Staring down the November 8th special election in California, I am incredibly saddened by the display of dishonest partisan television ads and their effectiveness. Suddenly, all of the reform proposals, 74, 75, 76, 77 are dropping in the polls.
Most of the ads against props 74-77 are paid for by:
Public worker unions.
California's democrat 3rd party fundraising campaigns.
Most of the content of these ads are simple scare tactics with little substance or facts.
Proposition 74 - Putting CA's children first:
I actually downloaded and read the California budget report prior to the recall election during which Schwarzenegger was elected. Most people don't know, but California has a broken budget system where the legislature must spend approx 50 percent of the budget on schools, weather it is spent effectively or not. Recent studies show that class size reductions (to the current extend in California) have no positive effect on student performance. In high school, I had several teachers who regularly drank alcohol during school hours and left class several times a week to take a drink. Don't get me wrong - I had many excellent teachers - some soo good I wish they could have been given super-merit bonuses to postpone retirement. I recall one inspiring teacher of Philosophy - a Mr. Lavezzo who engaged his students soo well that their background and ideology didn't matter to learn.
Proposition 74 is about rolling back the clock on automatic lifetime tenure after only two years as a teacher. Five years of on the job training, with pay and benefits, isn't exactly a torturous period of non-tenured employment. I'm working in the private sector now and guess what - I've never had and likely never will have tenure! Thus, I am forced to consider that my job likely depends on my performance.
Proposition 75 - Paycheck Protection is aptly named.
The anti-75 scare ads are filled with dishonest rhetoric. Prop 75 does one and only one thing: It requires public worker unions of California to get written permission from members to use their union dues for political purposes. Polls show that the majority of workers in these unions support this proposition, but are afraid of retribution if they speak-out. A local teacher wrote the Palo Alto Weekly that their local union bosses left threatening notes in her classroom and mailbox after she publicly supported Prop 75.
What kind of a union threatens a worker simply for expressing a political view?
The answer is clear - the only people who are really opposed to Prop 75 are the union bosses who have spent over one hundred million dollars on ad campaigns against Prop 75. Who should we trust? Polls taken in the unions themselves, or the $100,000,000 ad blitz by the union bosses, without consent of the union populus?
Proposition 76 - Balanced Budget
This is a sneaky proposition, and one that I hope passes as well. It allows, but does not require (if I understand correctly) the governor to reduce line-item spending, if the CA legislators pass a budget that is well over our projected revenue. Using a simple formula based on revenue growth in the previous three years, Prop 76 allows the budget to grow. If the legislators decide to spend without corresponding revenue, the governor (even if not Arnold) has the option to reduce spending to the appropriate level.
Most of the ads against this one are funded by democratic 3rd party fundraising groups, but there is really only one false pretense driving the content of the ads. Virtually every ad against Prop 76 states that the budget for schools will be reduced. This is utter nonsense. In the previous decade, and even in the previous 4 years, the entire state budget including schools has increased significantly. All Prop 76 will do is smooth out the increases so that a sudden inrease in revenus such as the dot-com or biotech booms will not allow the legislators to spend all of the money without using some of it to pay of debts or invest in vital long-term infrastructure such as roads.
The only people who fear Prop 76 are the lifetime incumbant legislators, particularly the democrats, who will no longer have an unliminted budget for their pet pork projects.
Prop 77 - Voter Empowerment Act:
Anyone who lives in California and votes will know that they get approximately zero invites to ever meet their state assembly person or congressional representative. In a state of 40 million people I can understand that they are busy, but why are they never around winning our vote other than during campaign season? I live only a 2 hour drive from Sacramento yet never once in my life (all in CA) has there been a town hall meeting where I had access to my local representitive.
Here's why: California's districts are drawn up artifically by the politicians in Sacramento (on both parties) such that incumbents don't have to do anything to get re-elected.
Of 153 congressional and state election races in November of last year (2004), not a single district changed political party! [sitation from:www.joinarnold.com What kind of democracy is that? These districts are soo out of whack it is unbelievable.
If you think this is a Right vs Left issue, consider this: every major newspaper in the state has endorsed Prop 77. Even the ultra liberal San Francisco Chronicle has endorsed Prop 77! (view at: www.joinarnold.com).
