Californians......Vote NO on 30........and YES on 32!!! PLEASE!!!

[redgtxdi]

You clearly didnt read it.

Shocking.

I take it back. I was looking for more than a one liner in the article but it actually does mention prop 13. Laughably so, but it does. (and, yes, I read thru it quickly the first time)

Jerry Brown was governor when Californians passed Proposition 13, ostensibly an anti-tax measure but in reality a fundamental constitutional change with vast, and mostly unforeseen, consequences. It led to hundreds of ballot measures as citizens increasingly legislated directly and in tense competition with their own representatives.

It mentions "mostly unforeseen consequences" and goes on to mention exactly none of them. California pays the 10th highest property tax IN THE UNION!!! Would 9th make it better? First maybe?

When I argue against the tax and spenders or the pro union crowd I remind them (again, ref fact sheet) that there is PLENTY of water going into the bucket that represents our state's budget but there are too many holes and many of those too large, in the bottom of the bucket that the liberal left, the unions and Jerry Brown himself (who is also labeled as the responsible party for the influx of propositions in your paper thin article, btw) don't want to address.

Here's a good read for ya.......(along with almost anything David Crane's written in the last year regarding California's budget woes).......

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2117244,00.html
.
.
.
.

 

[rockyct]

I'm trying to find that verbage in the proposition & not having much luck.

Just because I call unionization of public sector employees criminal (and *I* feel that way because PSU's don't rely on profits, they rely on taxpayers) doesn't define the proposition itself. Nor does this proposition winning imply that unions are crippled.........UNLESS...........you're admitting that they pocket politicians for their own agenda.

Is this where we all start trying to figure out which union you steward?

Tell me where it limits special interest group funding propositions like these? Or should we guess which radical conservative group you're a part of? You have extreme views of unions exactly like the people bank rolling this proposition. It's quite understandable to blend you in with them.

Not really, they spend money on things I don't support. I don't mind giving them money for barganing, but not for political things that have nothing to do with the union or for things I do not support.

So because I want to work for a job that has the union, that gives the union a right to take my money as they please for what ever they want. It is disgusting that you can't see what is wrong with that.

You chose to be in an industry that was unionized. You knew unions spend money to protect their interests and you know there is a mechanism for them not to spend your money on political purposes. The same people who tried to take away union rights in Wisconsin are trying to weaken unions here. Even if you don't believe it, your union is trying to protect your job from people who want to cripple unions in this country.

I will be voting Yes on Prop 32. I went through my fair share of shitty California teachers. I've seen them do things worthy of being fired only to be forced to resign instead, popping up a city or two over teaching again. I've seen year after year as the CTU exploits us tax payers by screaming "FOR THE CHILDREN". Sure the CTU does some good, but they no longer serve the purpose it was designed for. It's now used to suck us tax payers dry and control our Government to keep up the scam. Fuck you and all those that support 32.

The teacher's union isn't trying to grab more money, or to completely stop teacher firing. They generally want to keep the benefits they have but are willing to work to weed out the bad teachers. The people paying for this proposition want to essentially de-unionize our schools either by crippling the unions directly or by increasing attendance in charter schools using non-union teachers. That is the end game here. I'm not a teacher but many of my friends are. I was lucky enough to have many excellent teachers, some average, but none who deserve to be fired. I want teaching to remain a good job for people.

 

[bfdd]

you say they are, but that's not what I see. I see their paid lackeys fighting for them to get more money, to raise taxes on me and everyone else. I do not see them trying to be more efficient at their job, I do not see children coming out of school better than they were 20 years ago. That simply is bullshit. They deserve not one single more cent in their budget and if anything they deserve to have their budget stripped back. Make do with less, stop asking for more you whiny children.

 

[redgtxdi]

Nobody said it stops anyone from forging a proposition. That's kind of the important part of democracy. It stops anyone from putting a state officer in their pocket or tying marionette strings to their limbs!

We get it. You're pro union and you think teachers are doing a great job no matter how badly the statistics show otherwise.

You miss the part where nobody here even *says* that they *need* to be fired, but presume it anyway, and don't identify with the fact that after their uber-short tenure as teachers, they damn near *can't* be fired and that's a problem on its face!!

The money grab is absolute. It's specifically about teacher's black hole pension obligations with are mathematically impossible to fund anyway, no matter how much taxation Browndoggle imposes and steering the ship is the behemoth known as the teacher's union that would just as soon make Jerry their personal hand puppet than give up the power to suck as much money as they can out of the state's taxpayers.......

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_california-teachers-association.html

So you go ahead & put your absentee ballot in the mail & hope for the best for your teacher friends.

