PDA

View Full Version : Special election 5/19/09


Mazilla
04-21-2009, 11:33 AM
I just got my absentee ballot for the special election coming up, I'm not in the loop as to which props are good vs bad. Can anybody fill me in real quick as to what may or may not have something in it we would not want to vote for. I read thru the basic discriptions of the prop's, but I never trust those.

Thanks! :thumbsup:

Untamed1972
04-21-2009, 11:52 AM
Why can't they add the open SD sheriff seat to that election and screw this biased political appointment crap?

GP3
04-21-2009, 12:01 PM
It's very simple.


NO ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

ESPECIALLY, 1A. Unless you enjoy taxes.

GenLee
04-21-2009, 12:05 PM
It's very simple.


NO ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

ESPECIALLY, 1A. Unless you enjoy taxes.

Exactly.

As for the sheriff deal, Pure BS, When I got my special election ballot I was elated that it may have the sheriff issue.............................But of course not.

HunterJim
04-21-2009, 12:08 PM
They are all a "no" vote.

I developed a California voting strategy over the years, mostly to reward the Legislature who creates all these anti-gun laws and the judges who would not overturn them while at the same time they invented new "rights".

So in any election I:

1. Vote against any money proposal;
2. Vote against any sitting judges; and
3. Vote "yes" on any measure that makes life harder for bureaucrats.

We don't have the voting strength to pass good laws, but we can definitely help defeat the bad ones.

jim

CA_Libertarian
04-21-2009, 12:09 PM
The first thing I look for is fiscal impact. If it authorizes borrowing or tax hikes, I vote "no" regardless of how much I like the ideal.

The second thing I look at is whether it grows government power, or reduces it. I'm for smaller government, so I always vote to minimize the govt's role.

Very few things pass the first two tests, but the third thing I look for is how it affects civil rights. If it does not increase individual liberty, it gets a "no" vote.

I've found I vote "no" on about 95% of everything I vote on. Too bad "no" isn't an option when it comes to appointing officials...

Roadrunner
04-21-2009, 12:33 PM
I am considering "yes" on 1F. That is supposed to prevent politicians from getting raises while there is a deficit. Since I don't see the state getting back into the black because of the current bunch, they will never see a pay raise.

hill billy
04-21-2009, 12:33 PM
Vote no on all. They are all bad.

Bad Voodoo
04-21-2009, 12:35 PM
I am considering "yes" on 1F. That is supposed to prevent politicians from getting raises while there is a deficit. Since I don't see the state getting back into the black because of the current bunch, they will never see a pay raise.

Exactly why I voted yes on F. There's nothing that indicates any funny business w/ this one, especially considering it in concert w/ the other measures.

Legasat
04-21-2009, 12:51 PM
I am for sure NO on 1A - 1E.

I have discussed 1F with several people got another point of view.

1F says that the California Legislature CANNOT vote themselves a raise IF there is a projected deficit for that year. It is worded in the the negative, so if you agree with the above statement, you need to vote YES.

The other point of view I received was that "You know they will do it regardless of the deficit, so why not let them and then hold it against them?"

Well, I haven't too many consequences for Legislators that vote really dumb things, so I think I am voting YES on 1F, so they don't get the chance to disappointment me AGAIN.

RickD6023
04-21-2009, 1:00 PM
The first thing I look for is fiscal impact. If it authorizes borrowing or tax hikes, I vote "no" regardless of how much I like the ideal.

The second thing I look at is whether it grows government power, or reduces it. I'm for smaller government, so I always vote to minimize the govt's role.

Very few things pass the first two tests, but the third thing I look for is how it affects civil rights. If it does not increase individual liberty, it gets a "no" vote.

I've found I vote "no" on about 95% of everything I vote on. Too bad "no" isn't an option when it comes to appointing officials...

Right on the mark! No on 1a-1f. It's the hidden clauses that will hurt. They pay people to come up with titles designed to mislead and hide the real impact because too many voters do so by title alone.

97F1504RAD
04-21-2009, 1:25 PM
It's very simple.


