The Governator does some good (AB 996)

[campbellcj]

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 996 without my signature.

This bill is unnecessary because there has been no documentation of a problem with the theft of ammunition from retail establishments. In addition, I have just signed SB 48 by Senator Scott into law which will ensure those underage will no longer be purchasing ammunition.

Requiring retail ammunition sellers to store any handgun ammunition offered for sale in a manner inaccessible to the purchaser would impose more regulation in California without a corresponding benefit to public safety. It is not clear how requiring store employees to obtain and hand customers ammunition instead of letting customers choose their own ammunition will curb crimes committed with firearms.

For these reasons I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

[cowtown]

Arnold - I can't get enough of this guy. Also recently:
-pushes for redistricting
-pushes back at the unions
-pushes for longer teacher tenure periods
-vetoes illegal alien licenses
-vetoes taxation of malt liquor drinks at the lower beer rate, because they're not beer


An honest-to-God moderate Republican. Best governor in my lifetime.

[Sonic dB]

Anything with "996" in the title is suspect...

(just kidding)

[FrayAdjacent911]

Wow, he returned a gun control bill? He might not be as 'socially liberal' as some of us were scared of. (at least when it comes to gun control... but kalifornia is already screwed in that regard!)

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by cowtown
Arnold - I can't get enough of this guy. Also recently:
-pushes for redistricting
-pushes back at the unions
-pushes for longer teacher tenure periods
-vetoes illegal alien licenses
-vetoes taxation of malt liquor drinks at the lower beer rate, because they're not beer


An honest-to-God moderate Republican. Best governor in my lifetime.

You have had a short lifetime. He seems to be the biggest disappointment in my lifetime. I don't usually expect much from governors. He promised a chicken in every pot, and now he wants to take away the pots.

Next year you will see a prop requiring corporations to get written approval from all stockholders before donating money for political causes. Tit for tat. Then watch all the Republicans scream.

So, what the heck does a longer tenure period do? Puts us with two other states with longest tenure period. We used to have the best education system.

Redistricting by judicial committee is an answer searching for problem. Do you really think there will be a difference?

[tabs]

Good for him...

[FrayAdjacent911]

Originally posted by stevepaa

We used to have the best education system.

Now they're teaching Ebonics in schools in San Bernardino. That's progressive for ya!

[cowtown]

Originally posted by stevepaa

Next year you will see a prop requiring corporations to get written approval from all stockholders before donating money for political causes. Tit for tat. Then watch all the Republicans scream.

Doubtful. Stockholders can sell off their shares if they don't approve. Union members must pay "fair share" dues regardless of whether they agree with the union or not. There is no choice at all.


So, what the heck does a longer tenure period do? Puts us with two other states with longest tenure period. We used to have the best education system.


Did we have the best system right before Arnold got to office? I don't think you can pin that one on him.


Redistricting by judicial committee is an answer searching for problem. Do you really think there will be a difference?

Yes, I REALLY do. Redistricting could make a ton of difference if we can boot out some of these career democrats with their pet projects (no foi gras, illegal alien licenses, limit on the number of pages in textbooks, etc ad infinitum).

But it sounds like my view of a positive difference is probably 180-degrees ideologically from yours.

[stevepaa]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cowtown


Union members must pay "fair share" dues regardless of whether they agree with the union or not. There is no choice at all.

So is it about union dues or political contributions?

"An earlier version appeared on the ballot in 1998 ...and was rejected by voters by 53 percent to 47 percent. ....It didn't matter in 1998 and seemingly doesn't now that union workers can already decline to have their dues spent on issues other than collective bargaining, but this is an ideological battle. "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/04/BAGVPF28LB1.DTL


Did we have the best system right before Arnold got to office? I don't think you can pin that one on him.

Didn't say that. It started going downhill with Reagan and then Brown made it worse. But what sense does the longest tenure in the US make?


Redistricting could make a ton of difference if we can boot out some of these career democrats with their pet projects (no foi gras, illegal alien licenses, limit on the number of pages in textbooks, etc ad infinitum).

So this is really just an attack on democrats and not really reform, isn't it?

[cowtown]

Originally posted by stevepaa
So this is really just an attack on democrats and not really reform, isn't it?
[/b]

My definition of "reform" for this Democratically-controlled (and fiscally and politically failing) state includes getting rid of the Democratic majority and bringing some sense to the legislative process. I hesitate to rise to your bait and define this as an "attack." But yes, Republicans gaining power in the state and the road to reform are one and the same. I know you don't agree, so I'll just leave it there. But we've tried it your way for a while now....

[stevepaa]

I would just like answers.

So what refrom do those props really accomplish?

[tabs]

The Teachers Union and State Employees Union don't want the reforms the Govenator wants. They are the largest political contributors to the Demoratic Party. Thay are using their power to stymie the Govenator.

