LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 111
0 members and 111 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 10-31-2006, 03:10 PM   #4331
Spanky
For what it's worth
 
Spanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: With Thumper
Posts: 6,793
Who could be against 65%?

Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I went back to remind myself of what these initiatives were about. And, as I recalled, I was dead against all of them, on the merits, without reference to the need to force Ahnold to compromise and work with the legistlature.

The four initiatives proposed to do the following:

-- prevent unions from using dues for any political purpose. In other words, gut the unions. This was a pure, naked power grab by a governor whose policies are unpopular with any number of unions. I find these tactics vile -- and that is without regard to whether I agree with the union or not. I oppose (as does Ahnold) virtually everything the prison guards' union does. But they, and their membership, have a right to a voice.
No. All this proposition did was require that unions get written consent from their members to use their dues for political purposes. Most union members are required to join unions, and then they end up in the position that their dues are used for candidates they don't support. All this propositiong did was make it so unions could use their members money for political purposes only if the member agreed.

Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch -- change the way California draws districts. In other words, disarm the largest Democratic state. This was an attempt to grab power for the national Republican party. Ahnold has a national presence; he could have called for Texas and Florida to do the same thing, if his real desire was to make elections more fair. It wasn't -- his desire was to deliver more power to the national GOP.
This was an attempt to stop the Gerrymander in California. In other words, even with the huge Democrat surge there is only one competitive seat in California for Congress out of 52 and it is a long shot. Last election cycle there were none. Iowa, which has the system proposed in this proposition, had three seats that were competitive out of five. And if this was a power grab by the Republicans how come all the Republican Congressment were against it. Both Delay and Pelosi opposed this proposition. These lines were almost passed unanimously by the legislature because they protected everyones seat and screwed the voters. And Arnold is the Governor of California, not Florida or Texas. This reform is needed everywhere and if you are going to wait for all the other states to do it, it will never happen. But the Gerrymander is the biggest problem with our democracy right now.


Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch -- -- impose more spending caps in the Constitution. In other words, Ahnold can't negotiate a budget with the Leg, so let the voters impose some more rules, to make the process more byzantine. And, in the process, effectively revoke a range of funding proposals -- including school funding -- that the voters had passed previously.
When the Democrats controlled the legislature and the Governerhip, State Spending incrased forty percent in four years. If Davis had just held it to thirty percent there would have been no budget crisis. This proposition has been passed in Colorado and a few other states and has done wonders in keeping state budgets in control.

Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch -- -- finally, teacher tenure. You can blame the "evil unions" all you want. It only shows what a one-note songbird you are. California schools have a vast range of problems. Blaming teachers, and only teachers, is not the way to correct them.

'Nuff said.
This is not about blaming teachers. It was just one proposal with effect on real people. It is hard to know how bad a teacher is in just two years, but after two years they are locked in. How could it possibly be bad to extend it another two years? This was a no brainer, yet you are coming up with pathetic excuses to be against it. "I won't vote for a ban on semi-automatic weapons because it blames gun owners for violence". That is just stupid reasoning. Either a bill is good policy or it isn't and one should vote pro or con for that reason.

This proposition is good policy, not matter how much you try and argue irrelevent issues.
Spanky is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:47 PM.