NO ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

ESPECIALLY, 1A. Unless you enjoy taxes.

Exactly.

About the only one you may want to vote yes on would be 1B I think it is which is about funds for education.

hill billy
04-21-2009, 1:30 PM
Exactly.

About the only one you may want to vote yes on would be 1B I think it is which is about funds for education.
Right. Exactly where do you think those funds will come from? Oh, that's right, new taxes. NO TO ALL.

Bad Voodoo
04-21-2009, 2:00 PM
About the only one you may want to vote yes on would be 1B I think it is which is about funds for education.

:eek:

California - perpetually funding and re-funding public education for the last thirty years, and STILL ranked 47th in the nation!

Umm, this experiment failed long ago. Time to cut off the funding supply.

capoward
04-21-2009, 2:11 PM
Exactly.

About the only one you may want to vote yes on would be 1B I think it is which is about funds for education.Education already is guaranteed 1st monies from every annual budget. The only “state budget - education budget cuts” that education has suffered during my 30+ year living in California is not getting the dollar amount of budget increase that "education" via the teacher’s union demand.

By this I mean that the state’s education budget for a new budget year has NEVER been held to the previous year’s dollar amount or cut below the previous year’s dollar amount. The new education budget dollar amount has always exceeded the previous year’s dollar amount plus new monies; i.e., new monies are an inflation dollar increase plus some dollar amount above the dollar increase for inflation.

So there has never been a budget cut for education and since education has never suffered a budget cut why should they – principally the teacher’s union – be rewarded with new additional monies? The annual scholastic achievements for California students alone suggest that the annual education monies already allocated on a fiscal basis are not being spent to educate our children, in my case my grandchildren.

No on 1B.

97F1504RAD
04-21-2009, 2:23 PM
I did not say to vote yes on 1B

I said about the only one you MAY want to vote yes on would be 1b.

I would not approve on paying teachers or the people running the district any more money as they are over payed as it is. The money needs to go to school supplies and the other necessities that schools require. They need funding for sports and music. No teacher pay increases and no district employees pay increases.

And stop spending money teaching kids English that do not speak English. If they do not and cannot speak English then they should not be in school taking away from others kids time of teaching. And they need to hold the teachers accountable as well.

And for the record I voted NO on all of them

smogcity
04-21-2009, 2:33 PM
It's very simple.


NO ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

ESPECIALLY, 1A. Unless you enjoy taxes.


Yeah, this

spddrcr
04-21-2009, 2:48 PM
I did not say to vote yes on 1B

I said about the only one you MAY want to vote yes on would be 1b.

I would not approve on paying teachers or the people running the district any more money as they are over payed as it is. The money needs to go to school supplies and the other necessities that schools require. They need funding for sports and music. No teacher pay increases and no district employees pay increases.

And stop spending money teaching kids English that do not speak English. If they do not and cannot speak English then they should not be in school taking away from others kids time of teaching. And they need to hold the teachers accountable as well.

And for the record I voted NO on all of them


teachers are overpaid as it is:confused:

emarkp
04-21-2009, 2:56 PM
1A extends a tax increase. You can see by how much in this graphic (http://politicsandrandomness.blogspot.com/2009/03/taxes-1a-will-extend.html).

1F is a sop to Abel Maldonado who voted for the taxes with this as part of his payment. Do not reward that kind of behavior.

No no no, no no no.

Edited to add: I wrote more about how 1A etc. came to be (http://politicsandrandomness.blogspot.com/search/label/California%20Budget), if you're interested in the whole sordid thing.

bartt
04-21-2009, 2:58 PM
I did not say to vote yes on 1B

I said about the only one you MAY want to vote yes on would be 1b.

I would not approve on paying teachers or the people running the district any more money as they are over payed as it is. The money needs to go to school supplies and the other necessities that schools require. They need funding for sports and music. No teacher pay increases and no district employees pay increases.

And stop spending money teaching kids English that do not speak English. If they do not and cannot speak English then they should not be in school taking away from others kids time of teaching. And they need to hold the teachers accountable as well.

