in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| Gallup | Campaign 2012: Obama, Romney Each Has Economic Strengths With Americans |
0 |
| Chi. Sun Times | New Tone: Inside Sunday’s violent clash between ‘Black Bloc’ anarchists, cops |
0 |
| Power Line | Media Watch: “Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?” |
0 |
| WaPo | Shock: White House visitor logs provide window into lobbying industry |
0 |
| Politico | Interesting: Obama super PAC slump continues |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
Howie doesn’t like Arnie
No surprise here, but it was an amusing read anyway:
Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, labeling Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as just another Republican “right wing” politician, told hundreds of grassroots party activists Sunday they should send a message on Nov. 8 that will resonate nationwide by rejecting the governor’s special election measures.
“Gov. Schwarzenegger put these things on the ballot because he is, in fact, the captive of special interests,” Dean said to applause and cheers of the party’s faithful who packed a union hall in Hayward to hear his fiery address. “Arnold Schwarzenegger came in and then sold himself, and the state of California, to special interests.”
California voters will decide a number of issues Nov. 8, including four initiatives backed by the governor that would: lengthen the time it takes teachers to gain tenure (Proposition 74), make it more difficult for unions to contribute to political campaigns (Prop. 75), change the state budget process (Prop. 76) and remove the Legislature from redistricting (Prop. 77).
I know I’ve got quite a few California readers here … what are your thoughts on the initiatives? On the surface, they look like things I could support if I lived there, but I don’t know the details.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
I lived in CA. Anaheim to be exact and in Bob Dornan’s district.
There is nothing wrong with these propositions, except to Democrats who abuse everything they touch. Prop 75 is the most needed. How would you like $60 taken out of your paycheck for some union thug boss to play political kingmaker with? That is what happened to CA teachers. The CTA will go bankrupt with out that “special assessment”.
ST, I’m a Californian ! Moved here from VA in 1994.
It is all too weird to me what is going on. These are all reasonable initiatives. Arnold came in to fix the budget problem. He hasn’t cut spending any one year. Yet the Democrats are hooting and hollering accusing him of cutting dollars for education and fire fighters and state workers all across the board.
Where do they get this money to rail on the governor like this? From each and every employee of the state. Over $50+ per month is siphoned off of every state employees check to the unions. The unions have been spending millions railing against the governor yet all budgets passed were legislated by the Democrat controlled legislature and simply signed by Arnold.
Prop 75 is a proposition dealing with the union spending dues money without explicit consent from each and every person that dues are taken from. The unions are using dues money to accuse Arnold of wanting to shut up fire fighters and teachers. Prop 75 doesn’t shut anyone up. It simply makes sure that dues that are mandatory go to bargaining unless someone explicitly gives consent for more money to be taken for politics. This is the American way. If you want to contribute to politics you can.
There is another proposition moving redistricting to the judges (instead of the legislature) (with rules) due to districts that snake around sometimes a few hundred yards wide. I haven’t decided on this one yet. The judges out here ain’t so great and the population generally votes liberal anyway so no matter what (until education happens) there will be more Democrats in the legislature no matter how the districts are drawn. I’m inclined to vote for it because Arnold is for it and the liberals here are making one FALSE ALLEGATION after another. Same old pattern. Every liberal on this site and other blogs and every one that I personally debate with just like to viciously attack and allege.
Just my take ST!
Hey guys,
Prop 75 sounds the most appealing to me … I’d hate to think my money was going towards supporting candidates that I didn’t support. That’s just wacked!
I have to say Arnold has impressed me as governor, especially regarding his stance on immigration. He seems to take a pragmatic approach to government, rather than just toeing any official party line.
For anyone quick to criticize Arnold concerning illegal immigrants, he has vetoed every Democrat legislature bill that has seeked to give additional benefits or an ID to illegal immigrants.
The most important way to view Arnold is as a moderate. He is not a centrist (zero growth in government guy) nor a governor on the right (he isn’t cutting government), to the extent he is being villified just shows how extreme the leftist Democrats in the legislature and unions are.
