Tuesday Nov 8th, Cal Votes No to Ahnold 74,75,76,77

...while Warren Beatty upsatges Ahnold at his event:

Quote:

source

0 Replies

For those not familiar with Props 74, 75, 76 & 77:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=20451188-1cb5-4da4-b9b1-ed77fb7a688f

0 Replies

Here's a better (more detailed explanation):

http://realclearpolitics.com/Congressional/CA_Spc_05.html

0 Replies

The probolem with populist politicos is lack of substance. Be it Jesse the Ventura or Arnold or Kinky of Texas, they all end up being a waste of time (not a bad idea in and of itself) but they always run on a message of "the world of politics is corrup so for me me, I'm not a politician" and they're right, they aren't a politician, they don't know how to get anything done but the problems of running a society keep piling up while they fiddle faddle around trying to maintain their popularity. It's a lot like "boy that electrician really messed up wiring your house, but I'm a plumber so let me fix your wiring" you end up with hot water coming through your t.v. set.

0 Replies

Ahnold is no populist. In fact, he is the antithesis of a populist, unless one defines populist as one who upholds the desires of special interest groups and corporations over those of the people.

0 Replies

NO on Proposition 74: The "Blame Teachers Act"

This measure would do nothing to improve public education or deal with the real problems facing our schools. It unfairly attempts to blame teachers for the problems in our public schools, ignoring the realities of underfunding, overcrowding, and the lack of materials and resources needed for effective teaching and learning. If this measure passes, new teachers would serve a 5-year probationary period rather than the current two years, and would lose the right to even have a fair hearing on their dismissal for a full 5 years. Current law already allows for firing teachers who are not performing in the classroom, no matter how long they've been on the job.

Read News and Blog Posts about Proposition 74

Endorsements

The Facts

Proposition 74 is unnecessary.

There is already a system in place to fire teachers who are not performing in the classroom. Existing law allows teachers to be fired for unsatisfactory performance, unprofessional conduct, criminal acts, dishonesty and conduct unfit for association with children, no matter how long they've been on the job.

It is unnecessary because even now, no teacher has a guaranteed job. This proposition is misleading about how teachers' jobs work. Right now, after two years, all that teachers get is the right to a hearing before they are fired.

And this proposition is unnecessary because it is so poorly drafted that it will actually make it more difficult to get rid of teachers who are not doing their job.

Proposition 74 is ineffective.

It is ineffective because it does nothing to improve student learning or deal with the real problems facing our schools. It won't reduce class sizes, buy up-to-date textbooks for students, or provide quality teacher training. Furthermore, it would increase administrative expenses, costing school districts tens of millions of dollars to implement.

Recently education experts at Stanford University said that they know of no evidence to show that lengthening the probation period for new teachers has any impact on student achievement or teacher quality. Instead of punishing teachers, we should focus on proven reforms such as providing mentoring programs and quality training for new teachers.

Governor Schwarzenegger promised real education reform, but instead he offers us Proposition 74 while he cuts billions of dollars in funding to our schools.

Finally, Proposition 74 is unfair.

This proposition unfairly singles out teachers as the problem in our public schools, when many classrooms are badly under funded and students are denied the basic resources they need to learn.

It is unfair to teachers because it takes away their right to a hearing before they are fired. It doesn't solve the problems facing our schools, but creates new ones by driving good teachers away.

And this proposition is unfair because it extends a teacher's probation period to five years, longer than all but one other state in the country! This will make it even more difficult to recruit and retain high-quality teachers in California.

San Francisco Chronicle editorial writer, Louis Freedberg said Proposition 74 "makes no sense at all." I wholeheartedly agree with him! At a time when we will need more than 100,000 new teachers to meet the needs of our students over the next decade, it makes no sense to enact a law that will guarantee that we will never have enough qualified teachers to meet the demand.

If we truly care about education reform, this poorly crafted, nonsensical, short-sighted proposition must be defeated. I trust you will join with me and vote no on Proposition 74.

0 Replies

ditorial: No on Proposition 75
Union dues measure is politics at its worst

Published 2:15 am PDT Thursday, October 13, 2005
Story appeared in Editorials section, Page B8
One morning recently, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal peered down from the heights, surveyed the California special election ballot, espied Proposition 75 and proclaimed, "There is no more important election this year."

The editorial board of that publication is not known for its devotion to California's public interest. So when it pays such attention to affairs here, voters are entitled to wonder, "What's that all about?"

The answer is simple: Proposition 75, which appears on the November special election ballot, is the latest expression of a national drive by conservatives to diminish the power of unions. Some previous efforts, such as Proposition 226 (which California voters rejected in 1998) were scattershot attempts to defang all unions. This time around, the aim is limited to unions representing California's public employees.