And for the record I voted NO on all of them

No! sorry they get too much money now.
Let's do a simple exercise:
20 kids per class times $5k per kid = 100k per year - 35k for the teacher..
where the hell is the other 65k, they don't have books and the buildings are not repaired. The department of edu needs to come clean on where this money is going before they get another cent.!
I can't believe that the governator has stood up and said the above when he has to face off against the teachers union..
Oh well....:mad:

97F1504RAD
04-21-2009, 2:58 PM
teachers are overpaid as it is:confused:

Have you seen the salaries on tenured teachers and good luck having one fired for anything short of child molestation.
Most make 80-100k once they reach the 5 year tenured mark, not to mention they get how many months off per year.

spddrcr
04-21-2009, 3:15 PM
Im not going to say your wrong yet, but my wife has been a teacher for 13 years. she makes about 60,000 a year in the mount diablo unified school district. after paying 15,000 (yes 15,000) a year for health care and after taxes were lucky if she clears 40,000. she works in a title 1 school dealing with the lowest of the low, a 5th grader actually tackled her on the playground last year which coupled with her back problems landed her with a triple fusion:mad:

40,000 a year with a masters in administration is pretty sad:eek:

I have yet to meet a teacher that makes 100,000 a year. now i still believe i wont vote yes on that one but the problem isnt that the teachers are making to much money, it's that the admins and sup are making to much money and not spending the money they have been given wisely. thats the exact reason they wont get any more of my money, it pisses my wife off but she understands where it's coming from:thumbsup:

spddrcr
04-21-2009, 3:17 PM
Have you seen the salaries on tenured teachers and good luck having one fired for anything short of child molestation.
Most make 80-100k once they reach the 5 year tenured mark, not to mention they get how many months off per year.

they might get 3 months a year off but those three months are filled with meetings and prep for the next year. a lot of them also work 12 hour days.

PatriotnMore
04-21-2009, 3:21 PM
The first thing I look for is fiscal impact. If it authorizes borrowing or tax hikes, I vote "no" regardless of how much I like the ideal.

The second thing I look at is whether it grows government power, or reduces it. I'm for smaller government, so I always vote to minimize the govt's role.

Very few things pass the first two tests, but the third thing I look for is how it affects civil rights. If it does not increase individual liberty, it gets a "no" vote.

I've found I vote "no" on about 95% of everything I vote on. Too bad "no" isn't an option when it comes to appointing officials...

I pretty much apply the same standards, but I also pay particular attention to which groups, individuals, and professions endorse the propositions, it gives me a better picture of motivation.

I have noticed lately, some play the name game in hopes of throwing the dog off the scent, so try and get some back ground on the group to find out who the real players are.

glock_this
04-21-2009, 3:22 PM
no on them all

as for 1F.. have to watch specific wording as they say that before doing XYZ they must "consider the following factors".... well we know how that works.. they consider them "considered" and then vote as they see fit. "consider" does not preclude them from going ether way so before they give raises to themselves they "consider" the 2-3 factors they are required, blow them off, and vote how they want as technically, they gave it "consideration" so met the needs of the bill.

Shadowdrop
04-21-2009, 3:25 PM
Me keeping my job pretty much rides on 1A and 1C, so I have to vote yes. They will fail miserably, though. Unemployment, here I come!

PatriotnMore
04-21-2009, 3:57 PM
My wife's work is directly related to 1D, and I am voting no.

Tillers_Rule
04-21-2009, 3:58 PM
I always vote no on any issue that wants more money from me

Mazilla
04-21-2009, 4:10 PM
no on them all

as for 1F.. have to watch specific wording as they say that before doing XYZ they must "consider the following factors".... well we know how that works.. they consider them "considered" and then vote as they see fit. "consider" does not preclude them from going ether way so before they give raises to themselves they "consider" the 2-3 factors they are required, blow them off, and vote how they want as technically, they gave it "consideration" so met the needs of the bill.

I looked thru the text of 1F and I noticed the portion that looks exactly like this.....

section G:

"...at or before the end of each fiscal year, the commision shall, ba a single resolution adopted by a majority of the membership of the commision, adjust the annual salary and the medical, dental, insurance, and other similar benefits of state officers.The annual salray and benefits specified in the resolution shall be effective on or after the first monday of next december."