When I work for a company, they can give to whoever, without me having a say. When I buy from a company, they can also give to whoever. Heck, even when I’m a shareholder they can give to whoever, without needing a permission slip from me.
This is just a plan to hobble unions. Because unions are one of the few institutions in our economic/political system that fight against plutocracy.
shortz, In the case of the unions you do not have a choice. It comes from your paycheck. It’s itemized on your paycheck.
A company is not pulling money to give to campaigns out of your paycheck. It is doing so based on decisions by individuals at the top on how it’s money should be spent. A company could go down the drain because of it’s poor spending decisions. Unions can’t. They have a captive audience of paychecks to pull from. It is mandatory to work as a teacher to have these people pull money out of your paycheck.
The only entities pulling money out of your check are:
1) The federal government
2) The state government
3) unions
If a union wants to speak (advertise) then they could raise money just like everyone else (ask for contributions) or sell goods and services to make money like companies do.
Quick question – are you in CA? Do you see their lies (with no ability by the workers to stop money flowing from their paycheck to stop the lies – no accountability).
In the U.S. there should always be accountability.
National Legal Foundation and State Senator McClintock Launch Statewide Radio Ad to Expose Misuse of Compulsory Union Dues
Court Will Not Immediately Block Use of Forced Union Dues on Anti-Schwarzenegger Electioneering While Lawsuit Proceeds
Special Legal Notice to California Teachers:
How to Get Your $300 Refund and Object to the CTA $60.00 Dues Increase
Ever wonder how much union dues cash Big Labor dumps into political campaigns? This link has the following sentence:
In an earlier issue brief, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research showed that union officials extract forced union dues from over 8 million private sector employees annually, and that the true cost of Big Labor’s nationwide campaign of mailings, phone banks and voter turnout drives adds up to at least $400 million each election cycle.
WHile Presidential candidates are spending between 60-80 million now, unionis are quadrupling that amount of spending. In CA, the massive machine is way outpacing Arnold’s ability to campaign and spend as he can only pull from contributors (not forced). His message isn’t even 1/10th as much heard as the unions message.
The fight isn’t even pretty. While Arnold is attempting to bring the state to economic health which would help everyone, the unions are attacking him as if he has cut spending when this isn’t true.
Show me the cuts!
Look on Page 2 of the Acrobat fileArnold has increased the budgets for every state agency for two years.
The only cuts are in state employees paychecks as unions have increased how much they are taking from thier paychecks.
“shortz, In the case of the unions you do not have a choice”
Union members in CA can request that their dues not be used for political activities. You do have a choice.
I wonder how much is taken out for dues compared with the union premium — ie, what extra your paycheck has because you have the power of union solidarity.
“A company is not pulling money to give to campaigns out of your paycheck. It is doing so based on decisions by individuals at the top on how it’s money should be spent.”
It could be spent on wages, or it could be spent on legislation. A worker is part of the company and part responsible for the earnings of that firm. Just like she is part responsible for the earnings of the union.
I’m a native born Californian. I’ve seen the state swing from very conservative to ultra liberal in my lifetime. I truly hope that Arnold can bring some sanity back to State Government. I’m going to vote in favor of all four propositions.
Prop 74: I think this is the first step in taking back the educational system from the social engineering morons that have tried to destroy what used to be a decent educational system.
Prop 75: The current process allows unions to simply use money for what the union thinks is a good political cause. While a member can opt out, it has to be a specific request. This proposition will reverse that; the union cannont use a members dues for political purposes unlless the member opts in. I think that’s a much fairer way to handle things.
Prop 76: Why shouldn’t the state be required to live within it’s means? This is a great first step in controlling runaway spending, so that’s why the Democrats don’t like it.
Prop 77: The current system of Gerrymandered districts pretty much guraantees that incumbents rarely lose and keeps one party in power. I’d prefer to have a better process than using retired judges, but that’s better than what we have right now.
