The Special Election
How I'm voting on some of the props:
Prop 74: Yes. This is the one that changes public school teachers probationary period from 2 years to 5 years. Let me start by devil's advocating against this: it's being dishonestly sold as lengthening the time it takes teachers to receive "tenure." Public school teachers do not receive tenure, as we know it. It's much closer to a probationary period in a private sector job, although teachers still have a right to be told the reasons for dismissal, and a right to a hearing if they are fired before the end of the period. They can also have their annual contract not renewed during this period (a seperate idea from being terminated during the school year), with no explanation necessary or appeal granted. This sounds like a great arrangement if you believe principals only fire teachers for doing a bad job, and a horrible arrangement if you believe all teachers are competent and try their best.
Having said all that, I know from experience and anecdote how difficult it is to get rid of a public employee who doesn't want to go. And I know how bad some of the public school teachers are, and how important it is to have good teachers. So the pros outweigh the cons for me here. I also see this as a legitimate use of the initiative process, since union pressure makes something like this virtually impossible to push through the legislation.
Prop 75: Hell No! This is a union-busting law, no two ways about it. Requires union employees to give the OK to have their dues go toward political campaigning. In other words, an attempt by Republicans to strip political power from their opponents. Plain and simple. I was against this even before the LA Weekly pointed out that "These workers currently can opt out of paying their union to do political lobbying and campaigning. Under Proposition 75, they would have to opt in." I love how the campaign ads for this measure have union employees saying "It's not fair for my money to go to causes I don't believe in." The only causes and candidates unions are supporting are ones that benefit the workers! That's their whole fucking purpose! When Arnold wants to pass a law that would require shareholders to sign off on having a corporation's money go to political campaigns, let me know.
Prop 76: No. Honestly, after listening to a debate on this, I'm pretty neutral about it. I don't think it's the disaster that liberals have made it out to be, nor the important fix that its supporters say. But it does seem to favor "efficiency" over democracy and cooperation, and give too much power to the governor. I also think strong leadership can accomplish what this bill accomplishes anyway. So, no.
Prop 77: Yes. This is the change in the redistricting process, and even most of the opponents of this bill agree that it would be a huge improvement over the politicized process we have now. This is also a legit use of the referendum process, since no way would a bill like this get through the legislation process. Here's a good argument in favor from Jill Stewart. Here's an argument against, from State Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg: Then, of course there is the redrawing of district election lines. No state uses retired judges. In fact almost all of them do it the way we in California currently do it. That is the legislature, with the signature of the Governor, writes a plan every ten years. Both sides have to agree. When they cannot agree, a lawsuit puts it into court, and then an active judge will make the changes necessary to make it fair. Think about retired judges. Currently almost all of them are going to be Anglo males, largely drawn from the men appointed by Governors Wilson and Deukmejian. This does not sound "non-partisan" to me.
Prop 78: No.
Prop 79: Yes. These are the two prescription drug bills, but Prop 79 seems to be the better version. I mean, come on: if pharmecutical companies are spending this much to advertise Prop 78, it must mean something.
Prop 80: I really don't know much about this, but for the time being, yes. This is a re-regulation of the electrical utilities. To be fair, the most disastrous problems we had with the utilities in California in recent years were not purely because of deregulation, but because of an unworkable hybrid of regulation and privatization, but I'm generally of the opinion that electrical utilities are not the sort of industry that deregulation works for (and privatization is overrated anyway).
That leaves prop 73, which I'm undecided on. It requires parental notification for minors to get abortions. My initial instinct is to be against this, but I don't know...a minor can't get any other medical procedure done without parental consent, nor should they. I can think of cases where circumventing the parent would be desirable, but they seem more like exceptions than rules. So, still thinking on this one.
Prop 74: Yes. This is the one that changes public school teachers probationary period from 2 years to 5 years. Let me start by devil's advocating against this: it's being dishonestly sold as lengthening the time it takes teachers to receive "tenure." Public school teachers do not receive tenure, as we know it. It's much closer to a probationary period in a private sector job, although teachers still have a right to be told the reasons for dismissal, and a right to a hearing if they are fired before the end of the period. They can also have their annual contract not renewed during this period (a seperate idea from being terminated during the school year), with no explanation necessary or appeal granted. This sounds like a great arrangement if you believe principals only fire teachers for doing a bad job, and a horrible arrangement if you believe all teachers are competent and try their best.
Having said all that, I know from experience and anecdote how difficult it is to get rid of a public employee who doesn't want to go. And I know how bad some of the public school teachers are, and how important it is to have good teachers. So the pros outweigh the cons for me here. I also see this as a legitimate use of the initiative process, since union pressure makes something like this virtually impossible to push through the legislation.
Prop 75: Hell No! This is a union-busting law, no two ways about it. Requires union employees to give the OK to have their dues go toward political campaigning. In other words, an attempt by Republicans to strip political power from their opponents. Plain and simple. I was against this even before the LA Weekly pointed out that "These workers currently can opt out of paying their union to do political lobbying and campaigning. Under Proposition 75, they would have to opt in." I love how the campaign ads for this measure have union employees saying "It's not fair for my money to go to causes I don't believe in." The only causes and candidates unions are supporting are ones that benefit the workers! That's their whole fucking purpose! When Arnold wants to pass a law that would require shareholders to sign off on having a corporation's money go to political campaigns, let me know.
Prop 76: No. Honestly, after listening to a debate on this, I'm pretty neutral about it. I don't think it's the disaster that liberals have made it out to be, nor the important fix that its supporters say. But it does seem to favor "efficiency" over democracy and cooperation, and give too much power to the governor. I also think strong leadership can accomplish what this bill accomplishes anyway. So, no.
Prop 77: Yes. This is the change in the redistricting process, and even most of the opponents of this bill agree that it would be a huge improvement over the politicized process we have now. This is also a legit use of the referendum process, since no way would a bill like this get through the legislation process. Here's a good argument in favor from Jill Stewart. Here's an argument against, from State Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg: Then, of course there is the redrawing of district election lines. No state uses retired judges. In fact almost all of them do it the way we in California currently do it. That is the legislature, with the signature of the Governor, writes a plan every ten years. Both sides have to agree. When they cannot agree, a lawsuit puts it into court, and then an active judge will make the changes necessary to make it fair. Think about retired judges. Currently almost all of them are going to be Anglo males, largely drawn from the men appointed by Governors Wilson and Deukmejian. This does not sound "non-partisan" to me.
Prop 78: No.
Prop 79: Yes. These are the two prescription drug bills, but Prop 79 seems to be the better version. I mean, come on: if pharmecutical companies are spending this much to advertise Prop 78, it must mean something.
Prop 80: I really don't know much about this, but for the time being, yes. This is a re-regulation of the electrical utilities. To be fair, the most disastrous problems we had with the utilities in California in recent years were not purely because of deregulation, but because of an unworkable hybrid of regulation and privatization, but I'm generally of the opinion that electrical utilities are not the sort of industry that deregulation works for (and privatization is overrated anyway).
That leaves prop 73, which I'm undecided on. It requires parental notification for minors to get abortions. My initial instinct is to be against this, but I don't know...a minor can't get any other medical procedure done without parental consent, nor should they. I can think of cases where circumventing the parent would be desirable, but they seem more like exceptions than rules. So, still thinking on this one.
posted by Chris Oliver at 8:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home