Am I to understand that 1F will have 0 effect on their salaries either way? LOL :confused:

Fate
04-21-2009, 4:50 PM
Me keeping my job pretty much rides on 1A and 1C, so I have to vote yes. They will fail miserably, though. Unemployment, here I come!
So much for votes of conscience! ;)

97F1504RAD
04-21-2009, 4:51 PM
Im not going to say your wrong yet, but my wife has been a teacher for 13 years. she makes about 60,000 a year in the mount diablo unified school district. after paying 15,000 (yes 15,000) a year for health care and after taxes were lucky if she clears 40,000. she works in a title 1 school dealing with the lowest of the low, a 5th grader actually tackled her on the playground last year which coupled with her back problems landed her with a triple fusion:mad:

40,000 a year with a masters in administration is pretty sad:eek:

I have yet to meet a teacher that makes 100,000 a year. now i still believe i wont vote yes on that one but the problem isnt that the teachers are making to much money, it's that the admins and sup are making to much money and not spending the money they have been given wisely. thats the exact reason they wont get any more of my money, it pisses my wife off but she understands where it's coming from:thumbsup:

I agree 100% and I also agree that 40k a year is not right for a masters degree, but they chose that occupation knowing the pay scale. I also think that teachers in this state should all be paid the same but it does not work that way obviously because the teachers in my area make close to that 100k mark once tenured. I have serious issue's with the Administration folks being paid up over the 300k mark when they are the ones that are jacking things up and making bad decisions within the district.

In our area the teachers went on strike a few years back and the salaries were made public and most teachers here start off at around 40k per year and it raises every year until they hit the five year tenure mark at which point it sky rockets, and good luck getting them fired for doing a bad job. They are not held accountable for their lack of teaching. Good teachers should be rewarded and bad ones should not.

bg
04-21-2009, 4:52 PM
It's very simple.


NO ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

ESPECIALLY, 1A. Unless you enjoy taxes.
AMEN !

Oshiat
04-21-2009, 5:46 PM
Have you seen the salaries on tenured teachers and good luck having one fired for anything short of child molestation.
Most make 80-100k once they reach the 5 year tenured mark, not to mention they get how many months off per year.

Don't know where you get your pay scale information but it is way off, for our area anyway. My wife has been a teacher for ~15 years with a BA Degree, she currently makes $55K / year. The top of her payscale is $79K with a Masters and 24 years service. Teachers do not get payed during their beaks. She takes a reduction in pay during her teaching months so that her pay can be distributed over 12 months.

I firmly agree that there is MASS corruption in the school system and that there is a lot of work that needs to be done. The wife states that the reason that test scores are so low can be attributed to several things.

Not all teachers are good teachers.
California is ranked 47th in the actual money spent per child.
All kids are tested, even if they do not speak English or are in Special Ed.
Parents take NO responsibility for their children's upbringing.

If you were to consider school to be similar to childcare:
$30 per child x 20 over 185 teachable days = $111,00 a year.

Link to the payscale"

http://www.fsusd.k12.ca.us/human_resources/teacher.pdf

BTW I will be voting no on all an she is beginning to see the light also.

shooter4ever
04-21-2009, 6:33 PM
If you're in LA don't forget to vote for Trutanich for LA DA.

grnt
04-21-2009, 6:46 PM
NO MEANS NO

Mazilla
04-21-2009, 6:53 PM
I voted NO on everything and stuck my ballot in the mail.

97F1504RAD
04-21-2009, 6:55 PM
Don't know where you get your pay scale information but it is way off, for our area anyway. My wife has been a teacher for ~15 years with a BA Degree, she currently makes $55K / year. The top of her payscale is $79K with a Masters and 24 years service. Teachers do not get payed during their beaks. She takes a reduction in pay during her teaching months so that her pay can be distributed over 12 months.

I firmly agree that there is MASS corruption in the school system and that there is a lot of work that needs to be done. The wife states that the reason that test scores are so low can be attributed to several things.