Try 86$ a month. That’s what I was forced to pay for union dues in my closed-shop of San Diego. The loopholes and paperwork a union member has to go through to opt-out are burdensome and unfair. I wish this prop. had been around during my 6 years as a public school teacher in California. I believe it’s one of the reasons that it’s hard to retain good teachers in the public sector (perhaps not the most important reason). It is one of the reasons I left California and teach in a private school now. I get less pay now, but I’m in control of my own funds and my raises are based on my own merit and my success as a teacher. That whole solidarity thing is a larck. Unions make bad decisions, create adversarial relationships with administration and cripple needed reform. Unions are in the way of our education system. Could it be different? Could unions serve a needed purpose for teachers and students? I beleive so, but as it stands now it’s an insult and good teachers and it’s the tail wagging the dog. As it stands now, they have no incentive to change and be effective represntatives.
Just my two cents.
Go Arnold, almost makes me want to come back to see all those union goons’ (my colleagues) hair standing on end!! Beautiful.
sorry, forgot to spell check. F for today
If I took a survey, I think it’d be a safe bet that Arnie’s 4 props. are well supported by most of the California readers to this blog
Go Arnie!
“Try 86$ a month. That’s what I was forced to pay for union dues in my closed-shop of San Diego.”
Did being a union member increase your wages by more than $86 a month?
“I get less pay now”
Ya. I don’t know what the complaint is then. Money was taken, but it was money that existed because of the union.
Shortz, the complaint is that it is money taken and used against the wishes of the worker WHO EARNED IT and used it against the worker’s choice of political expression.
I forget, to socialists like shortz, the people ought to be glad for everything the government (union) doesn’t keep for itself.
“Shortz, the complaint is that it is money taken and used against the wishes of the worker WHO EARNED IT and used it against the worker’s choice of political expression.”
And the reply is #1 how does the amount that is taken compared to the amount that a person gets as a union premium. And #2 that a worker can opt out!
This is just class war: imposing requirements on unions but not business. The companies in my 401(K) — or even in my company run pension plan — don’t have to seek my permission to engage in politics. In fact, I can’t even opt out!
Its about reducing the power of unions, because unions fight plutocracy.
shortz
Just as a point of curiosity, does the LA Daily News have the opt-out details correct? What I’m getting from the story, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that opting out amounts to resigning from the union and filing for a rebate.
This is not “opting out” of the political dues, this is “opting out” of the union altogether and having no future voice in it’s leadership and policies. Are you saying that only left-wing teachers have any right to a say in how (and by who) the union is run? Will your tune change if the disaffected teachers form their own competing union and give lavishly to right-wing politicos?
Shortz, my complaint is that money is spend on who knows what for the unions. Ever tried to get an itemized list of where union dues go? Impossible. I’d rather make less money (with the potential for more based on my negotiating skills, than leave it to the unions–who by the way gave up any pay increases for San Diego teachers for 3 years…thanks a lot, I think I could have done better on my own).
The bigger point for me was that I new my dues were going towards politicians and props that I would vote against. That is fundamentally unfair. Opting in is much fairer. Let them sell their ideas to convinve me they are worthy of my dues.
Thanks Kaz for clarifying that for me.
As for opting out, you can only request a rebate for a portion of the dues that are spent on PAC activities. Once again, getting an itemized list of that is impossible. From my last inquiry, if I recall correctly, it’s about 10% of the dues you can recieve back. However, you have to file for it every year.
“This is not “opting out” of the political dues, this is “opting out” of the union altogether and having no future voice in it’s leadership and policies. Are you saying that only left-wing teachers have any right to a say in how (and by who) the union is run? ”
So you can vote for the union to be run another way, or you can opt out and not participate. Like I can opt out of giving money to Coke by giving up the benefits of Coke.
“As for opting out, you can only request a rebate for a portion of the dues that are spent on PAC activities.”
So you have choice. Great to know.
I’d like to opt you in shortz to my fund. Maybe I can impant a virus to divert funds from your paycheck against your will and siphon it off to the NRA.
I gave plenty of links above shortz that show that the $1 that Unions let you not give them (out of $60) per month is not what the unions spend on politics altogether. The hard money contributions, soft money contributions, resources like phone bank operations altogether are 10 times more than what the unions are admitting they spend and letting you keep (and at the same time not letting you participate in votes – because you are considered not part of the union even though you give $59 out of the $60 per month).