CA is a broken state and if it doesn't get it's act together it will go BK. Just like NYC did back in the 70's.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by cowtown
My definition of "reform" for this Democratically-controlled (and fiscally and politically failing) state includes getting rid of the Democratic majority and bringing some sense to the legislative process. I hesitate to rise to your bait and define this as an "attack." But yes, Republicans gaining power in the state and the road to reform are one and the same. I know you don't agree, so I'll just leave it there. But we've tried it your way for a while now....

So since this is a blue state, doesn't that mean that the majority of voters voted for the democratic candidates?

So you want to give the minority control over the majority? Sounds like you want to overthrow the government.

Maybe you don't understand the process we now have.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by tabs
The Teachers Union and State Employees Union don't want the reforms the Govenator wants. They are the largest political contributors to the Demoratic Party. Thay are using their power to stymie the Govenator.

So what gets better with these "education reform" props?

Arnold killed AB 996 basically because it did not improve a process already in place. It only added a financial burden on a group of people. Now that makes sense.

So what does his Prop 75 really do? All government employees may join the union or not. Each non-union member may object to the spending of fees collected from him for political purposes and then those fees cannot be used for political purposes. Union members can not opt out from the use of these fees in the same way. They have joined the union, so their method of dissent is by vote on the usage of the fees.

Prop 75 will require written consent each year from union members and non-union members for use of fess for political purposes. This will incur costs for consent forms and record keeping. So it adds costs, really does nothing for non-union members, and gives the option to union members to withhold fees if they don’t like the political decisions reached by consent of the majority of members.

So does this mean I can get Republican support for withholding of some of my taxes because I objected to this war we are in?

I especially like the description found on the CA GOP site.
“Prop. 75 PAYCHECK PROTECTION
Gives workers a choice in how their money is spent and stops public employee unions from automatically deducting money from workers paychecks”. What a load!

And Republicans are for less government intrusion and less taxes. This is more government intrusion resulting in increased government costs, potentially offset by revenues from fines, fees-taxes.

Good ole Republican hypocrisy at work.

How about Prop74?
First, it changes the probationary period for teachers from two to five years. Why would five years make anything better? The majority of states are at the two-three year range. Five years would put us with only two other states. The legislative analyst suggests that a school district could save money by using teachers for five years, and then replace them with new teachers at reduced cost. Eventually, you have no experienced tenured teachers, a constant hiring of new teachers, and reduced overall costs.

That makes education better? I don’t think so. I want experienced tenured teachers. I wanted all my children to have the benefit of the older experienced tenured teachers my oldest had.

Secondly, prop 74, makes minor adjustments to the process of firing teachers for poor performance. It removes a 90 day period currently given to employees to improve their performance. It eliminates the need to provide as much initial documentation identifying specific instances of unsatisfactory performance (beyond that included in bi-annual evaluations).

The effect of these changes would be to reduce requirements in the initial stages of the dismissal.

So there is some small fiscal benefit up front, which may be countered by increased appeals costs, etc.


Bottom line, I don’t see a real benefit. And I find it disingenuous for supporters of this prop to say “principals need the ability to remove non-performing teachers from the classroom”. BS! The process is already there.

[cowtown]

Originally posted by stevepaa
So since this is a blue state, doesn't that mean that the majority of voters voted for the democratic candidates?

So you want to give the minority control over the majority? Sounds like you want to overthrow the government.

Maybe you don't understand the process we now have.

You are being purposely thick, in addition to being insulting rather than substantive. It probably works well for you some of the time, but it's really thin.

I never said any such thing. I want Republicans to be voted into office, which, if you can follow basic logical thought process, requires them to beat an opposing candidate through popular vote.

Oops...did that sound correct? Well, it's not. Districts are gerrymandered so that only Democrats can sit in over 2/3 of all CA legislative districts. Do you understand how the "process" works?

Having seen a few of your other posts, I'm going to pull up stakes here. Any more than this is not the best use of time.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by cowtown
I never said any such thing. I want Republicans to be voted into office, which, if you can follow basic logical thought process, requires them to beat an opposing candidate through popular vote.

Oops...did that sound correct? Well, it's not. Districts are gerrymandered so that only Democrats can sit in over 2/3 of all CA legislative districts.

Well, good on the first part. Got any links to support the second?

Also the ratio of dems/repubs measured by last voting is just over 2/3. So why shouldn't there be that many democrats in the legislature?

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by cowtown
in addition to being insulting rather than substantive.
Any more than this is not the best use of time.

You mean you will go back to the other post where you started the insults.

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by stevepaa

Also the ratio of dems/repubs measured by last voting is just over 2/3. So why shouldn't there be that many democrats in the legislature?

If thats actually the case that would suggest to me that electoral district boundaries are fairly 'unbiased' ... i.e. if representation works out proportional to the vote... if the result is the same as if you were to randomly scatter all California voters around the state & draw up a uniform abstract grid for the district boundaries.

If a representative insists on continuing with moronic pet projects I don't see how it can be 'impossible' to get rid of them by any other means than redistricting if this is a democracy.