Not all teachers are good teachers.
California is ranked 47th in the actual money spent per child.
All kids are tested, even if they do not speak English or are in Special Ed.
Parents take NO responsibility for their children's upbringing.

If you were to consider school to be similar to childcare:
$30 per child x 20 over 185 teachable days = $111,00 a year.

Link to the payscale"

http://www.fsusd.k12.ca.us/human_resources/teacher.pdf

BTW I will be voting no on all an she is beginning to see the light also.

Curious as to how you know what district I am in?

And from that document you posted, I would agree that the info I got was way off. The info I was referencing was several years back when the teachers in this are went on strike and the supposed salaries were released. It appears as though that info was incorrect.

Oshiat
04-21-2009, 7:15 PM
Curious as to how you know what district I am in?

And from that document you posted, I would agree that the info I got was way off. The info I was referencing was several years back when the teachers in this are went on strike and the supposed salaries were released. It appears as though that info was incorrect.

Actually, no idea what district you were in. My wife was involved in the strikes a few years back so I get to hear all about it. Nice to know I am not the only Calgunner in the area tho!

97F1504RAD
04-21-2009, 7:20 PM
Actually, no idea what district you were in. My wife was involved in the strikes a few years back so I get to hear all about it. Nice to know I am not the only Calgunner in the area tho!

One thing I was told is Our Superintendent at one point was flying back and forth from here to Los Angeles at taxpayer expense since she was a Superintendent both up her for us and down south. Makes you wonder why they cannot figure out what the problem is when they are the problem. If I am not mistaken she was not only being flown back and forth she also got to collect two salaries.

By the way based on those saleries you posted I would say that the teachers are under payed for the job.

Tmac
04-21-2009, 7:44 PM
No, No, No, No, No, No

calixt0
04-21-2009, 7:57 PM
so you guys say no and let the legistlater give them selves raises evein in deficit years?

cannon
04-21-2009, 8:18 PM
No to all of them.

I don't begrudge the salary the teachers earn because they do earn it. No, no one in my family is a teacher.

What really tees me off is the money wasted by administration on admin salaries, perks, politically correct feel good programs and just the sheer size of it.

I'm only talking about LAUSD. I don't know anything about any other school district.

N6ATF
04-21-2009, 8:55 PM
With the malice of BOTH parties towards the electorate in trying to defraud and then steal even more of public's money by penalty of tax law with Prop 1A-1F, if there was a box for @#$% NO, I would check that on every single one.

so you guys say no and let the legistlater give them selves raises evein in deficit years?

If we vote yes, they will never have a deficit again, and conspire to vote for more taxes to "balance" the budget just like they did this time. Even though they let $8 billion in deficit get through, conveniently uncovered just after putting the props on the ballot.

They will fake balance the budget on our collective backs no matter their party, no matter their signed no-tax pledges, and will continue to be able to give themselves raises for doing a brilliant job at screwing us all.

Table Rock Arms
04-21-2009, 8:59 PM
I could be wrong about this but my father in-law works for a Junior college and I believe that all schools work the same way. The way the budget works is that you get a set amount of money and if you don't spend it all then your budget gets smaller the next year. So they basically do everything they can to spend every dollar given to them. Not a good situation.

Model X
04-21-2009, 9:24 PM
Im voting NO on 1F because otherwise they will just pad their expense accounts to make up for their lack of a raise.

ADDITIONALLY these people spend millions of bucks running for these offices, i doubt they care too much about the pay. Furthermore the amount of money savings would be pointless.

Shadowdrop
04-21-2009, 9:35 PM
So much for votes of conscience! ;)

Haha, pretty much. I may just vote no and get in the bread line with the rest. I'll consider it a summer vacation, the fiscal year ends in June.

gazzavc
04-21-2009, 10:54 PM
For the record, the LAUSD is the most bloated, beaurocratic, wasteful school district in the entire COUNTRY.

Even the administration department has its own administration department. You cannot imagine how bad it is. Even if you were to chop out 20% of administration jobs only, you'd stil never get anywhere. It would grow back like a hydra !!