You can’t possibly after looking at the evidence believe that the unions aren’t spendning money on politics that an employee wished wasn’t spent.
You can’t possibly think it’s fair that keeping $1 per month boots an employee out of union membership status even though $59 per $60 is still taken from your check.
Ignorance is bliss but once informed it is willful stubborness.
” gave plenty of links above shortz that show that the $1 that Unions let you not give them (out of $60) per month is not what the unions spend on politics altogether.”
Those links talk only having to pay 62% of your dues. Of getting back 38%. Not 1/60th.
“Ignorance is bliss but once informed it is willful stubborness.”
Indeed.
Actually, I apologize. The links I gave above do not show the information (as even you mistakenly thought) about how much less is taken out of your paycheck if you sign the forms. 62/38 is not the ratio for what I’m talking about.
I’ve talked to 5 people about this issue here in CA and they have not filled out the forms because they were informed that they:
a) Will only have $1 per paycheck not taken out
b) not be a member anymore (but yet will have to pay the other $59 per paycheck.
What you saw in the links above is the unions helping themselves to much more per paycheck this year and for the next 3 years in order to fight Arnold. They are raising a 100 million and have taken a loan on their property to the tune of 40 million.
FOr the next 3 years teachers got a paycut due to unions. Ain’t life grand with the unions!
And why would government employees need unions anyway shortz?
I’ve asked that of a few pro-union people here and they say the stupidest things like “the unions provide us everything”, “we wouldn’t even have air-conditioning (as a state employee) if it weren’t for the unions.”
I laugh and say how ridiculous and point out that it’s always been known that government jobs have mediocre salaries but great benefits. Nothing has changed since unions came into the picture. They are still mediocre salaries and great benefits. The legislatures do not want to be responsible for operating sweat shops. Really.
Is this lost on you shortz? Are you so pro-union for government employees that you actually think the employees would be sweating with half of their salary without the union?
Proposition Polling Results
All of Arnie’s prop’s are winning..
“And why would government employees need unions anyway shortz?”
For the same reasons private employees have them: to represent the interests of the workers.
GOvernment employees needed representation that badly where they have to pay $60 per month?
And that $60 per month has increased their salaries and benefits how? They’ve only increased incrementally over the years the same as Cost of Living Adjustments.
I’d say either the unions are doing poorly or aren’t giving government employees much for their money.
BTW, The interest of the workers is already represented by the Chiefs and Directors of the Agencies of the State as well as the legislatures. For instance, Health and Human Services in CA has a Secretary and Director and push for larger budgets with more positions every year. Are you denying that?
“And that $60 per month has increased their salaries and benefits how?”
Somebody up above talked about how they took a pay cut to enter the non-union private sector.
“They’ve only increased incrementally over the years the same as Cost of Living Adjustments.”
Not everyone gets cost of living adjustments. At least not in the private sector.
“BTW, The interest of the workers is already represented by the Chiefs and Directors of the Agencies of the State as well as the legislatures. For instance, Health and Human Services in CA has a Secretary and Director and push for larger budgets with more positions every year. Are you denying that?”
I don’t deny that management probably wants to have more people under its command. Or that there are legislators that feel like workers should have more money, or there ought to be more workers.
But these interest groups represent the employer — the government. Not the employee.
shortz,
are you a union member?
If you were, how would you feel if your dues went to pay for Tom Delay’s defense team? Oh wait, you can opt out by 10%, (maybe, you don’t really know because this information is not available to union members). You’re right, I guess you do have a choice. How could you possibly object?
And you really are right, I did have choice. Stay with the way it is (morally bankrupting myself) or leave. I chose to leave.
shortz wrote, “Not everyone gets cost of living adjustments. At least not in the private sector.”
BTW, I’ve gotten substantial raises in the private sector. 34%, 15%, 12%, 9% and raises when I went from one company to another.
The point that YOU are missing that I keep writing is that government jobs have always been known to be mediocre salaries and good benefits and the unions coming on to the scene didn’t provide that for the workers nor did it help the workers. It only INSERTED a siphon to the DNC.