The best part about every Browndoggle-style move Jerry & the unions makes ( that would be a great band name wouldn't it? Probably get tomatoes thrown at you every night) is that if they succeed in their attempt to NOT change what they're doing, they will simply run the state bankrupt. (Heck, the PSU pensions will do that mathematically all by themselves) And then us ultra-whacko conservative extremists folks ( ) can watch as the judges open collective bargaining agreements and shred contracts to the tune of .25% of what your teachers made in the first place and they can try & restart their unions from scratch. (Doubt they'll wanna at that point).

It's actually a bit of a win/win, I'm simply hoping that Californians can exercise some sanity as an option to that alternative.

 

[DCal430]

You chose to be in an industry that was unionized. You knew unions spend money to protect their interests and you know there is a mechanism for them not to spend your money on political purposes. The same people who tried to take away union rights in Wisconsin are trying to weaken unions here. Even if you don't believe it, your union is trying to protect your job from people who want to cripple unions in this country.

No I didn't. Their was no notice that the Unions could take my money for what they want when they want. FYI the money isn't for the protection of the union, is for political causes that I do not support. I shouldn't have to give money to politician to get a job, you clearly lack any morals if you don't see that.

 

[bfdd]

No I didn't. Their was no notice that the Unions could take my money for what they want when they want. FYI the money isn't for the protection of the union, is for political causes that I do not support. I shouldn't have to give money to politician to get a job, you clearly lack any morals if you don't see that.

Also, he's basically admitting that there is a monopoly on education here in California and as we know MONOPOLIES ARE BAD. So time to break it up amirite DCal?

 

[rockyct]

you say they are, but that's not what I see. I see their paid lackeys fighting for them to get more money, to raise taxes on me and everyone else. I do not see them trying to be more efficient at their job, I do not see children coming out of school better than they were 20 years ago. That simply is bullshit. They deserve not one single more cent in their budget and if anything they deserve to have their budget stripped back. Make do with less, stop asking for more you whiny children.

I don't see CA teachers striking for higher money. I don't see them spending money trying to gain more influence with propositions. They like their status quo but others seem to try to tear that apart as much as they can.

 

[rockyct]

Nobody said it stops anyone from forging a proposition. That's kind of the important part of democracy. It stops anyone from putting a state officer in their pocket or tying marionette strings to their limbs!

We get it. You're pro union and you think teachers are doing a great job no matter how badly the statistics show otherwise.

You miss the part where nobody here even *says* that they *need* to be fired, but presume it anyway, and don't identify with the fact that after their uber-short tenure as teachers, they damn near *can't* be fired and that's a problem on its face!!

The money grab is absolute. It's specifically about teacher's black hole pension obligations with are mathematically impossible to fund anyway, no matter how much taxation Browndoggle imposes and steering the ship is the behemoth known as the teacher's union that would just as soon make Jerry their personal hand puppet than give up the power to suck as much money as they can out of the state's taxpayers.......

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_california-teachers-association.html

So you go ahead & put your absentee ballot in the mail & hope for the best for your teacher friends.

The best part about every Browndoggle-style move Jerry & the unions makes ( that would be a great band name wouldn't it? Probably get tomatoes thrown at you every night) is that if they succeed in their attempt to NOT change what they're doing, they will simply run the state bankrupt. (Heck, the PSU pensions will do that mathematically all by themselves) And then us ultra-whacko conservative extremists folks ( ) can watch as the judges open collective bargaining agreements and shred contracts to the tune of .25% of what your teachers made in the first place and they can try & restart their unions from scratch. (Doubt they'll wanna at that point).

It's actually a bit of a win/win, I'm simply hoping that Californians can exercise some sanity as an option to that alternative.

It's pretty sad to see the happiness at which you want to dismantle good jobs that our middle class so depends on. Our proposition system is a corruption of democracy as it makes it too easy for special interest groups to ram through shady propositions which often aren't even very well written or completely vague. If we want to limit special interest money in CA, let's make all propositions require a super majority to pass.

We've voted down legislation twice before, most likely we're going to do it again.

 

[rockyct]

No I didn't. Their was no notice that the Unions could take my money for what they want when they want. FYI the money isn't for the protection of the union, is for political causes that I do not support. I shouldn't have to give money to politician to get a job, you clearly lack any morals if you don't see that.

Do you think when the unions in WI spent money against Gov. Walker that was for not for protection of their union but just to get their guy in? Their guy didn't even become the Dem nominee for the recall election and yet the unions still spent money/time to try to vote Walker out.

 

[rockyct]

Also, he's basically admitting that there is a monopoly on education here in California and as we know MONOPOLIES ARE BAD. So time to break it up amirite DCal?

We have a mostly socialized education system, but you really want to create a profit motive for K-12 schools?