Its awful and rotten to the core.

It should have been broken up years ago, but it just gets worse.

We had two children in my kids school who are actually taken individually BY SPECIAL TAXI to a special needs school on the other side of the Valley.

Why ? , Because the mother made a huge fuss and threatened a lawsuit if her kids weren't sent to the school on the LAUSD dime because she felt their "needs" were not being met at the school.

Ridiculous and wasteful. But my kids suffer for it.

LAUSD is rubbish

spddrcr
04-21-2009, 10:58 PM
No to all of them.

I don't begrudge the salary the teachers earn because they do earn it. No, no one in my family is a teacher.

What really tees me off is the money wasted by administration on admin salaries, perks, politically correct feel good programs and just the sheer size of it.

I'm only talking about LAUSD. I don't know anything about any other school district.

and that right there was the reason i told my wife i would vote no on it. after trying to explain to her that we have given them money time after time and it gets wasted the same way every time why give them more money? another interesting thing that happened at my sons school is that they have a program where they send in dental assistants to give the kids dental checkup's. well my son has been going to the dentist for more then half his life(he's 7) and his teeth are perfect nd have already been sealed. the dental people sent home a report on his teeth saying that he was in desperate need of dental care and that his teeth need to be sealed now:confused::mad:

this is one of those programs that we are all paying for, after contacting the person in charge of this scam i was told that mistakes happen but they would be more then happy to schedule a second exam for my son at their office and that it would cost me only 25 bucks:eek:

get rid of programs like this as well as star testing which does no good and waste's millions of dollars from the school budget, and while were at it how about losing the whole no child left behind crap:rolleyes:

tactic101
04-22-2009, 8:04 AM
I would not approve on paying teachers or the people running the district any more money as they are over payed as it is. The money needs to go to school supplies and the other necessities that schools require. They need funding for sports and music. No teacher pay increases and no district employees pay increases.

And stop spending money teaching kids English that do not speak English. If they do not and cannot speak English then they should not be in school taking away from others kids time of teaching. And they need to hold the teachers accountable as well.

First point is that realistically that will not happen. Voting to increase their budget at all will just give them the ability to shift around some other funding streams to increase salaries. Last time I checked the public CA salary database (LA Daily News I think hosts a search portal for this) there were hundreds of teachers earning over 100K in the LAUSD alone.

Second point is that the CA schools (particularly LAUSD) have tremendous cash reserves--the current "financial crisis," layoffs and cutbacks are political window dressing at the expense of the students to protect the salaries of the staff. Cal schools expenditures are 85% salaries (Rand Corp. study). Union (CTA etc.) campaign ads will use this to get sympathy for increasing salary expenditures from the uninformed public.

The Cal public employee unions are strangling the taxpayer base. Killing the golden goose.

tactic101
04-22-2009, 8:15 AM
The first thing I look for is fiscal impact. If it authorizes borrowing or tax hikes, I vote "no" regardless of how much I like the ideal.

The second thing I look at is whether it grows government power, or reduces it. I'm for smaller government, so I always vote to minimize the govt's role.

Very few things pass the first two tests, but the third thing I look for is how it affects civil rights. If it does not increase individual liberty, it gets a "no" vote.

I've found I vote "no" on about 95% of everything I vote on. Too bad "no" isn't an option when it comes to appointing officials...

I used to do just what you said. Then I got burned an election or two ago on one of the ballot measures and found I had actually voted for a measure that would increase expenditures.

The wording of the measures has become increasingly deceptive in the last several years, to the point where on the current ballot many of the measure descriptions hide the fact that there will be expenditure increases. Also the fiscal impact estimates seem wildly optimistic. Can't trust the ballots, can't trust the fiscal impact estimates! Also, this time around I didn't receive the measure explanation booklet which gives opposing views on the measures. I would not be surprised if the majority party here just did away with that altogether eventually. So in my neighborhood, the majority party sends about 30 pieces of literature, voting guides, calendars, etc. for the one postcard I get from the other party.

tactic101
04-22-2009, 8:28 AM
Don't know where you get your pay scale information but it is way off, for our area anyway.

