This sour grapes, after the fact, rationalization would have been a
lot more interesting (and courageous) had it appeared BEFORE the
election results were in, rather than after.
Fact is, there was a groundswell of repugnance against holding the
election at all. I served as a Precinct Inspector Tuesday, and am
certain that quite a few people came in with the intent of voting a
straight NO ticket. The Second Coming could have been on this
ballot and would have gotten a NO vote.
So, Schwarzenegger is a lame duck. Who will the Republicans run for
Governor? And who, for that matter, the Libertarians?
Allen Rice
________________________________
From: Richard Rider [mailto:RichardRider@E…]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 4:41 PM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Subject: Richard Rider analysis of CA Prop votingRichard Rider, Chair
San Diego Tax Fighters
10969 Red Cedar Dr.
San Diego, CA 92131
Voice: (858) 530-3027 Fax: (858) 530-3030
E-mail: RRider@s...
9 November, 2005
What the Prop Voting Results Mean for Our Future
Overall, for fiscal conservatives, the state propositions voting
results
were disappointing. But the adverse consequences are not as bad
as many
might think.
All state props were voted down. Truth be told, the good
initiatives
would not have been that good, while a couple of the bad
initiatives
would have been VERY bad.
Three of the four "reform" initiatives (Props 74, 75, 76 and 77)
were
wuss measures that would have had little positive results.
Consider:
Prop 74 - Extending teacher tenure timeframe. In reality, most
incapable teachers can be weeded out under the present two year
probationary period. The problem is that, once ANY employee gets
lifetime tenure while being paid the same regardless of
performance,
THEN some previously motivated teachers will slack off and become
lazy
in their performance.
It's human nature. Imagine if you were suddenly in the same
position -
you get paid the same regardless of how diligently you work, and
you can
no longer be fired or demoted except for criminal activity. The
temptation to slack off would be enormous.Prop 74 would have delayed that probationary period for three extra
years, but the resulting drop-off in some teachers' performance
would
then start up after that timeframe, and it is impossible to know
during
the probationary period which teachers will be the slackers.
Prop 75 - Unions must get government employees' permission to use
their
union dues money for politics. THIS measure WAS important. It
would
have provided choice for workers, and this option would have
resulted in
a significant reduction in the amount of money public employee
labor
unions could use to carry out their socialist agendas. Private
sector
unions would not have been affected - a point often overlooked in
the
debate.
The good news about this proposition is that the labor unions had
to
spend an astonishing amount of money to defeat this measure. And,
of
the four measures, this one was easily the closest vote.
Indeed, in San Diego County, Prop 75 DID pass with almost 58% of
the
vote! But the Democrat bastions of LA and San Francisco carried
the
day.
This measure should be put back on the next ballot for another
try. At
the very least, putting it back on the ballot would drain union
political money that otherwise would be spent to buy more
politicians
and more socialist ballot measures.
Which reminds me -- Republican Party leaders are as dumb as a
grove of
stumps. They should put such union-critical issues on the ballot
EVERY
election. It costs maybe $2 million to put a California
proposition on
the ballot, and then the unions have to spend 10 to 30 times that
much
to defeat it. Without that massive spending on disinformation,
these
measures might very well pass. The unions simply can't risk
losing.
Other examples of issues that drive public employee unions crazy
are
school vouchers or tax credits, contracting out government
functions and
pension reform. Put a brace of these props on the ballot, and draw
every cent the unions can steal from their members to these
battles,
leaving them with little left to buy their favored politicians.
Prop 76 - State spending limit. This weak measure was of not of
much
value - though not as bad as the previous "Balanced Budget Act"
from
last year (I co-wrote the ballot argument against that charade).
In
this liberal state, it will be very hard to get the state budget
under
control. This measure would not have done much to help. As they
say,
it was "better than nothing" -- but in truth it was a weak reform
at
best.
Prop 77 -- Redistricting handled by judges. While the
redistricting
would have been a fundamental improvement in election fairness, it
may
actually have harmed the limited government advocates. Be careful
what
you wish for . . . .
With the current gerrymandered solid Democrat and Republican
districts,
candidates can be elected with strong views, one way or the
other. If
the districts are "competitive," the result will be the election of
mostly moderates who then can work together to pass more laws. And
believe me, absent opposition, moderates would take us down the
same
socialist road, only with a somewhat slower speed limit.
With gerrymandered districts, on the state level we find some solid
fiscal conservatives in office - such as Tom McClintock and Ray
Haynes.
I don't think they'd survive in "fair" districts where to win one
must
substantially moderate one's viewpoint to gain the "independents"
swing
votes.
With the 2/3 vote requirement for passing the state budget, a
group of
such fiscal hardnoses can have some limiting impact on state
spending.
If redistricting had passed and we got almost all moderates in the
legislature, spending would skyrocket, and taxes would inevitably
follow. If this redistricting passed, gridlock would be broken --
a
VERY bad thing, as we have seen with Republicans in charge on the
federal level.The last three state props ranged from not good to really awful:
Prop 78 - "Voluntary" drug discount program. It is just another
government program messing up the medical business. And such
"voluntary" programs often become not-so-voluntary shortly
thereafter.
Prop 79 - State drug price fixing, and lawyers' lawsuit heaven.
This
baby was dangerous. Not only would it not work for patients
(proven in
Maine where the same program has failed to even partially deliver
on its
promises), it would have opened a new field for lucrative lawsuits
whenever a drug company profits are "unreasonable" -- with
absolutely no
definition of what level of profits are deemed excessive. The
lawyer
doesn't even have to go find a plaintiff - such a deal!
Fortunately
this measure got hammered by the voters.
Prop 80 - Reregulation of electricity industry. Oddly enough, the
voters had no enthusiasm for this con game. I think that, more
than
anything else, voters opposed everything else, so why not oppose
this
final measure as well? Good for them! This prop could have been
disastrous to both our wallets and to the state's economy, but it
never
was taken seriously.
And Now For Some Good News
Actually the best news for San Diegans and perhaps all
Californians was
a little noticed local proposition on increasing the sales tax in
National City a full one percent - raising it to 8.75%, the
highest in
the county. The public employee labor unions put together a
MASSIVE
push for this tax.
In addition to spending big bucks on mailers, the unions sent
teams out
into neighborhoods to double and triple team voters while going
door-to-door canvassing. The N.C. politicians all strongly
advocated
this tax increase.
The city has a Democrat majority in registrants. The hypocritical
SAN
DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE endorsed the proposition (while attacking Frye
for
advocating a HALF percent temporary sales tax increase for the
city of
San Diego). The proposition's tax opposition did little more than
file
a very amateurish "NO" ballot argument, signed by a single
individual.
But when the time came to vote, National City citizens voted 57%
NO!
Even though it needed only a simple majority to pass, the measure
failed
dramatically. Even though the citizens were told that most people
paying the sales tax would be from outside National City, the
voters
weren't buying the pitch.
Perhaps people are starting to catch on that any tax increase by
any
California jurisdiction in this day and age is for one thing only -
overpaid government employees. THAT is why the unions worked so
hard to
pass this measure - their huge pay and pension benefits were
threatened.
National City voters sent a powerful message that should be heard
throughout California. No matter what the state and local
politicians
call their coming tax increases (and they are coming!), citizens
are not
likely to vote for these taxes that, when all is said and done,
are for
our elite government employees and NOT for the taxpayers.
So even though politics seems badly rigged to favor the Big
Government
advocates, sometimes it is the citizens who will have the final
say.
The mandated vote to establish higher taxes is our final bastion
against