Well, there you have it - every TV argument against Props 74-77 are a scare tactic. We elected Arnold for a reason, and it wasn't to "pump up" the state. It was to reform California and keep our great state strong and healthy. We must act now to pass Propositions 74, 75, 76, and 77.
Please join the millions of Californians who have actually read about the propositions and vote with your head, not because "Judge Whappner" was hired to do an high priced infomercial against Prop 77.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Monday, January 03, 2005
Conversation with two Canadians and a socialist
This weekend I had the distinct pleasure of discussing tsunami aid with two Canadians and a socialist. The conversation went something like this:
[all paraphrased]
me: Did you know private individuals have given over $12 Million dollars at Amazon.com?
them: Yeah well, the US started out with less money than the inauguration will cost.
me: WTF does that have to do with it? Monetary aid from the US has increased tenfold, and we immediately sent a carrier battle group and a secondary ship group with urgent supplies, personell, and aircraft to deliver them to the hardest hit areas.
them: The US is stingy, after all - they give far less per GDP than other countries. Japan is giving $500 Million
me: You have to be kidding me, right? Japan has the modern luxury of having it's seas patrolled by the US, while avoiding the cost of a military. Tell me, how much of that $500 Million has already been given? Has Japan actually delivered anything?
Basically - you get the idea. The rest of the conversation was "inauguration this", "bush on vacation that", rinse, repeat. When confronted with the idea that the US - including public and private money will be the largest monetary giver, and already is the largest military-aid rending giver, they still repeated anti-Bush vitriol.
How have people, no - sheeple (thanks to Michael Savage), become soo blind to the truth. Leftists would rather believe something bad about President Bush than do something good for the relief efforts. Of the three people I had this conversation with, two have brand new cars purchased in the last year. I have an 11 year old car purchased from my family. I had already made my first donation to the relief efforts, and will give more if it looks like it is needed. They had given nothing, but were happy to spew forth silly quotes from the lefties about the US being bad.
Back to the start of the conversation. I didn't mention the US, USA, citizenry, etc. I mentioned how cool it was that one of the online retailers made most of it's front-page a donation button, and had collected soo much money in such a short period of time. That's it - nothing political, just wow - cool, people are giving and companies are trying to do the right thing. For leftist, this is not a good thing. People giving to charity undermines the socialist agenda of a government controlling everything. People giving to charity when needed, and focused on a specific need undermines the idea of giving 100% of the fruit of your labor to someone else to decide what to do with. The socialists have lost - human beings can decide for themselves when to keep and when to give.
[all paraphrased]
me: Did you know private individuals have given over $12 Million dollars at Amazon.com?
them: Yeah well, the US started out with less money than the inauguration will cost.
me: WTF does that have to do with it? Monetary aid from the US has increased tenfold, and we immediately sent a carrier battle group and a secondary ship group with urgent supplies, personell, and aircraft to deliver them to the hardest hit areas.
them: The US is stingy, after all - they give far less per GDP than other countries. Japan is giving $500 Million
me: You have to be kidding me, right? Japan has the modern luxury of having it's seas patrolled by the US, while avoiding the cost of a military. Tell me, how much of that $500 Million has already been given? Has Japan actually delivered anything?
Basically - you get the idea. The rest of the conversation was "inauguration this", "bush on vacation that", rinse, repeat. When confronted with the idea that the US - including public and private money will be the largest monetary giver, and already is the largest military-aid rending giver, they still repeated anti-Bush vitriol.
How have people, no - sheeple (thanks to Michael Savage), become soo blind to the truth. Leftists would rather believe something bad about President Bush than do something good for the relief efforts. Of the three people I had this conversation with, two have brand new cars purchased in the last year. I have an 11 year old car purchased from my family. I had already made my first donation to the relief efforts, and will give more if it looks like it is needed. They had given nothing, but were happy to spew forth silly quotes from the lefties about the US being bad.
