California Prop 74, Prop 75, Prop 76: Long Needed Reforms.
The Democrat spin doctors are out in force to shoot down California Prop 74, Prop 75 and Prop 76. Why? Because Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing them. No other reason.
Let’s see what they say, so we can avoid the spin.
California Proposition 74:
This California proposition is simple, implementing two needed initiatives:
Increase the probationary period for California teachers before the tenure can be awarded. Currently, the probationary period is two years. Prop. 74 extends the probationary period to five.
Make removal of tenured teachers easier. Two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations constitute a finding of “unsatisfactory performance”. Teacher evaluation boards would no longer need to give the teacher a 90 day grace period between each evaluation, and would not have to provide additional evidence of unsatisfactory performance beyond that required for the unsatisfactory performance evaluation.
Why Prop. 74 is a good idea: Teachers need to be held accountable for their actions. A teacher who isn’t making the grade should be let go, just like any other employee in any other business. Why do we award tenure, and make it almost impossible to remove tenured teachers, when so many teachers aren’t doing their jobs?
The Democrat Spin (backed by the Teachers Unions):
- PROPOSITION 74 IS DECEPTIVE, UNNECESSARY, AND UNFAIR. It won’t improve student achievement and it won’t help reform public education in any meaningful way. Furthermore, it will cost school districts tens of millions of dollars to implement. Proposition 74 doesn’t reduce class size or provide new textbooks, computers, or other urgently needed learning materials. It doesn’t improve teacher training or campus safety. Nor does it increase educational funding or fix one leaking school roof.
Clearly A Lie. This requires you to set aside common sense – if it’s harder to get tenure, and removal is easier, a teacher must perform. Under the current system, it’s all but impossible to remove an under performing teacher. Under Prop 74 it becomes a little easier to remove a tenured teacher and requires the teacher have a five year track record before giving tenure.
-PROPOSITION 74 IS DECEPTIVE BECAUSE IT MISLEADS PEOPLE ABOUT HOW TEACHER EMPLOYMENT REALLY WORKS. California teachers are not guaranteed a job for life, which means they don’t have tenure. All teachers receive after a two-year probationary period is the right to a hearing before they are dismissed.
No employee in private business has tenure. They have to perform or be replaced. Politicians need to be re-elected – if they don’t perform, they are replaced. To say teachers deserve tenure is like telling a politician they deserve tenure.
-PROPOSITION 74 IS UNFAIR TO TEACHERS BECAUSE IT TAKES AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO A HEARING BEFORE THEY ARE FIRED.
Another Lie. Proposition 74 does not remove any hearings prior to being fired. Teachers have the ability to appeal all the way to the California State Supreme Court, and this doesn’t change.
California Proposition 75:
This California proposition is even more simple:
This measure amends state statutes to require public employee unions to get annual, written consent from a government employee in order to charge and use that employee’s dues or fees for political purposes. This requirement would apply to both members and nonmembers of a union.
Currently, unions use member dues for any purpose, and the members are required to pay dues. In many cases, it’s impossible to stay in a particular job unless you’re in the union, such as public service employees, fire fighters, police, and nurses.
60% of union families are for Prop. 75.
The Democrat Spin (backed by Union Leaders):
-Prop. 75 is unnecessary and unfair. Its hidden agenda is to weaken public employees and strengthen the political influence of big corporations. Prop. 75 does not protect the rights of teachers, nurses, police, and firefighters. Instead it’s designed to reduce their ability to respond when politicians would harm education, health care, and public safety.
In 1998, voters rejected a similar proposition and union members voted NO overwhelmingly. TARGETS TEACHERS, NURSES, FIREFIGHTERS, AND POLICE
Smoke, Mirrors, and Lies again – to claim that giving the individual union members the ability to choose not allow their dues to be used for political purposes is a clear increase of rights. No one’s political voice is affected, and I’d argue that they’re magnified – if a union member doesn’t agree with union politics, the member can choose not to support those politics.
No one is targeted – Union members are simply given a choice.
California Proposition 76:
This one has a few more moving parts:
• Limits state spending to prior year’s level plus three previous years’ average revenue growth.
• Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98); eliminates repayment requirement when minimum funding suspended.
• Excludes appropriations above the minimum from schools’ funding base.
• Directs excess General Fund revenues, currently directed to schools/tax relief, to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment.