But of course your side of the aisle can look past the fairness of that even though no entity takes from people’s paychecks except for a) unions b) state c) federal….
shortz wrote, “But these interest groups represent the employer — the government. Not the employee.” And my question is, and what has representation for that employee gotten them except for a decrease in their pay by $60 per month and a siphon of money to the DNC.
I highly recommend the legal assistance workers might receive from National Right to Work Foundation (NRTW) lawyers. It took over ten years, but the NEA and its state and local affiliates had to refund “dues” it had illegally taken from me. As Baklava has mentioned, go to the NRTW Web site http://www.nrtw.org to learn how to avoid having your dues taken and used to support causes and candidates you do not support.
The latest on California Teacher Association dues refunds can be found at http://www.eiaonline.com/intercepts.htm. Lest anyone believe the NEA and its state affiliates are small potatoes, note that 49% of the NEA dues and 34.5% of the CTA dues were being used for political and ideological activites not related to contract negotiations.
About half of NEA members say they are conservatives, so why does the union spend the vast majority of its political money supporting leftist candidates and causes if it actually wants to represent its members fairly?
Too many teachers are sheeple. They’d rather pay, moan and complain instead of standing up for themselves.
Bachbone,
Thanks for the link. I’m not sure if I can get what is owed to me as I resigned this summer from the district altogether. It’s helpful to know there is help, though.
“The point that YOU are missing that I keep writing is that government jobs have always been known to be mediocre salaries and good benefits and the unions coming on to the scene didn’t provide that for the workers nor did it help the workers.”
I know you keep writing that. And someone else wrote above about the pay cut she took to go to the private sector. Which goes against your generalization.
You also wrote something else:
“Ignorance is bliss but once informed it is willful stubborness.”
Indeed.
“And my question is, and what has representation for that employee gotten them except for a decrease in their pay by $60 per month and a siphon of money to the DNC.”
In the case of teachers, better pay than the private sector.
Kate – Do contact NRTW. I never joined the union, but NRTW helped me recover funds. Even if you don’t join, NRTW knows the exact procedure(s) to follow to assure you will pay only what is required by law. The NRTW newsletter is very helpful, too. Good luck!
shortz, the unions only keep mediocre teachers from being fired, and keeps them overpaid. The good teachers are kept from real financial reward by the unions, because the unions want all paid the same regardless of ability and performance.
If a kid with a Hispanic surname can’t speak or English well in California, it was because the Union shoved Bi-lingualism on the Hispanics to keep them illiterate in TWO languages.
shortz wrote in rebuttal, “pay cut she took to go to the private sector.”. Which I gave the anecdotal evidence that I’ve gotten bigger raises in the private sector than the government employees I work alongside with. How is anecdotal evidence rebuttal to the general knowledge that government jobs have always been mediocre salaries and great benefits and the union neither brought that about nor increased the salaries.
shortz wrote, “In the case of teachers, better pay than the private sector.” Yes. and there are other instances for instance when New Jersey privatized the water system the employees were better paid.
The point you again are MISSING is that public teachers have always gotten a mediocre salary (in the $30 – $40,000 range) and great benefits and the unions did nothing to get them that, increase it or anything. The unions simply siphon off the teachers paycheck to the DNC against many teachers wills.
It isn’t a matter of public vs. private. It’s a matter of public teachers didn’t gain because of the union. It’s a matter of the union simply does NOT belong in the public sector because government employees have always had middle of the road salaries and great benefits and the unions coming into the public sector hasn’t changed that.
English 101 is key shortz. Stop changing the argument and read what is written. A way to quickly give teachers a $60 per month raise is to remove the unions from the picture.
At lease if you keep unions in the picture… EMPLOYEES should be able to tell unions that they don’t want their bargaining money to be spent on politics. Period. If someone WANTS their money spent on politics then they can contribute willingly. Not spending on politics SHOULDN’T remove you from membership status.
Do you shortz believe that declining to have your money spent on politics should remove you from membership status yet keeping 95% of your dues being confiscated?