All Four Schwarzenegger Propositions Rejected
 

Californians rejected all four of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's backdoor Propositions designed to increase his power, and the power of the Republican party in the State.

Basically, the $50 million dollar Special Election changed nothing, although this big defeat further eroded Arnold's political standing since he made the special election a referendum on his effectiveness to lead the State without the support of the State Legislature (recent approval ratings for Schwarzenegger, are in the mid-30's - even lower than those of Governor Gray Davis who was forced out in a Repulican led recall effort, which enabled Arnold to take the Statehouse as an "outsider").

The people of California figured out that Arnold sold us a false bill of goods (similar to what Dubya has done on the national level), and they gave him a solid vote of no confidence.

As a sidenote, in the final week of the campaign, ads featuring Arizona Senator John McClain supporting Arnold's props were shown extensively, so it will be interesting to see how that impacts McClain's presidential ambitions.

ADG Webmaster

please explain how all four propositions were an attempt to increase his power

OH too bad , another one bites the dust. I guess its easier to be a hero on the silver screen :2 cents:

any idea or was this just a copy/paste from moveon.org?

did 75 bite the dust? was too close to call last I heard.

and Bringer, this definitely was a power play on his part. Are you questioning him because you feel differently? If you are just stirring shit, there are many reasons this was a power play, 50 million of them at least.

74 and 75 weren't power plays, the other two are questionable. 75 went from "silencing" public workers back when it was introduced to "imposing" extra costs on poor unions forcing them to file all that paper work. teachers shouldn't get a life long job after 2 years because they were good during the trial period. its nearly impossible to get rid of these teachers. its funny hearing democrats slam Arnold for hurting teachers when even John Kerry supports it(not publicly). 76 and 77 address important issues that do need fixing but Arnold's method wont work.

No. it's not a cut and paste from MoveOn.org or anywhere else, just my own take on the election.

I'm not going to spend an hour or more of my time going point by point providing you with an explanation about each of the propositions - do your own research.

If you think that Arnold was trying to reform the State government in a bipartisan way, then plain and simple, you are wrong. Arnold could have saved the taxpayers $50 million and sat down and tried to compromise with the Legislature, but instead in his typical arrogant style he tried to do a political end-around powerplay. He failed miserably.

I'll summarize a few of the ways that the various components were designed to enhance Arnold and the Republican parties position in the State (while eroding the power of the State Legislature):

Teachers would have to wait five years instead of two years to gain tenure (making them easier to fire). Arnold has waged war on teachers and the education system practically from the moment he took office...such as borrowing $2 Billion from the Education budget, with a vow to give it back the following year, then he reneged. (Prop 74)

Unions would have been restricted from using Union dues in political campaigns. Arnold sought no such limits on corporate donors. (Prop 75)

The Governor wanted to put a cap on spending, eliminate the percentage of money which was guaranteed to be provided for education, and give himself sweeping power to make budget cuts throughout the year. (Prop 76)

Redistricting would have been put in the hands of three appointees instead of the Legislature. (Prop 77)

Need more info, turn on the news...

ADG Webmaster

The current numbers are 51% No to 48% Yes, and have been trending in the No direction for the past hour or two (the early absentee numbers showed the Yes votes ahead, but political analysts expected that).

Proposition 75 Restrict Use of Union Dues
Candidate Votes Percent Winner
Yesha 2,823,528 48%
Noha 3,055,637 51%
Precincts Reporting - 15452 out of 17659 - 88%

ADG Webmaster

i agree completely with your take on 76 and 77. the arguments for 74 and 75 are completely misleading however. 74 had nothing to do with the borrowing of the money but rather lengthen the probationary time before teachers get a lifelong position. as i said in my previous post, once tenure is granted the only real why to remove teachers is to pay them off. in regards to 75, it wouldn't block unions from using member dues for political purposes but rather require unions to get written permission annually from each member before THEIR dues could be used. have you ever been a member of a union? i was a member in my previous job and it wasn't voluntary. my job was union so i was forced to become a member and had my dues deducted from my paycheck automatically. i wasn't happy when my dues were used to support causes and candidates i didn't agree with and my attempts to get my money back was laughed at.