Back to the start of the conversation. I didn't mention the US, USA, citizenry, etc. I mentioned how cool it was that one of the online retailers made most of it's front-page a donation button, and had collected soo much money in such a short period of time. That's it - nothing political, just wow - cool, people are giving and companies are trying to do the right thing. For leftist, this is not a good thing. People giving to charity undermines the socialist agenda of a government controlling everything. People giving to charity when needed, and focused on a specific need undermines the idea of giving 100% of the fruit of your labor to someone else to decide what to do with. The socialists have lost - human beings can decide for themselves when to keep and when to give.
US Stingy? I don't think so. UN useless? Yup.
As an American, and as a human being, I am outraged at the audacity of the UN secretary who labelled the US "stingy" in terms of aid to the tsunami relief efforts.
Reading news sites, UN press releases, and blogs such as the excellent: http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/, the picture is clear: The US is very generous, effective, and immediate in rendering aid - anywhere in the world. The UN is burocratic, ineffective, and useless when it comes to providing aid - emergency or otherwise.
Simple facts / ideas that summarize my opinion:
1. The UN has failed, now a week after the tsunami, to provide aid in serious quantity beyond the scope of it's already existing 'developmental' projects in the region.
2. The UN has attempted to stop aid from flowing freely from the US, India, Japan, and Australia - with the purpose of making itself look useful as a 'coordinator'.
3. The United States of America has sent a carrier battle group, along with other ship groups to provide upwards of 65,000 gallons of fresh water daily, along with supplies, medics, hospital-ships, engineers, and US enlisted men ready to volunteer for the task of providing aid to the tsunami victims.
4. Private US individuals and corporations are making generous donations. The company I work for has already pleged $1,000,000 of money for relief. I have donated $100 of my own money - a per-capita rate 50 times the US-Government's monetary aid to date. Amazon.com - an online store based in the US has collected $13,574,660.56 in just a few short days - and I would be most of that money is from US contributors. I would bet that in the end, contributions from US citizens and corporations will top 1 Billion USD.
Ok, I think it's clear that the US is providing aid more effectively, rapidly, and clearly than any other body. It's also clear that the UN is attempting a power-grab - flailing about, even at the risk of delaying aid in order to look useful. Read about it, think about it, and if you can spare a few bucks - donate to a charity. It's not hard to find one either.
And about charity & giving:
Nearly every major website I've seen, along with the two different chains of grocery stores I've visited in the last week, each have ways to donate right at the front-page, or checkout-line. That's the American way - and I think it's the way of humanity. Most likely, the same thing is going on throughout the much of rest of the world.
Reading news sites, UN press releases, and blogs such as the excellent: http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/, the picture is clear: The US is very generous, effective, and immediate in rendering aid - anywhere in the world. The UN is burocratic, ineffective, and useless when it comes to providing aid - emergency or otherwise.
Simple facts / ideas that summarize my opinion:
1. The UN has failed, now a week after the tsunami, to provide aid in serious quantity beyond the scope of it's already existing 'developmental' projects in the region.
2. The UN has attempted to stop aid from flowing freely from the US, India, Japan, and Australia - with the purpose of making itself look useful as a 'coordinator'.
3. The United States of America has sent a carrier battle group, along with other ship groups to provide upwards of 65,000 gallons of fresh water daily, along with supplies, medics, hospital-ships, engineers, and US enlisted men ready to volunteer for the task of providing aid to the tsunami victims.
4. Private US individuals and corporations are making generous donations. The company I work for has already pleged $1,000,000 of money for relief. I have donated $100 of my own money - a per-capita rate 50 times the US-Government's monetary aid to date. Amazon.com - an online store based in the US has collected $13,574,660.56 in just a few short days - and I would be most of that money is from US contributors. I would bet that in the end, contributions from US citizens and corporations will top 1 Billion USD.
Ok, I think it's clear that the US is providing aid more effectively, rapidly, and clearly than any other body. It's also clear that the UN is attempting a power-grab - flailing about, even at the risk of delaying aid in order to look useful. Read about it, think about it, and if you can spare a few bucks - donate to a charity. It's not hard to find one either.
And about charity & giving:
Nearly every major website I've seen, along with the two different chains of grocery stores I've visited in the last week, each have ways to donate right at the front-page, or checkout-line. That's the American way - and I think it's the way of humanity. Most likely, the same thing is going on throughout the much of rest of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)