Speshul Elekshun
by matt and jason at 7:00 am on November 1st, 2005 in Ahhhnold: TurdThough we don’t quite deserve the ridicule we receive from the rest of the country, California is a troubled state. The structural problems created by Proposition 13 thirty years ago were aggravated by the Enron-created energy crisis and dot-com crash. In the hands of a competent leader, California might already be back on the road to recovery. Instead, we go back to the polls for the fifth time in six years in search of a solution.
Much like the 2003 recall election where voters were asked to choose between sacking Governor Gray Davis and choosing his replacement from a list of fools, the 2005 special election pits a broken status quo against a series of misguided and intentionally confusing ballot initiatives. The fact that both of these elections boast odd-numbered years is no accident; just as Arnold Schwarzenegger took advantage of a short cycle in an off year to become Governor, he is using another off year in an attempt to consolidate his own power and boost his 2006 reelection chances. Though most of the public polls show Schwarzenegger on the losing end of a rout, there is plenty of reasonable doubt:
In random interviews with voters up and down the state, Californians had mixed reviews about the election — and the governor. And even regular voters and loyal partisans expressed considerable confusion about the ballot measures.
Again, no accident. By rushing these initiatives onto the ballot in a $100 million special election rather than waiting just a few months for next year’s primary election, (or a year for the general) and deliberately obscuring their real-world effects, Schwarzenegger hopes that confusion and apathy will reduce turnout enough to concentrate the votes of his backers. For this reason alone, voting no on 74, 75, 76, and 77 is completely justified, but as it happens, there are plenty of specific reasons to oppose these initiatives. As promised, here are our recommendations for the 2005 California Special Election.
In a blue state such as California, abortion rights are treated as a matter of course; there are way too many pro-choice people here for abortion foes to wage a direct frontal attack on reproductive rights. With Proposition 73, the pro-life crowd hope to cloak the foundation for future attacks on abortion rights in what at first glance seems to be a pretty logical proposal; even a lot of mainstream pro-choice people agree that, in many cases, parents should be notified when a minor has an abortion. As with many ballot propositions, however, the devil is in the details. Prop 73 would actually change California’s constitution instead of simply putting new laws on the books, which lays the groundwork for future legal challenges to commonly accepted abortion practices; to this end, Prop 73 includes language that defines a fetus as “an unborn child” and “a child conceived but not yet born”. This is less about helping minors than providing constitutionally-supported cover for attacking all abortions. One also has to wonder if, in the real world, these new rules will drive teenage girls to try more dangerous ways of terminating a pregnancy rather than have their parents find out. Reproductive rights shouldn’t be defined in the fine print of an end-run around California’s legislature. No on 73.
Californians already know that the state’s schools are in trouble, with test scores ranking near the bottom of the country and a general lack of funding, supplies and qualified teachers. Is the solution more funding? Smaller class sizes? Increasing access to needed educational resources? Nope. According to Prop 74, the failure of California’s schools can be laid completely on the shoulders of the teachers who, secure in the knowledge that they can’t be fired, do a half-assed job just to collect those sweet, sweet education paychecks. Seriously.
Is it any surprise that this proposition is aimed directly at one of the groups that have been most critical of Schwarzenegger during the course of his administration?
Every child in public school deserves competent teachers and a solid education. But 74 assumes that making it easier to fire teachers (and, by extension, weaken the teachers’ union) is the main engine in making our schools run better. However, increasing the probationary period to five years and eliminating a teacher’s right to a hearing before dismissal will only ensure that fewer people will consider becoming an educator in the first place, which doesn’t make much sense in a state facing a teacher shortage. Also, what’s to stop budget-minded administrators from simply dismissing teachers whenever they are in line for a pay increase? Under Prop 74, there’s a hell of a lot of grey area.
While education reform is certainly needed in California on all levels, it needs to be spread out among all the dysfunctional elements in the current system and will require compromise from every side. Putting all the weight on the backs of teachers is both unfair and unrealistic.