I don't even know where to begin, but I have to know, do you even live in this state? If not, then you have proven it by your idiotic comments.

Teachers too hard to get rid of. pfft, with the shitty wages they pay them, they are lucky any stick around. He wanted to make it easier to fire them, fuck him.

As far as the unions go, all he wanted to do was keep the unions from being able to apply political pressure.

He called for this special election because he would not work with elected officials, and he thought he could smile and sway the people of CA once again.

Fortunately, the people of CA either weren't going to be fooled twice (like they were when they elected him), or they did not bother to vote (I have not heard the turnout numbers yet).

When a governor forces a special election to deal with 4 constitutional changes that no one wanted, there is no question that this was a power play, just like him making passes at chicks.

Nice, glad to hear it. I wasn't even thinking about the absentees consisting mostly of people like my parents.

I dont really understand the politics - but it sounds like a win to me.

ugh. w/e baddog. i was born in California and have lived here my entire life. Ive been in a union and been fucked over by them. Ive researched the tenure issue and have come across several instances where everyone wanted them out but tenure kept them in.

Read what you just wrote and tell me the purpose isn't to weaken unions political presence.

This wasn't a proposition brought up by some grass roots movement to protect union workers, it was initiated by Arnold.

The unions spent millions defeating it. You don't think if the membership agreed with you that the law would have passed?

the terminator got terminated

read what i said and think about it this way. you're a member of a union who supports george bush. they use your dues for donations and support getting him elected. you hate bush. you think its ok for them to use your dues how the union leaders see fit? the union gets its power from the members dues which are used solely to increase their power. most union members a sheep anyways and vote how their union leaders tell them to. ive been in the meetings where they've told me to vote yes/no on prop/candidate X because it/they would weaken the union and id somehow lose something(most often mentioned was overtime pay). how many union members will get their money back because they disagreed with the ad campaign opposing this proposition? im sure there are a few atleast and id be willing to be 0 will get anywhere when its brought up at the next meeting.

I am willing to bet that I have a lot more union years under my belt, with a lot more involvement in unions than you. That being said, look at your union local as a small community, state or nation.

You say union members are sheep, but what is the difference between a local union shop's elections, and the entire country having an election? It is all relative.

I remember when I was running as VP on a slate to overturn the existing union leadership. I told an observer from the national that if we got a 50% turnout, I knew we would win.

He laughed and said, "the only way you will get 50 % of the membership to vote is if if is regarding a dues increase."

You leadership will do what the membership tells them, but if they are too lazy to go to meetings, or to vote, the leadership must presume that the members are happy/content.

Again, if union members were in favor of this law it would have passed.

Get real. A union that supports a Republican president? Where the hell did you work?

A union's job is to look for the benefit of the entire membership, as a whole. Sometimes there will be individuals that are not going to like it, but that is really too bad.

Just like your congress may pass laws that you as an individual may not like, but it is for the benefit of the general public as a whole, not you as an individual.

Glad to see the Forces of Evil take it in the pants every one in a while.

that was my main problem when i was a member. i dont see why im even posting in this thread, im no longer a union member and this doesnt affect me anymore. i only supported prop 75 because when i was a member i felt my voice didnt matter and had no recourse when my dues were used fighting for something i disagreed with. i was right. who cares :2 cents:

Cali polictics don't effect me, but I'll throw in my :2 cents:

74 and 75 sounded good to me.

I wouldn't want MY union dues going towards lobying if I didn't agree with what the union was standing for. This happen with alot of people in unions to. Many join just because it's the only way for them to get benefits. If they want their funds to only go towards worker benefits only then they should have that choice.

I also beleive teachers should have a longer probation period, 2yrs is to short. Though 5 may be to long. As far as teacher pay goes, it depends on the district, my neighbor is a highschool teacher and makes almost $70k/yr and he gets the whole summer off.

four propositions, one for each Terminator film (there's a rumour about a fourth one) :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

special election or special erection ?