Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

4. Read the part about "initiatives are a crappy way to make law." I rarely vote for any initiative.

how come no one answered my question about the California affirmative action vote and the alleged fallout regarding women's health treatments?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
4. Read the part about "initiatives are a crappy way to make law."

Why do you say this? Aren't the generally written by the same people that right laws passed by the legislature?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Why do you say this? Aren't the generally written by the same people that right laws passed by the legislature?

Hah! Very very funny. Nice one. Wp, p.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
No - that is not the problem. The problem is that the Teacher's Unions are just too powerful.

Why aren't they paid more, then?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Why do you say this? Aren't the generally written by the same people that right laws passed by the legislature?

Sometimes, but that's irrelevant.

The problem is not so much how the initiatives are initially written, but the process by which they are passed. In a legislative process, you can compromise, make changes, work problems out in committee, etc. In an initiative process, it's a simple yes or no.

The other problem is that voters consistently misunderstand the initiatives. And big surprise -- they are complicated, voters don't devote much time to them, etc. And, of course, the debate is dominated by huge advertising campaigns that twist the truth.

If Three Strikes had gone through the legislative process, its application to non-violent crimes might have been eliminated, or changed. At the very least, it would have been discussed, and addressing that issue without tossing the entire measure would at least have been an option. In the initiative process, no such options exist.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Job security creates lazy people. Lazy people do shitty jobs. Hence, the only answer remains putting these people in job jeopardy. We should all have to handle the fear of the ax. How else are people going to hone their talents? I think if you set up a system where some of the teachers could get paid serious cash, and mangement was encouraged to run a tight, economical ship, you'd see some wonderful teachers. And very happy ones. What could be better? Certainly, its better than this socialist lockstep system that encourages those who come into the system giving a shit and trying to do a good job into phoning it in after a few years.

You can't get peak performance out of anyone who hasn't got an incentive. How many firms have people on this boatrd fucked over because they knew exactly where they could stop and still get the max bonus?

I don't believe I was disagreeing with anything you said above. But suppose that a school district has limited funds, perhaps because some of Spanky's conservative friends passed a statewide initiative preventing raises in property taxes to pay for education. Faced with difficulty negotiations with the teachers' union, and constrained by their budget, might they not agree to give the union job protections in lieu of a pay increase?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why aren't they paid more, then?

The trial lawyers supplement their income.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Where you against any of those propositions? They were all badly needed and yet the unions put in thirty five million to defeat them.

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.

-- 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.

I would vote for an iniative that referred districting to retired judges, etc., provided that it did not come into effect unless and until Texas and Florida adopted similar measures.

-- 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.

-- 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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
But education is generally funded by property taxes, so how do we pay teachers in what will generally be more impoverished areas more than we pay those in richer areas?

The state government should cough up for that.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
The state government should cough up for that.

How do you prevent the richer areas from just upping the bidding? And keep them from bitching about inequitable distribution of state funds?

[Spanky]

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.

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.

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.

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]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't believe I was disagreeing with anything you said above. But suppose that a school district has limited funds, perhaps because some of Spanky's conservative friends passed a statewide initiative preventing raises in property taxes to pay for education. Faced with difficulty negotiations with the teachers' union, and constrained by their budget, might they not agree to give the union job protections in lieu of a pay increase?

The job protection is enshrined in law. That was what Arnold was trying to change with his proposition. The taxpayers did not get some quid pro quo for this job protection, the Teachers Unions paid for some legislators and they got the law passed.

Now districts can't fire teachers unless they rape or kill a student.

These protections were not in lieu of a pay increase.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
But education is generally funded by property taxes, so how do we pay teachers in what will generally be more impoverished areas more than we pay those in richer areas?

We're not talking staggering numbers in relation to our federal budget. We should allot federal dollars to the effort, and get them by eliminating pork.

Naive, huh?

Why not start a television station that broadcasts nightly all the pork in each bill, and its sponsor? Why doesn't Soros fund that? THAT woulkd incense people. The only way we can deal with the whores and scumbags we elect is to broadcast their theivery constantly. I'm serious - we should have a non-partisan channel reporting on the biggest whores all day, every day. No more C-Span sissery. We should embarrass dim shits like Ted stevens and Conrad Burns for preaching fiscal conservativism while larding up on pork.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How do you prevent the richer areas from just upping the bidding? And keep them from bitching about inequitable distribution of state funds?

You can't. But you can't make the system perfect. You just have to do the best you can.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
We're not talking staggering numbers in relation to our federal budget. We should allot federal dollars to the effort, and get them by eliminating pork.

Naive, huh?

Why not start a television station that broadcasts nightly all the pork in each bill, and its sponsor? Why doesn't Soros fund that? THAT woulkd incense people. The only way we can deal with the whores and scumbags we elect is to broadcast their theivery constantly. I'm serious - we should have a non-partisan channel reporting on the biggest whores all day, every day. No more C-Span sissery. We should embarrass dim shits like Ted stevens and Conrad Burns for preaching fiscal conservativism while larding up on pork.

I think this would be a good project for Fox. You already have a bought-and-paid-for openly conservative, no-pretence to neutrality, anti-big-government-unless-its-us television network. Why not use it for good?