It will come as no surprise to regular readers that this page often finds fault with the agendas and tactics of California's public employee unions. These powerful unions are one cause of many of the problems that afflict both state and local governments and make the state essentially ungovernable.

But the actions of these unions are only one cause. California's woes - its debt, its crushing pension obligations, its crumbling roads, its inadequate public schools, its inability to act on even the most pressing needs - are the result of a relentless, take-no-prisoners competition between interest groups. In this political culture, the pursuit of narrow interests - ideological purity; the protection or exploitation of a resource or of a segment of the population; simple greed - dominate. The public interest is an afterthought, when it is thought of at all.

Proposition 75 is an example of this culture in action. Proponents of this measure claim it protects individual rights - which is arguably in the public interest - by requiring that public employee unions gain the explicit permission of members before spending their money for political purposes. But it's hard to believe it's really about that. Public employees already have the right to opt out of political contributions; in California, tens of thousands of them do so every year.

So what is Proposition 75 really about? It is a simple power play, aimed at diminishing the power of these unions, or at least delivering them a stinging public rebuke.

Whether the measure would have any lasting impact on the unions' power is open to question. Similar restrictions in other states initially have sharply reduced the number of members who contribute to political funds, but those numbers have tended to grow over time. And, as in other states' measures, loopholes in Proposition 75 are likely to allow unions to find ways around the law.

Even if Proposition 75 were guaranteed to reduce the political funds at unions' disposal, however, it would not improve the state's political system, any more than another act of retribution by either side is likely to create a civil society in Northern Ireland. What its passage most likely would accomplish would be to set off a frenzied effort by the unions and their supporters to regain lost ground or at least to inflict a similar public indignity on their adversaries. That would make what California politics needs most - a functional political center, dedicated to the public interest - even harder to attain.

If Proposition 75 were a broad measure, thoughtfully drafted and aimed at limiting both the power of unions and of corporate interests, it would merit enthusiastic support.

That's not what it is, though. Instead, it is a slap aimed at one side in the state's political wars.

Real improvements in the state's political life will require changes across the spectrum. It's tempting - oh, is it tempting! - to deliver such a slap to the public employee unions. But Californians should resist the temptation and hold out for reforms that actually change the state's politics for the better.

Special election endorsements
Oct. 9: No on Prop. 74 and 76; Yes on Prop. 77

Oct. 11: No on Prop. 73

Oct. 12: No on Prop. 80

Today: No on Prop. 75

Oct. 15: Props. 78 & 79 (Drug discounts)

To read previous editorials, go to www.sacbee.com/content/opinion

0 Replies

NO on Proposition 76: The "Cuts School Funding Act"

This measure would devastate our public schools and other vital services, cutting school funding by over $4 billion every year - $600 per student, leading to more overcrowded classrooms, teacher layoffs, and fewer textbooks and classroom materials. Our schools lost two billion dollars when Governor Schwarzenegger broke his promise to repay the money he took from education, and if this initiative passes, the Governor will never have to repay that money to our schools. It also overturns the voter-approved Proposition 98, eliminating the minimum funding guarantee for education. It also cuts funding for local government -- cutting police and firefighters, as well as local health care services that protect children and the elderly. This initiative hurts our most vulnerable populations including the sick, the elderly and the young.

Read News and Blog Posts about Proposition 76

Endorsements

The Facts

Proposition 76, or as we call it, the "Cut School Funding Act," slashes funding for our public schools, cutting nearly $4 billion every year, or $600 per student. It even overturns the voter-approved Proposition 98, eliminating the minimum funding guarantee for education.

This will lead to more overcrowded classrooms, teacher layoffs, and fewer textbooks and classroom materials.

It also cuts funding for cities and counties, cutting police and firefighters, as well as local health care that protects children and the elderly. That means fewer police on the streets and fewer firefighters able to respond to emergencies.

These local government cuts mean that community clinics relying on county funds could be forced to shut down, and that county hospitals would also be more at-risk for closing.

This initiative would also cap spending on voter-approved programs like the early childhood programs that are already paid for with the tobacco tax. This could mean cuts to local pre-school and child health programs.

This initiative also undermines our democratic system of checks and balances by giving the governor awesome new powers without any oversight.

Under this initiative, the Governor could declare a "fiscal emergency" and cut funding for vital services like education, health care, fire and police without approval from anyone else.

Even if you trust this Governor, who knows what future governors will do with this power.

And this initiative does nothing to prevent tax hikes. In fact, if it passes, the Governor and Legislature are free to raise car taxes, income taxes or property taxes at their will. Even the California Republican Assembly says that this initiative "actually encourages tax increases."