 

[DCal430]

Do you think when the unions in WI spent money against Gov. Walker that was for not for protection of their union but just to get their guy in? Their guy didn't even become the Dem nominee for the recall election and yet the unions still spent money/time to try to vote Walker out.

You spend political money on a lot of things, much of which have nothing to do with the union, and on things I do not support. Again if I like the politician I would give them money my self, no need for the union to raid my pay check.

 

[Pneumothorax]

I don't see CA teachers striking for higher money. I don't see them spending money trying to gain more influence with propositions. They like their status quo but others seem to try to tear that apart as much as they can.

They reason they don't have to strike, is CTA/SEIU/ETC. PWNS ALL THE STUPID DEMS in Sacramento and does pretty much everything they want without having to strike. This state is a perfect example of one party rule completely controlled by the Unions/Environmentalists/Illegal supporters. Besides a few stupid crumbs that Arnie threw out a few years ago to some Hollywood studios, almost every bill benefits the above 3 and none for the taxpayer. The feckless repubs in Sacramento just make a lot of noise, but are largely ineffectual. The last time we had a budget vote there were only 3 groups in the non-public meetings: The inept governor, Dem senate/assembly leaders, and UNION reps. I don't see anyone there representing the taxpayer.

 

[bfdd]

We have a mostly socialized education system, but you really want to create a profit motive for K-12 schools?

There already is profit motive, motherfuckers want to get paid a "fair" wage. Just now we're forced to participate in it. Plus I believe socialized education was designed as a tool of indoctrination. Having lived through it, the system only re-enforce my beliefs. I would prefer choice and unapologetic profit motive, than sneaky assholes who claim everything is for the children, want to FORCE us to pay them for their "service" bullshit.

 

[rockyct]

There already is profit motive, motherfuckers want to get paid a "fair" wage. Just now we're forced to participate in it. Plus I believe socialized education was designed as a tool of indoctrination. Having lived through it, the system only re-enforce my beliefs. I would prefer choice and unapologetic profit motive, than sneaky assholes who claim everything is for the children, want to FORCE us to pay them for their "service" bullshit.

So why not come out and just say you want to break up the unions and create a ton more charter schools, but at the same time striking yet another blow to the middle class? Quit hiding behind propositions like these that attempt to obfuscate their true nature. Instead of having a debate on that, these people lie and say their true mission is to limit special interest money in politics?

 

[marincounty]

Sorry, I'm voting against 32. Limiting the unions ability to influence elections with money while leaving corporations free to donate unlimited amounts doesn't seem fair does it?
The proposition system is broken in California, allowing out of state money to sway our elections.
And to not recognize the role of Republicans in creating the budget crisis is foolish.
Arnold blowing a hole in the budget with his vehicle license fee cut, the 3 strikes law pushed by righties, no oil severance tax, etc...

 

[Screech]

We have a mostly socialized education system, but you really want to create a profit motive for K-12 schools?

Much better IMHO to create competition at those levels. This does not require profit but would require that the union model as it currently stands would cease to exist. I saw a tv show(shoot me now) a while back about I believe the dutch (maybe it was somewhere else in europe) school system. Each public school would get x amount of money per student who went there but the students (/students parents etc) would be free to choose to what school their kids went. The schools with the lowest attendance rates would get either revamped or axed/dissolved as a result. As such, the schools are competing with each other to do the best job possible; they aren't in it for profit as much as survival.

second edit: back on topic: I won't be voting for any tax increases unless the pension system is completely revamped. The state legislature basically assumed back in the dot com bubble that the state economic growth rate at the height of the bubble would continue into eternity and modeled the payout from the pension system on that growth rate. Needless to say, this is bound for disaster....

 

[redgtxdi]

Sorry, I'm voting against 32. Limiting the unions ability to influence elections with money while leaving corporations free to donate unlimited amounts doesn't seem fair does it?

I'll post this yet again as it seems to need to be pasted on every page.......

http://www.yesprop32.com/downloads/Myth_Facts.pdf?_c=10w2yzbsxq2h2di&sr_t=p

And if of really live in Marin County.....you need it more than me.

 

[DCal430]

Sorry, I'm voting against 32. Limiting the unions ability to influence elections with money while leaving corporations free to donate unlimited amounts doesn't seem fair does it?
The proposition system is broken in California, allowing out of state money to sway our elections.
And to not recognize the role of Republicans in creating the budget crisis is foolish.
Arnold blowing a hole in the budget with his vehicle license fee cut, the 3 strikes law pushed by righties, no oil severance tax, etc...

Unions can still collect unlimited voluntary political donations, they just can't take as they please from my paycheck without my permission.

So tell me how is it fair that unions can take as they please without my permission for political contributions.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Unions can still collect unlimited voluntary political donations, they just can't take as they please from my paycheck without my permission.

