Quick guide to CA Democratic Party Positions on upcoming propositions

[Beaverhausen]

http://www.cadem.org/site/c.jrLZK2PyHmF/b.1010965/k.A04B/Propositions.htm

basically- no on 73 through 78, yes on 79 and 80.

[bananas]

1. thanks n/t

[NV Whino]

2. Thanks for posting that

[Beaverhausen]

3. My doctor this morning got 78 and 79 mixed up

He thought 78 was the one we should vote FOR and that 79 was the one backed by the big pharmaceutical companies. I had to set him straight and thought I might as well share the info!

:hi:

[cally]

4. Nix the Six

That's what a friend told me. Vote no on the first six.

[Oerdin]

5. I'm happy to say...

I'm happy to say I am an issues voter and not a party line voter. The world would be a better place if more people thought things through for themselves instead of just doing what other people tell them.

I'm voting yes on 74 because teachers really shouldn't have tenure unless they're University professors, yes on 77 (though it will fail) because I'm currently very angry with the state party and their policy of gerrymandering, and yes on 79 because it is a real way to lower drug costs. I'll be voting no on 80 because we've already fixed the loop holes which enron and all had written into the law so there is no reason to return to the old system and I kind of like how I can choose to only buy green house gas free electricity. I couldn't do that if we returned to the old system.

[lwin]

7. How was the Arnold rally today?

You sound like you were probably there cheering away. Yes on 74, 77 & No on 80. What's the matter, no talking points on the value of 75 yet?

[Oerdin]

11. Ever hear of a big tent?

I guess not. 77 is anti incumbant and not anti-democrat per say so I am always for anything which makes it easier to toss out incumbants. Removing my right to by only green energy doesn't seem like a step forward to me and indeed both former Gov Davis and the Dem controlled state house wrote our existing (much patched) energy regulations so I'm not seeing how supporting them is part of an evil Republican plot. I'm voting for 79 because it offers meaningful cost reductions and an expansion of health care access while 74 at least offers something it improve accountability in our school system. We don't put enough money into our school but we also don't have enough over site into how the money is spent nor how to get qualified teachers. No one else is offering a solution to this problems so I will support the only offer on the table.

Don't like it? Come up with some sort of offer other then the status quo. All to often our party is complacent and doesn't bother to come up with good ideas. When they do come up with good ideas, like prop 79, I support them but when the incumbants continually support the status quo even though the status quo isn't working then I'll be an issue voter and vote to solve an issue. The people who always do as they are told and vote the party line, as espoused by the incumbants who are interested parties, are foolish people.

[lwin]

8. How was the Arnold rally today?

You sound like you were probably there cheering away. Yes on 74, 77 & No on 80. What's the matter, no talking points on the value of 75 yet?

[jamesinca]

13. 77 and 74 should be no

I am all for making the political races interesting, but 77 does not do that. It allows a 3 committee panel, which 2 are appointed by the Governor to redistrict. It is more of the same and the majority of the committee is appointed by the Governor, which will only make it more open to partisan favors and corruption I think.

As far as 74 goes, teachers have a 2 year probation period and a way of dismissing them if they are not up to speed in 2 years. 74 extends that out to 5 years and takes away the process of a hearing before dismissal. If you give 4 years, 11 months and somebody does not like you, they can let you go with no justification. No teacher has a guaranteed job, this initiative is misleading about how teachers' jobs work. Right now all teachers get after 2 years is a hearing before they are fired. Here is the real odd part of 74, it makes it harder to get rid of teachers who are not doing their job after the probation period. If you consider that 75 would require all union members to state if they want any union dues to go to political causes and this list of people would be turned over to the Sect. of State. Take that with a 5 year probation on teachers and all of a sudden you have the potential of teachers being let go because they gave to a union political cause before their 5th year. That potential is there, nobody else has to register the names of its donors with the SOS like this will require, and it will affect the amount of teachers in California. Why would somebody come to California to teach if there is a 5 year probation and the ability to be let go with no justification during that time. 2 years is long enough and there is a process in place to remove a bad teacher. This initiative does nothing to improve student learning or deal with class sizes. Stanford University experts have said there is no evidence to show that a longer probation improves teacher quality. Add to this Prop 76 witch will cut 40 billion in ten years or $600 per stu cent and the schools will be underfunded AGAIN. It will over turn prop 98 and will allow more overcrowding in schools, more teacher layoffs because of less money ( 74 will give them a bunch of bodies to pick from and 75 will help narrow that down to political opponents), and fewer textbooks and materials.

These initiatives are driven by hate of unions. This is nothing but an attempt to scare people away from them. While you are out enjoying your day off from work, thank the Democrats, unions and the labor movement. Re pugs and business want you to work 24/7/365 with no overtime or benefits, why because it is cost effective.

[Andromeda]

15. That sounds like what Republicans do...

march in lockstep with the Repuke leadership by claiming that they are "issues" voters.

Nice try by the way, but I'm not buying it.

[mitchtv]

6. my ltte on 78/79

Here they go again. Big Pharma is dipping into their deep pockets, to defeat Prop 79. There isn't much to recommend their own prop 78,they just pull apart 79. You'll notice, if you read the fine print, at the end of each bit, the names of the 78 sponsors. Johnson &Johnson, Merck (of Vioxx fame), Glaxosmithkline. The list goes on. They are right about one thing, it IS government intervention. Isn't it about time the government stepped in ? 79 is not perfect, but 78 is more of the same. It is brought to you by the same lot who are being sued for fraud by the CA Attorney General regarding MediCal. Can you really trust them?
I have two pieces of advice; Read the propositions carefully, and never trust a drug company, for their committment is to the bottomline, never to the consumer. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not always, but often, you can tell how to vote by looking at the names of the ptoponents. 78 is one such case.

[Pithy Cherub]

9. Thank you! Your post is much appreciated!

The big pharma companies are supporting no on 79 - which just makes me happier to VOTE yes!:P

[mitchtv]

10. they are running hundreds of commercials a day

in this small market(many seniors/majority Pukes)

[jamesinca]

12. And here is the hard part of if

I understand that if they both pass,78 & 79, then the majority vote getter is the one that becomes law. So just having 79 pass is not enough, 78 has to fail and be out voted. The timing of this vote is critical because Republicans seem to always show up at the ballot box and vote party line 85% of the time. Dems don't show up in off cycle years and vote party line 75% of the time when they are there. What that all means is a low voter turnout will be to the repug advantage. It will be to their advantage by 600,000 votes in November unless we get out there and have a high voter turn out.

[Andromeda]

14. Thanks for this...

this clears up some of the confusion about some of these measures.

[huskerlaw]

16. Thanks!

I need to get myself up to speed quick! :)