As with Prop 74, 75 is a blatant attack aimed at weakening organized opposition to the Governor himself. Employee unions, in the midst of a 30-year slide of influence, are still the most important voice in protecting working Americans. With Schwarzenegger attempting to consolidate his power, unions are the last line of defense. By forcing 75 on them, he is knocking a leg out from under them when he should have no say in the matter. If union members were so inclined and possessed sufficient numbers, they could force their own unions to get approval before making political expenditures; in fact many unions already have provisions for individual members to opt out of political donations. The switch from opt-out to opt-in serves only those who wish to undercut union clout. As the Governor himself said:
“I think the people have sent legislators to Sacramento to represent the people, not to represent the unions.”
With political decisions in Republican-controlled America increasingly amounting to “people or commerce,” it is imperative that unions and corporations be held to the same standard, with unions, consisting of people, deserving at least as much representation as corporations. Should 75 pass, unions would be at a huge disadvantage via the need to gain approval from each member while large corporations could still use money to influence politics without approval from each shareholder. 75 is a solution in search of a problem, and Schwarzenegger’s political problems shouldn’t be solved by weakening unions through a vote of overwhelmingly non-union voters.
California is in a serious budgetary crisis, which should be apparent from all ends of the political spectrum. By changing the way the state budget is managed, Proposition 76 hopes to stem the flow of red ink and set the state toward an era of balanced budgets. But, in the process, it gives the governor way too much autonomous power over state spending, eliminates mandatory levels of education funding, puts even more financial burden on local governments and sets the stage for deep cuts in popular programs and necessary services. Under Prop 76, the Governor (either Arnold of the next doofus who comes along) can declare a fiscal emergency when state income falls below certain levels, giving him unilateral power to cut funding to programs how he sees fit, completely undermining the legislature in an executive power grab. In addition, language within the proposition makes it difficult to use tax increases as a revenue source, which paves the way for further reductions in education, police, fire and medical spending. While this is a great idea for the Grover Norquists of the world, real budget reform requires flexibility, compromise and the ability to use all options on the table.
After the unprecedented mid-decade Texas redistricting, the technical (and usually very backroom) issue of drawing political boundaries has gone mainstream. There is no doubt that protecting incumbents through gerrymandering has become a problem in American politics, but so far the proposed solutions only add to the damage. Tom DeLay strong-armed Texas into throwing out a two-year-old redistricting plan for one that created more Republican seats at the expense of Democrats, despite no new population data to support such action. In the wake of that “success,” Republicans in many states are trying to emulate DeLay and increase their representation. In overwhelmingly blue California, Schwarzenegger wants to marginalize the state legislature to raise the number of red representatives. The California legislature may not be ideal, but taking the decision out of their control and putting it in the hands of retired judges of indeterminate philosophy is not comforting when the methodology behind 77 is considered. All three judges could be the most partisan Democratic hacks available, and the rules would still produce a significant gain for Republicans because they call for “compactness” as the driving factor. Though backers of reform tout competitive elections as the desired result, compactness guarantees the opposite: current districts that are evenly split would be replaced by a small number of very blue urban districts and an increased number of rural districts that will favor Republicans. With most other states “reforming” districting strictly for partisan gain, using compactness to make a blue state more red is simply unacceptable. California should not be the location of unilateral disarmament for Democrats.
Other people have read about how Enron and other energy companies gamed the market for increased profits; we as Californians lived through it. California’s energy crisis led to wildly increased costs, “rolling blackouts” and, eventually, the installation of Arnold Schwarzenegger into the governor’s office. Based on those lovely memories, it would be tempting to vote yes on 80 just to stick it to the huge corporations who want no part of re-regulation. Controlling the energy industry via voter initiatives is not the answer, though. While California loves its “direct democracy”, energy policy, like the budget, is not something that should be enacted by the simple check of a “yes” or “no” box. A solid energy policy needs flexibility as well as strong public oversight, and Prop 80 provides for neither. Instead, it forces re-regulation on a state that may not be ready for the consequences. As energy policy is really something that needs to be dealt with in the legislature, let’s float the idea of re-regulation the right way. No on 80.
