of even one seat.
No on Prop 77
Prop 78 – Discounts on Prescription Drugs. Initiative Statute.
Prop 79 – Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates. Initiative Statute.
The voter must consider these two initiatives side by side.
My first impression is that both of these initiatives are poorly timed. California is in a fiscal mess and there is no guarantee that these initiatives wouldn’t exacerbate the situation.
The Legislative Analyst says:
Prop 78 – “The drug discount program established under this proposition could reduce costs to the state and counties for health programs.” “The net impact of these factors on state revenues and expenditures is unknown.”
Prop 79 – “This measure would have an unknown fiscal impact on state support for local trial courts, depending primarily on whether the measure increases the overall level of court workload.” “The net impact of these factors on state revenues and expenditures is unknown.”
When you clear away the politics of each proposition we are simply looking at a Medicare Part D program for California citizens.
Prop 78 pertains to individuals earning about $29,000 and a family of four at $58,000.
Prop 79 pertains to individuals earning about $38,000 and a family of four at $77,000.
Prop 79 appears to be a “let me get my foot in the door” initiative that specifically incorporates special interests groups in an effort to induce votes.
I personally understand the cost of drugs - they aren't cheap!
I think that the timing is wrong and that either of these programs will eventually become a bureaucratic mess and a drain on the budget.
No on Prop 78 and Prop 79 until our fiscal mess is fixed.
Prop 80 – Electric Service Providers. Regulation. Initiative Statute.
This is simple. Price control does not work. It avoids addressing the underlying factors.
California needs more power plants. They are needed where the people reside. Unfortunately the greens and the NIMBYs have blocked proposals or have made their costs so prohibitive that they are not economically feasible.
The proponents play on the feelings of the voter. They talk about competition. They don’t talk about realistic economics. How does an initiative protect against unknown factors?
Prop 80 will likely do the opposite of what the proponents claim that it will accomplish.
No on Prop 80.
(Typical disclaimer. I have a good history at predicting voter turnout and the winners for local public office. I am flat out terrible at determining the outcomes of propositions.)
Update:
Daffydd at Big Lizards provides another survey "Survey Says... Whaddit Say?" It appears as if the polls are going to be as accurate as I am.
More from PoliPundit.
<< Home