Link to the payscale"

http://www.fsusd.k12.ca.us/human_resources/teacher.pdf

BTW I will be voting no on all an she is beginning to see the light also.

California public employee salaries are searchable. I believe LA Daily News had a search engine. You can do advanced searches by multiple criteria.

Not sure about the Sacramento Bee's database, but it was the first one Google came up with: http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/

motorhead
04-22-2009, 8:40 AM
no on everything. arnold needs an enema.

emarkp
04-22-2009, 9:22 AM
California is ranked 47th in the actual money spent per child.
That's actually a lie. CA is in the top 10 IIRC. The "47th" number is gotten by adjusting the actual numbers to make them look smaller.

Regardless, the CA legislature has doubled the spending of gov't in 10 years (40% increase since Arnold was elected). The only way to force them to fix the spending is to deny any new funding.

The recall effort on Anthony Adams (one of the turncoat R's) is underway and will likely succeed. The R party committed suicide by voting for the biggest tax increase in history. We shouldn't commit suicide with them by voting yes on any of these fake props.

PressCheck
04-22-2009, 10:04 AM
NO on all of them.

1BigPea
04-22-2009, 11:17 AM
no on everything. arnold needs an enema.

^ Hehe....

Yup, I concur, no on ALL of them.

CA_Libertarian
04-22-2009, 12:13 PM
Exactly.

About the only one you may want to vote yes on would be 1B I think it is which is about funds for education.

I am especially against throwing more money into the education system. We already pay WAY too much and get too little in return. I'll spare you my usual rant about the inefficiencies and other problems in the public education.

Sunwolf
04-22-2009, 12:56 PM
No,no,no and hell no!

Trench Broom
04-23-2009, 2:03 AM
No on every prop. Starve the beast.

colossians323
04-23-2009, 3:53 AM
NO on all of them.

Have any of you looked at your sales tax for purchasing stuff?
Alameda county 9 3/4 percent:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
And now they are asking for more???

I love the commercials " its for the children, the schools, the policemen, the firemen, and all tax payers agree this is the right thing to do"

The right thing to do is take the government back, and throw all those bastards out.

Every election time in Cali I watch the next days results, always to find the bonds and taxes always pass. When are the people going to pull their heads out, and quit voting to tax and bond themselves into oblivion?

AS far as teachers go, they are all handsomely rewarded for working only 9 months of a year.

I have two sisters and a brother in law who all work for the public education system, and they don't spend all summer in planning meetings!

They spend all summer traveling to Europe, across America, Hawaii.
If teachers get to spend their planning meetings to these locations, they are better paid than I thought.

Each one of them makes $70-80,000 a year.
Tell Ca no more taxes, don't be a fool and continue to pour money into the pockets of the public employees!

tenpercentfirearms
04-23-2009, 4:40 AM
I was thinking of voting yes on everything so that way this special election wouldn't be a complete waste of the millions of dollars it cost to run it. :TFH:

I am voting no on 1F because it limits the pay of these people:

The Legislature (120 Members).
The Governor.
The Lieutenant Governor.
The Attorney General.
The Controller.
The Insurance Commissioner.
The Secretary of State.
The Superintendent of Public Instruction.
The Treasurer.
The Board of Equalization (4 Members).

The only people that have anything to do with the budget are the top two catagories. Why would we hose the rest of those people for the actions of the top two?

Let's put on there a worth while proposition where we stop paying the Governor and legislators when they stall on a budget. That is something I would vote yes on.

I am a teacher and I am voting no on everything. However, I like what I get paid. I wouldn't want to see it decrease. I work hard for a living too. Sometimes.

jrau13
04-23-2009, 5:24 AM
One thing I was told is Our Superintendent at one point was flying back and forth from here to Los Angeles at taxpayer expense since she was a Superintendent both up her for us and down south. Makes you wonder why they cannot figure out what the problem is when they are the problem. If I am not mistaken she was not only being flown back and forth she also got to collect two salaries.