It’s not a coincidence that we are recommending opposition to the Governor on each of his four signature initiatives. After campaigning on his supposed ability to negotiate with both sides, he has consistently chosen the side of his corporate funders while ignoring, belittling, and attempting to marginalize those who disagree with him. This special election is an extension of that philosophy, this time coated with the sheen of reform and bipartisanship, while in reality it’s nothing more than Schwarzenegger looking to consolidate power, pay off donors, and stoke his ego. 73, the confusing 78-79, and 80 are further evidence of a broken system that allows voter manipulation on issues best left to the legislature.
On Tuesday November 8, 2005 vote NO on 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 80, and vote YES on 79.
Bren wrote:
I totally agree that these propositions are full of small print that greatly affects the proposition itself. I do however, disagree with your assessment of prop 78 in comparison to 79.
I don’t disagree that 79 does look better on paper, but the problem with it is that we will not see any results from it for years. 78 is simple and effective. It is similar to the program in Ohio which is working very well. Almost all drug companies are participating in tandam with that plan.
B/c 79 has to get approval from the government, the people who really need the help, NOW, will not see a dime until everyone in government can agree. ( i think we all know what that means…)
We need a plan that works and we need it now. 78 is the answer
Posted 01 Nov 2005 at 8:46 am ¶
matt wrote:
78 rewards drug companies who don’t agree to negotiate lower prices with the state. Why should the state then allow them to keep preferred status under medi-cal if they refuse to lower their prices. What we’ve seen in California and the U.S. in general is half-measures that sound nice yet are plagued by problems. It’s safe to say that the interests of drug companies simply do not intersect with those of the people they sell to.
Posted 01 Nov 2005 at 8:58 am ¶
Gatrios wrote:
YES ON 75: PAYCHECK PROTECTION INITIATIVE
Union workers: 75 stops greedy union bosses from taking your dues to spend on causes you don’t agree with. Teachers, is it fair that you work hard for little pay, but then every time a fatcat radical union boss needs gas for his private jet to go to a meeting with Rob Reiner and Laurie David, they raise your dues. Stop the blatant theft of YOUR money, YES on 75.
Posted 01 Nov 2005 at 9:51 am ¶
matt wrote:
>75 stops greedy union bosses from taking your dues to spend on causes you don’t agree with.
If you had read the post, you would know that there is already a mechanism that address this. union members can opt-out with no penalty.
http://goldenstateblog.latimes.com/goldenstate/2005/11/the_golden_stat.html
Public employees in California have the right today to keep their money from being spent on causes they don’t support by withdrawing from the union, which is bound by law to continue representing them in contract negotiations and grievance proceedings. Is this right a difficult one to exercise? Considering that 25% of all public employees do so, it doesn’t seem so hard.
Posted 01 Nov 2005 at 10:02 am ¶
Sammy wrote:
Yes on 79?
My understanding is that a yeas vote on 79 will make 200+ million perscriptiosns filled by lower income residents of California eligiable for frivolous lawsuits. That seems like one big mess to me. These types of suits are very hard to win and can take years.
Posted 01 Nov 2005 at 10:57 am ¶
matt wrote:
Source?
Posted 01 Nov 2005 at 10:58 am ¶
evan wrote:
I was surprised to see that the SF Chronicle endorsed Prop. 77. You would think they’d know better.
Thing is, I’m not opposed to redistricting per se. I’m just not going to vote to give a panel of judges carte blanche to change districts before I get a chance to see how they want to re-shape them.
Posted 01 Nov 2005 at 11:20 am ¶
Gatrios wrote:
>If you had read the post, you would know that there is already a mechanism that address this. union members can opt-out with no penalty.
Union members who choose to opt out are usually threatened by union goons with violence to them and their families. YES on 75, it will stop the blatant thuggery of nazi like union stooges. Unions keep their members in line with force and coercion. If you enter a profession wher by state law you have to join a union, vote YES on 75 to preserve your civil rights. Don;t let the unions silence YOUR voice.
Posted 01 Nov 2005 at 11:44 am ¶
matt wrote:
So right now, 25% opt out of dues, yet if 75 passes, many more are likely to do the same? Won’t more union workers then be subject to thuggery?