So tell me how is it fair that unions can take as they please without my permission for political contributions.

You can tell them to stop doing that now. I don't care if you have to sign a few papers to do it. I'm not hurting the unions ability to have a voice in political elections while allowing corporations to have free reign.

If we do this right everyone gets whacked at the same time.

 

[DCal430]

You can tell them to stop doing that now. I don't care if you have to sign a few papers to do it. I'm not hurting the unions ability to have a voice in political elections while allowing corporations to have free reign.

If we do this right everyone gets whacked at the same time.

1st if I decide not to give them political contributions I can no longer vote.

2nd I must do more than sign a few papers, I must take time off work to hand deliver a personally written letter each year during a very narrow window. Failure to do this means the union has free reign over my money for the whole year.

3rd The union has repeated been caught ignoring these letters, so the letter is no guarantee they won't take your money.

4th the Union will still have a voice it just has to be VOLUNTARY.

FYI if someone wants them to stop taking money tomorrow they can't, it is way outside the narrow window we have.

 

[DCal430]

You can tell them to stop doing that now. I don't care if you have to sign a few papers to do it. I'm not hurting the unions ability to have a voice in political elections while allowing corporations to have free reign.

If we do this right everyone gets whacked at the same time.

You know what is sad, people like this believe false information the unions put out on how it is easy to opt out, and how any one can opt out, but it isn't true at all. These people are voting base on this false information.

 

[woolfe9999]

You know what is sad, people like this believe false information the unions put out on how it is easy to opt out, and how any one can opt out, but it isn't true at all. These people are voting base on this false information.

Sorry, we need real reform, not this. With Citizens United, corporations can give unlimited money from their general treasuries to these super-PACS. Unions could still do it too under prop 32, but their source of funding is drastically reduced. This law would dramatically reduce union money without touching corporate money at all. I don't understand how anyone can support so-called reform that operates in this manner. This "reform" favors the interests of corporations, who represent their owners over those of unions who represent the interests of workers.

I understand what you're saying about not wanting the unions to take money out of your paycheck, and I want to see that end as well. But there is no reform that doesn't go both ways. This is no different that the dems trying to make rules to reign in corporations and exempting unions from those rules. True reform has to be bi-partisan and with the goal of cleaning up the system. It can't be motivated by partisan or special interests or it WILL fail.

- wolf

 

[zinfamous]

I'll post this yet again as it seems to need to be pasted on every page.......

http://www.yesprop32.com/downloads/Myth_Facts.pdf?_c=10w2yzbsxq2h2di&sr_t=p

And if of really live in Marin County.....you need it more than me.

OK, thanks for that.

I was a rather certain "No" on Prop32, but I wanted to track down the sources of the ads, that are always mentioning that big corps are protected by Prop 32.

still need to investigate more, though. Meaning, I just don't feel certain that there is absolutely no exclusion amongst certain lobbyists and such.

 

[Yreka]

Zin, I'm basically in the same boat, but leaning twords Yes.

I'm still trying to understand the argument against prop 32 before I make up my mind.

This is what I'm hearing..

A. It doesn't do enough, it limits unions but not corps

It looks like it limits both ? From what I see, PROP 32 basically prevents ANYONE from forcing people to donate to political causes..

Now, in the unions it seems the dues are their sole means of income whereas corps can draw from profits (or whatever)

So what we are saying here, is since corps have this alternative money available to spend, eliminating the ability of Unions to FORCE people to contribute creates an unfair advantage.. Because of this we should allow this practice to continue. (is this the point or am I missing something?)


B. Bad guys are supporting from OUTSIDE of CA

I dont really give a shit about this TBH.. It was an equally retarded point on the whole prop 8 issue. The "against" campaign wasted time and energy beating the $$ from Mormons in Utah drum. This ( and Gavin Newsome's asshattery) are largely responsible for this horrible prop passing (IMO)

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Sorry, we need real reform, not this. With Citizens United, corporations can give unlimited money from their general treasuries to these super-PACS. Unions could still do it too under prop 32, but their source of funding is drastically reduced. This law would dramatically reduce union money without touching corporate money at all. I don't understand how anyone can support so-called reform that operates in this manner. This "reform" favors the interests of corporations, who represent their owners over those of unions who represent the interests of workers.

I understand what you're saying about not wanting the unions to take money out of your paycheck, and I want to see that end as well. But there is no reform that doesn't go both ways. This is no different that the dems trying to make rules to reign in corporations and exempting unions from those rules. True reform has to be bi-partisan and with the goal of cleaning up the system. It can't be motivated by partisan or special interests or it WILL fail.

- wolf

Exactly. We need real reform, not this half-assed amendment being pushed through by corporations to exert even more control and influence over public elections.

Let's do this right.