(Update: link to all the propositions: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2005Special)
All right, you fuckers, let's do this (be sure to vote November 8th). Incidentally, let me take a moment to remind everyone that letting every nitwit vote on every complicated social and budgetary issue was, is, and always will be a terrible idea. There was a reason the Framers decided not to create a system where every inbred redneck got to come and vote on intellectual property statutes. Anyway, onward:
73 (Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy): No.
A no-brainer. You are retarded if you vote for this, and that's all there is to it. Put a waiting period on the treatment of that cancer you have while you consider the moral implications of killing a defenseless tumor, and then we'll talk.
74 (Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal.): No.
You're honestly trying to "get tough" on public school teachers when there's already a major shortage of these underpaid, underappreciated state workers? I'm sure some of them do suck...so what? Until you can figure out a more effective way to improve the public school system, take 'em where you can get 'em. It's not like ivy-leaguers are pounding down the doors to get these jobs.
75 (Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement.): No.
Partisan attempt to gut a Democratic power base. Demand that corporations get consent from their employees to give money to particular political parties, then we'll talk.
76 (State Spending and School Funding Limits): No.
Why are Californians retarded? I'm serious. They have this idiotic penchant for hard-wiring the state constitution with very specific spending limits, and it's utterly ridiculous. If you don't like government, fine. Let's live in an anarchist state where I can finally go ahead and shoot you for being an idiot and be done with it. Short of that, let the normal political process do its work and reach a compromise omnibus budget that can reflect all the budgetary tradeoffs, and stop trying to impose childish, draconian, and arbitrary rules on them. If you don't like the result, vote the fuckers out of office like a normal democracy.
77 (Redistricting): No.
I'm torn on this one. Gerry-mandering is a pet peeve of mine, but nonetheless I don't think this is the way to solve the problem. I don't think you're helping anything by giving preference to the biases of a panel of aging, prune-like judges with questionable remaining mental faculties over the biases of the legislature. Theoretically, Scalia has a life-appointment and therefore should have no personal a priori stake in the outcome of any given decision he makes, but he nonetheless seems to persist in being a right-wing douchebag who happily hands the Republican party most of the opinions they want. Just because their job isn't on the line doesn't mean people can't still be opinionated wackos.
Personally, I think you should let a computer draw the districting lines randomly, and, moreover, let it redraw them every few years. That's the only way to make line drawing truly unbiased.
78 (Prescription Drug Discounts): No.
I am thoroughly unimpressed when any piece of legislation contains the term "voluntary." This is vaporware legislation so that drug companies can pretend they're actually being good citizens and not gouging people.
79 (Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates.): Yes.
Collective bargaining for the state's old and poor. Novel idea. Might just work. Also, any time you invoke mythical, paranoid ramblings about the giant conspiracy on the part of lawyers to create laws that will incite lawsuits to argue against something, that's a really good way to get me to vote for it.
80 (Electric Service Providers Regulation): Yes.
How'd that whole energy deregulation thing work out? Right...that's what I thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hehe...I figured this was due out soon. A whole lot here (no way Californian's are smart enough for all this) so I'll start small and easy.
Prop. 75:
This is the one to abolish the rule where people who work for the state (1) have mandatory dues taken from their paychecks (2) and put into union PACs (3) that are then spent in ways they can have no say in (4). That right? Cause if it is, that sounds like ass (to be colloquial) and should be illegal. Not entirely sure how it compares to private corporations (1) who pay their employees from their revenues and _don't_ take back a cut (2) when their management decides to put part of their millions (and the millions of like-minded co-workers) into their personal PACs (3) and then spend it however they want (4).
A closer analogy is one where CEOs can take a percentage of everyone's wages and spend them on the political races of his choice. Even then, you have the public-private issue in which you're comparing private entities which represent private interests (e.g. you don't like Republicans, don't work for Halliburton if they're taking your money without your consent) to public agencies who pay out of the revenues of the state. With Proposition 75 in place, you can at least ask union members, "Hey, you care when I put this money I jacked from you?" I'm sure all the pro-Democrat union members will jump to spend on their Party anyway. Sorry, explain to me again how you don't vote Yes on Prop. 75? Because unions bosses like Democrats, they should do what they want and all else be damned?
Neutral suggestion: Any chance you could include links to the text of these proposals so folks know what they say? Understand of course that it's a lot of work just to give people more reasons to disagree with you... :-)
Membership in unions is optional. You don't have to belong. Don't like what the union is doing? Don't belong.
It's just a very cynical political move. I guarantee you it isn't the union members who are upset at having their money used for political purposes. It's Republican interests trying to make it annoying and difficult for unions to collect money. Even if it were the union members who were upset, why would this be a state government issue? Yell at the union, not the California government.
If you like, how about we make every company get written consent from its shareholders to use company funds for lobbying? That better?
I think you may be mixing issues. Are we talking about lobbying, where a company employs someone in a standing capacity to meet with government officials and push legislation for the sole purpose of raising the share price (like most other corporate employees) or are we talking about campaign fundraising to support specific candidates which corporations can't legally do (though their employees each have the individual choice to do so)? Want to keep making sure we're talking about the same thing.
And while it's true that union membership is voluntary, several unions (particularly in California) use what are ironically called "fair share laws" to deduct payments from non-union members if there's a monopoly union for their moonlighting gig, collective bargaining. So in simpler language, if you're a teacher in California public schools and you decide you don't want to pay union dues, the union gets to take money from you anyway to fill its "collective bargaining" budget (whatever goes in that), leaving dues cash free to throw parties for Barbara Boxer. Fun, right? Seems an additional injustice to give organizations that have that power carte blanche over money they take from you if you want to even try having a say.
It's a state government issue because we're not talking about the United Auto Workers union or the SEIU, we're talking about the union of government workers and the nonmembers (also government employees) who are affected by California state laws that says aforementioned unions can take money from them.
Post a Comment