CALIFORNIANS CAN'T AFFORD PROPOSITION 76. It would devastate our public schools, health care, fire and police. It attacks our system of checks and balances. And it opens the door to higher taxes. Vote No on Prop. 76

0 Replies

Prop 77 is opposed by respected government reformers and a broad coalition of citizens' groups.

We believe that giving one set of politicians more power over another set of politicians is not an acceptable reason to change the Constitution.

Prop 77 was put on the ballot by politicians who want to change the rules to give themselves more power.

They want to hand over redistricting to three unelected and unaccountable retired judges. But redistricting California, a diverse state of 37 million people, is too big and too important for just three unaccountable people.

Before voting on Prop 77, ask yourself:

* Why did proponents write Prop 77 so that new redistricting maps to go into effect before voters have a chance to vote on them?
* Why did proponents write Prop 77 so new district maps would be drawn using old census data from 5 years ago?
* Why did proponents write Prop 77 to eliminate the Constitutional guarantee that geographic communities of interest must be protected in any redistricting?
* How will Prop 77 judges be independent from the politicians who choose them for the job?

Prop 77 is about one set of politicians taking political power from another. California's Constitution is not the place for political games.

Vote NO on Prop 77.

Printer-friendly Version

Contribute
Click here to make a donation.

News / Press
Click here for the latest press releases.

League of Women Voters independent analysis calls Prop 77 a "harmful, misguided attempt to achieve reform."

California elections officials say Prop 77's mid-decade redistricting "poses serious risks to the accuracy and viability" of next June's election.

NALEO Opposes Proposition 77's Proposed Unrepresentative and Flawed Redistricting Process: Ballot measure would initiate rushed redistricting without meaningful opportunity for public participation. Read more...

0 Replies

Well, if Harper is against it, it must be a good idea and beneficial for all Californians. Even though I know little about it, I hope they all pass.

0 Replies

Quote:

This Time, Schwarzenegger May Not Get a Hollywood Ending

By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: November 7, 2005

LOS ANGELES, Nov. 6 - A startling change has come over California's larger-than-life governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, as voters prepare to head to the polls on Tuesday for an unpopular statewide election. His television advertisements have taken on an uncharacteristic tone of humility. And ordinary people, no longer awed by his Olympian persona, are openly challenging him in public.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Monica Almeida/The New York Times

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California has been pushing four measures that will be on the state's special election ballot on Tuesday.
Monica Almeida/The New York Times

Opponents of the initiatives appeared at an event in Torrance.

The four ballot measures Mr. Schwarzenegger supports are trailing in the polls, and his re-election prospects next year appear, for now, to be dimming. His approval ratings are in a tailspin, and his stage presence has been drained of much of its bombast and bluster.

At a televised forum here last week, with audience members picked to represent a cross-section of voters, several questioners interrupted Mr. Schwarzenegger and accused him of distorting facts to sell the four ballot measures, which are among eight up for a vote in an election ordered specially by the governor.

Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, was explaining Proposition 75, a measure he favors that would require public-employee unions to receive the written permission of members before their dues could be used for political campaigns.

Democrats and union leaders who oppose the proposition have called it a naked attempt to silence the unions' political voice. The governor says the proposition is about protecting workers' paychecks.

An audience member who gave his name as Chris Robeson and said he was a health care worker from Camarillo angrily cut the governor off. "That's just Rovian spin," Mr. Robeson said, referring to Karl Rove, the White House political guru. "That's fraudulent."

Such bald impertinence would have been unthinkable a year ago, when Mr. Schwarzenegger was riding high in the polls and rolling over the opposition. But political missteps and unending battles with Democrats in the California Legislature and the public-employee unions have taken their toll. The governor seems chastened for the first time in his public life.

He no longer refers to members of the Legislature as "girlie men" and does not talk about "kicking their butts" anymore. He does not even appear in many of the advertisements for his initiatives, letting others speak for him.

This weekend, as Mr. Schwarzenegger toured Southern California on a bus in a final pitch, he was hounded by opponents, including the actors Warren Beatty and Annette Bening, in a bus dubbed the Truth Squad.

One television advertisement in which Mr. Schwarzenegger does appear is particularly startling to those who have followed the arc of his career from champion bodybuilder to action movie star to Governator. He looks straight into the camera and reminds voters that they elected him to clean up state government and put California back on track.

Then he says: "I've had a lot to learn, and sometimes I learned the hard way. But my heart is in this, and I want to do right by you."

His humble approach appears intended to assuage election-weary voters who will go to the polls on Tuesday for the third time in 20 months to vote on proposed laws and constitutional amendments, doing for themselves what in most democracies is done by elected representatives.

In addition to deciding on the union dues measure, voters will determine who will draw legislative district boundaries, how much budget power to give the governor and whether to enact new rules governing the probationary period for new teachers.