Posted 01 Nov 2005 at 12:42 pm ¶
Sammy wrote:
matt-
Here is the article I read with the stat about the millions of potential lawsuits.
“The industry fears this provision could lead to a flood of frivolous lawsuits.
“Profiteering is not defined,” Davis said, “so any one of the 210 million prescriptions that are filled could be subject to a lawsuit.”"
Posted 04 Nov 2005 at 1:06 pm ¶
Sammy wrote:
I apologize…here is the link to the article. Found in the Contra Costa Times
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/12971681.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Posted 04 Nov 2005 at 1:07 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>“The industry fears this provision could lead to a flood of frivolous lawsuits.
Exactly. Which is their stated reason for opposing 79 and getting 78 placed on the ballot. This is the same industry that opposes reimportation from Canada on fears of poisoning. They will say or do anything to protect their profits, which is of course their right. But it’s not a good idea for their consumers to aid them in that quest.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pharma4nov04,0,3284896.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Drug Firms Gave Money to Some Who Endorsed Proposition 78
By Dan Morain, Times Staff Writer
SACRAMENTO — The nation’s drug makers have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to political leaders and civil rights groups that have endorsed the industry’s initiative on the Nov. 8 ballot.
The measure, Proposition 78, would avert state caps on the price of prescription drugs. Those embracing it while taking the industry’s money include the conservative Traditional Values Coalition, an emergency-room physician in Los Angeles, the California arm of the NAACP and the Mexican American Political Assn.
Posted 04 Nov 2005 at 1:16 pm ¶
Bren wrote:
Matt,
I understand where you come from, as a lot of people are weary of the drug company’s motives for such strong support behind 78. But, you cannot honestly believe that if trail attorneys are allowed to sue drug company’s because they believe drug costs are too high (even if they do not have a client - the attorney can simply sue on their own), that they would not take full advantage of that fact.
I would think this was one of the main motivations behind the drug companys’ support. Millions of frivilous lawsuits will create higher perscription drug prices, and defeat the purpose the plan altogether.
All of this arguement is also assuming that 79 even goes into effect if it were to win the vote. I highly doubt that 79 will even have a chance of passing through all the litigative hoops in light of the fact that it must be approved by the government before anyone sees a dime of discounts.
Posted 08 Nov 2005 at 9:58 am ¶
matt wrote:
The drug companies don’t just support 78, they put it on the ballot.
I don’t imagine there will be one lawsuit for every patient, and obviously the legislature will have to step in and do their job.
I think that either way there will be a court fight, and 79 was the better choice in this election only because the higher vote total prop passes. 78 and its “voluntary participation” was simply unacceptable.
Posted 08 Nov 2005 at 10:04 am ¶
Bren wrote:
Matt,
Again, I encourage you to look at how the similar program is working in Ohio and how the program similar to 79 worked in Maine. Maine’s program was tied up in courts for years, while Ohio went into effect without a hitch.
My point is also not that there will be one lawsuit for every patient- there doesn’t have to be, with a pool of 200+ million to pick from, 10% would mean millions. Also as I said, with trail lawyer not even needing a patient to sue companies, this will be a virtual free-for-all.
Here’s a link you might find interesting…
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/elections/initiatives/article_739768.php
(might require registration but you can get a sign in name from bugmenot.com)
Posted 08 Nov 2005 at 12:01 pm ¶
matt wrote:
Thanks for the link. I guess what it comes down to for me is that I can not in good conscience support anything that the drug companies are behind. They bought influence, suppressed evidence, used fear and intimidation, stifled competition and now are inserting themselves directly into the process via 78. Stopping them on something trumps the fear of litigation for me. But what do I know, I’m among the 40 million americans who don’t even have health insurance…
Posted 08 Nov 2005 at 12:24 pm ¶
Bren wrote:
Matt-
I appreciate you taking a look and respect the reasons behind your vote. I do wish that people would not base their vote soley on the proposition’s supporters and vote on the basis of the propositions themselves- but as I said I do understand where you come from.
It’s great to see another people out there as passionate as I am about these issues, no matter what side you’re on. May the best proposition win! (78!!) :)
-Bren
Posted 08 Nov 2005 at 1:19 pm ¶