By the way based on those saleries you posted I would say that the teachers are under payed for the job.

Exactly! My wife is a teacher. We moved here from Maryland and you should see what they get paid:( Its sad actually for the amount of BS they have to put up with.

eflatminor
04-23-2009, 6:33 AM
If you're in LA don't forget to vote for Trutanich.


YES! Vote Trutanich! Weiss is as anti 2A as you get.

N6ATF
04-23-2009, 1:29 PM
I am a teacher and I am voting no on everything. However, I like what I get paid. I wouldn't want to see it decrease. I work hard for a living too. Sometimes.

Teachers' unions barely allow anyone to get terminated for cause, let alone get anything but a pay INCREASE! You're safe.

CCWFacts
04-23-2009, 1:36 PM
It's very simple.


NO ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

ESPECIALLY, 1A. Unless you enjoy taxes.

I already sent mine in, all "noes".

More taxes would not solve this state's budget problems. Slush funds won't. Giving billions of dollars more to schools won't.

CCWFacts
04-23-2009, 1:38 PM
I am considering "yes" on 1F. That is supposed to prevent politicians from getting raises while there is a deficit. Since I don't see the state getting back into the black because of the current bunch, they will never see a pay raise.

1F isn't bad; it does limit gov't spending to some small extent. I voted "no" on it just because it seemed like a petty issue, and legislators do, in fact, need to get salaries that keep up with the cost of living in this state.

It was the only one of the props that seemed reasonable (but I still voted no).

domokun
04-23-2009, 2:25 PM
It's very simple.


NO ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

ESPECIALLY, 1A. Unless you enjoy taxes.

Sounds good to me but I think I really like the idea of having 10%+ sales taxes and want to see them go higher (i.e. 15%+ sales tax). :TFH: It'll do wonders on helping the state's economy do better and prove that it is possible to tax your way out of your financial troubles! :rolleyes:

DocSkinner
04-23-2009, 3:08 PM
It's very simple.


NO ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

ESPECIALLY, 1A. Unless you enjoy taxes.

exactly - No - we the voters elected you to do your job, you don't get to just hand it back, which adds a ton of expenses, because you have tough decisions to make, and completely spineless and don't want to vote in a way that might pissoff some people. So if teh peopel vote on it, you can feel you get off spotless.

DocSkinner
04-23-2009, 3:11 PM
I was thinking of voting yes on everything so that way this special election wouldn't be a complete waste of the millions of dollars it cost to run it. :TFH:

I am voting no on 1F because it limits the pay of these people:

The Legislature (120 Members).
The Governor.
The Lieutenant Governor.
The Attorney General.
The Controller.
The Insurance Commissioner.
The Secretary of State.
The Superintendent of Public Instruction.
The Treasurer.
The Board of Equalization (4 Members).

The only people that have anything to do with the budget are the top two catagories. Why would we hose the rest of those people for the actions of the top two?

Let's put on there a worth while proposition where we stop paying the Governor and legislators when they stall on a budget. That is something I would vote yes on.

I am a teacher and I am voting no on everything. However, I like what I get paid. I wouldn't want to see it decrease. I work hard for a living too. Sometimes.


Voting No for teh exact first reason you state - Sick of them handing off tough decisions. As long as they can do that and keep getting away with it, they will. they are elected AND PAID to make these tough decisions, damn time they started earning it.

Whiskey_Sauer
04-23-2009, 3:31 PM
So in any election I:

[...]

2. Vote against any sitting judges[.]


Sorry, but that's just inane.

Flopper
04-23-2009, 4:14 PM
teachers and school district administrators don't need raises. they work 8 months out of the year and don't pay into SDI, but they pay into a great retirement fund.

and boo hoo about working long hours every day. guess what? that's what plenty of working professionals do EVERY day.

if they really want to be paid more, why don't they demand that the school districts get rid of their bloated administrative bureaucracies that leech an incredible amount of money?

the last time i saw statistics on this, public schools spent twice as much money per student. throwing money to the school districts will just be more wasted money.

private schools do just fine without the school district administration BS.

vote NO on 1B.