California is at it again. On November 8 the citizens of California will once again have an opportunity to apply their “good citizenship” and vote in a special election. They will cast their ballot for or against the solutions the Governator, who was elected to replace the recalled Gray Dravis, and his staff have devised to solve the State’s fiscal crises. These are solutions that the governator’s “brain chain” believes will help solve some of the ongoing issues that confront the citizens of this good State. To hear the opponents of these issues lament against the injustice of these proposals one would believe that the Governator would take food from a baby’s mouth, turn our children into the illiterate masses and reduce the public servants who are union members into homeless artifacts from the dark ages.
California has long been “soft” on its public servants who feed at the public trough. Years ago when I was young – sounds like a song from long ago – I was told that the pay scale for public service was considerably below that of private business but that the retirement, health and other fringe benefits were intended to make up for that lack of real compensation. As the years have rolled by, unions have been formed and higher pay benefits have been negotiated until now it is more lucrative to work in the public sector than it is to own ones own business never mind, work in the private sector. Indeed, free enterprise as we once knew it is in jeopardy in my opinion and, increasingly, the public sector seems to be the "opportunity of first resort".
Suddenly, we are beginning to fiscally recognize that the taxpayers can no longer bear the burden of out of control spending and we must now come to grips with it. We cannot continue to meet the ever increasing demands of our public sector employees. The Governator has come up with a plan to solve some of these issues. As I read the propositions, I find myself wondering how any citizen could vote against these proposals and yet, because of the heavy spending by the public sector employee unions and organizations directly affected by these reasonable and much needed proposals, these propositions appear to be in trouble.
These Initiative Constitutional Amendments and Statues are as follows:
Proposition 73 amends California Constitution defining and prohibiting abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parents/guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. Mandates reporting requirements. Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.
This proposition will not affect California’s solvency one way or another but it is, in my opinion, a good proposal. As a “seasoned” parent who can only think logically on this subject I will vote for this amendment. I do not believe that any parent can leave such a decision to a minor child or to an otherwise impartial and emotionally detached third party. There are several reasons for my support of this proposition and none of them are related to any religious or political beliefs. One, abortions, like any medical procedure, can and do go wrong and may result in severe complications or death, though admittedly death is rare. Would any parent in their right mind want to delegate responsibility for such a decision to their child or any impartial third party? Imagine as a parent, the burden of learning too late that your child had undergone an abortion and in the process, lost or endangered their life. Two, I believe that the decision to have an abortion involves significant risk to the mental psyche and should be entered into only after careful counseling and precautions as to the possible long term ramifications of the decision; Three, Abortion is not a decision that should be made by one person. It is a decision that should be made within the family circles of both responsible parties and the long term responsibilities fully reviewed. Four, any delegation of the parental responsibility seems to me to be an encouragement for people to avoid yet another of their responsibilities. Parental responsibilities are not easy issues. They are real and cannot and should not be delegated. We do no one a favor when we allow a minor, who is not old enough to otherwise make other life threatening independent decisions, to decide whether the pregnancy that has befallen them is one that they will accept as a burden or as a blessing. Forty eight hours is a small price to pay for “thought”.
Proposition 74 - Public School Teachers - Waiting Period for permanent status. Dismissal. Initiative Status. Increases probationary period for public school teachers from two to five years. Modifies the process by which school boards can dismiss a teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations.
At a time when we are trying to increase the caliber of our teaching staff, when we need to improve our educational system, when we have an ever increasing financial burden upon the system, this seems to me to be a step forward in trying to get a handle on California’s failing educational system. For too long, the public sector work force has been content to accept mediocre performance in the name of public trust. Enough is enough and the merits of this initiative speaks to an attempt to get our costs under control at the same time it demands greater oversight and more credible performance before tenure. This proposition would, in my opinion, elevate a teaching career to a higher status and promote respect and admiration for those who justly earn tenure.
Proposition 75 Public Employees Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement. Initiative Statute.
Why is there such a willingness by labor unions and organizations in the public sector to embrace campaign financing laws and oversight in political “lobbying” from the private sector and yet they fight this legislation with such vindictive determination? I personally embrace any attempt to reduce the “appearance” of a “quid pro quo” in anything political and union ads seeking to foster their own ideas and positions meets that criteria. The Unions are actively seeking to influence another person's vote and perhaps, that is okay if all of the members have agreed to that action. However, no union funds should be used for any thing not specifically authorized by its rank and file members. The use of money entrusted to the Union by its membership without the prior consent of its members is, in my opinion, obscene. I do not understand how any self respecting union member, public servant or thinking individual would oppose this simple proposal. I am very disappointed with the strong opposition to this proposal. As a former union member I valued my independence of political thought and guarded the sanctity of my vote. I feel that should be available to everyone, union member or not.
Proposition 76 - Provides for State Spending and School Funding Limits. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. This proposition limits state spending to prior year’s level plus three previous years’ average revenue growth. Changes minimum school funding requirements. (Proposition 98). Permits Governor, under specified circumstances to reduce budget appropriations of Governor’s choosing.
As I understand it, this measure would subject school and community college spending to annual budget decisions and be less affected by a constitutional funding guarantee. The Governor would be granted new authority to unilaterally reduce state spending during certain fiscal situations. I am in favor of this Proposition. It is time California begin to live within its means and this Proposition puts in place a vehicle whereby spending cuts can be mandated by the Governor. This kind of oversight is long over due. It is time that California adopted some “fiscal restraint”.
I will review Propositions 77 - 80 in a subsequent diatribe. In the meantime, I heartily recommend a yes vote on the aforementioned propositions. I believe strongly that if these propositions are not passed, the good citizens of California can be assured that California’s out of control spending will continue and I do not see how any medium income family will be able to afford to live here. I personally believe defeat of these propositions will be one more step toward a Class society in our State. If these propositions are rejected, the solutions that will be required will be a rude awakening for a lot of “heads in the sand”. We will indeed approach a society of "haves or have nots", in my opinion. There will be no room for anything in between.
No comments:
Post a Comment