Also on the ballot are measures on parental notification for teenagers seeking abortions and the regulation of electric utilities, and competing measures for discounts on prescription drugs.

The special election is a symptom of the partisan gridlock in Sacramento, where the Republican governor and the Democrat-dominated Legislature and its union backers agree on almost nothing.

The campaign has generated more than $225 million in campaign donations, most of them from unions and drug companies seeking to kill measures they disapprove of. The governor's campaign is financed chiefly by business interests, including real estate developers, technology executives, auto dealers, agribusinesses, insurance companies and Wal-Mart heirs.

The airwaves have been saturated with advertising for weeks. Mr. Schwarzenegger has been stumping the state nonstop for the past month, playing largely to small partisan crowds.

National political figures, including Senators John McCain of Arizona and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, have visited the state to urge voters to support or oppose the ballot measures. Mr. McCain accompanied Mr. Schwarzenegger on part of his bus tour on Saturday, speaking out in favor of Proposition 77, a plan to transfer redistricting power from the Legislature to a panel of retired judges.

The total price of the election, including the roughly $50 million cost of conducting the vote itself, is likely to top $300 million, an amount that 13 years ago could have financed an entire national presidential campaign.

Despite - or perhaps because of - the ceaseless advertising, voters appear only mildly interested in the election and inclined to defeat most if not all of the measures, according to polls released last week. Officials estimate that about 40 percent of eligible voters will show up.

"Have we got ballot fatigue?" asked Leon E. Panetta, the former Democratic California congressman and White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. "No kidding."

This campaign is Mr. Schwarzenegger's third statewide election since he won office in a wild recall election two years ago. He is following much the same script as in previous campaigns, a Hollywood-style melodrama pitting the self-styled people's governor against what he calls the union bosses and special interests.

He was successful the first time out, in March 2004, winning voter approval of two measures to address the state's budget deficit. A year ago, with the help of tens of millions of dollars from high-technology entrepreneurs, Hollywood personalities and medical research groups, Mr. Schwarzenegger was able to win approval for a $3 billion stem cell research institute.

In fall 2004 he also helped persuade voters to reject two initiatives that would have expanded Indian gambling in California and one to soften the state's tough three-strikes sentencing law.

But this time the governor's pitch does not appear to be working. All four initiatives Mr. Schwarzenegger has endorsed are trailing in public polls, although one is fairly close: a measure to increase to five years from two the probationary period before public school teachers can win union-protected tenure.

A poll by the independent Field Research Corporation of San Francisco found that the governor's call for a special election made voters less inclined to vote for his re-election next year. As of late October, only 36 percent of registered voters said they would support his re-election, the Field poll found. Fifty-five percent said they would not vote for him.

The governor's aides acknowledge that his popularity has plummeted in the past year, but they attribute it to a relentless drumbeat of negative advertising financed by his union foes.

"A $120 million smear campaign is going to have an impact against anybody," said Todd Harris, a senior Schwarzenegger adviser. He said the attacks would not deter Mr. Schwarzenegger from seeking re-election, nor would the governor be swayed if his initiatives were defeated on Tuesday.

"The worse we do, the more he'll want to run again," Mr. Harris said. "This is not a guy who goes out when he's down."

source

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Well, if Harper is against it, it must be a good idea and beneficial for all Californians. Even though I know little about it, I hope they all pass.

Took me a while to figure out the "Harper" reference LOL. Now that I have, I agree 100%.

0 Replies

There are a lot of props on the table tomorrow. I agree with most of you...I am not in favor of many of the props coming to ballot. However, I'm still up in the air on several. I don't really know enough about 80 at this point. On the other hand, I have been reading a lot of information about 78/79 in the news these days. I have to admit that I disagree, I think that 78 is actually the best bet out of these two props. Based on history, we see that props like 79 are extremely difficult to get past the courts and the implementation is usually delayed. I personally would rather have some kind of discount plan out there to at least offer immediate relief for low income families. From there we can build apon it. And I do think the drug companies will honor their word on 78, because they're so set against a plan like 79.

Just my opinion. How long do you think it will take until the results of the ballots are determined?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Well, if Harper is against it, it must be a good idea and beneficial for all Californians. Even though I know little about it, I hope they all pass.

Makes sense to me.

0 Replies

Why is this man not smiling?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/11/07/national/07arnold.1841.jpg

Props 74,75,76,77 going down.

0 Replies

haha...good pic. Any word on how the votes are going today? What does it look like for 78/79?

0 Replies

I voted, have to wait for the polls to close to start counting.

0 Replies

Tuesday Nov 8th, Cal Votes No to Ahnold 74,75,76,77

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know