• Permits Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce appropriations of Governor’s choosing, including employee compensation/state contracts.
• Continues prior year appropriations if state budget delayed.
• Prohibits state special funds borrowing.
• Requires payment of local government mandates.
Minimum California School Funding Changes:
The Prop. 98 minimum funding guarantees still apply. The main addition with Prop. 76 is the ability for the State Legislature to suspend Prop. 98 by a 2/3 vote. Elimination of Test 3 of Prop 98. (click on the Prop. 76 link above) – Funding will not fall below Test 2 levels. Test 3 was put in place for slow growth years, while Test 2 was put in place for normal-strong growth years.
If Governor declares a fiscal state of emergency (the main new power of the Governor…see below) AND the legislature doesn’t reduce spending within 45 days, the Governor can unilaterally reduce spending, which could include reducing school funding.
The big issue here are the new powers given to the Governor. Here they are (and study the link above as well):
Fiscal Emergency. The measure grants the Governor new powers to (1) declare a fiscal
emergency based on his or her administration’s fiscal estimates, and (2) unilaterally reduce spending when an agreement cannot be reached on how to address the emergency.
Specifically, the measure permits the Governor to issue a proclamation of a fiscal emergency when his or her administration finds either of the following two conditions:
• General Fund revenues have fallen by at least 1.5 percent below the administration’s estimates (blog author note: these estimates are subject to public and legislative oversight, and must follow accounting standards).
• The balance of the state’s reserve fund will decline by more than one-half between the beginning and the end of the fiscal year. Once the emergency is declared by the Governor, the Legislature would be called into special session and then have 45 days (30 days in the case of a late budget) to enact legislation which addresses the shortfall. If such legislation is not enacted, the measure grants the Governor new powers to reduce
state spending (with the exception of the items discussed below)—at his or her discretion—to eliminate the shortfall. The Legislature could not override these reductions.
I can already hear the Democrats howling at this one, but only because their candidate isn’t the current Governor of California.
Democrat Spin(backed by Union leaders):
-PROPOSITION 76 WILL CUT FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS, HEALTH CARE, POLICE, AND FIRE. It undermines our democratic system of checks and balances by giving the governor awesome new powers without any oversight. And it opens the door to higher taxes.
No, this is a lie. Budgets are still determined in the normal way, by the legislature.
Governor budget estimates have public and legislative oversight, and must follow accounting standards.
Wow…Democrats decrying a possible increase in taxes…imagine that.
-PROPOSITION 76 OVERTURNS THE MINIMUM SCHOOL FUNDING PROTECTIONS APPROVED BY CALIFORNIA VOTERS WHEN THEY PASSED PROPOSITION 98. Proposition 76 allows the Governor to permanently reduce school funding without a vote of the people.
This is a lie. Prop 76 actually increases school funding in slow years.
The only way the Governor can reduce school funding is 1) a fiscal state of emergency exists and 2) the legislature doesn’t act.
-PROPOSITION 76 DEPRIVES CITIES AND COUNTIES OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN STATE FUNDING NEEDED FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND HEALTH CARE. Incredibly, if a “fiscal emergency” is declared, this initiative requires funding be cut for vital services like education, health care, fire, and police, but actually prevents cutting “pork barrel” road projects.
This is a lie. Doesn’t even pass the “red face” test. There are no programs that are “required” to be cut, and there are many budget areas that are protected.
Prop 76 doesn’t deprive anyone of anything. It sets state spending limits that will keep California financially sound, and allow the Governor to act when 1) there’s a fiscal state of emergency and 2) the legislature doesn’t act.
-PROPOSITION 76 ATTACKS CALIFORNIA’S SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES BY PLACING TOO MUCH POWER IN THE HANDS OF ONE PERSON— THE GOVERNOR. Even if you trust this Governor, who knows what future Governors might do with this unlimited new power.
Scare tactic, and doesn’t pass the common sense test. Prop 76 puts in a back-stop measure that will allow the Governor to get California in a fiscally sound position when there’s a fiscal state of emergency and when the legislature fails to act.
-THIS INITIATIVE ALSO GIVES STATE LEGISLATORS NEW POWER TO MAKE MISCHIEF. Just 14 of 120 legislators could block passage of the budget indefinitely, putting government spending on autopilot. This could allow the Governor to declare a “fiscal emergency,” giving the Governor sweeping new powers to make state spending
and budget decisions “at his discretion,” with absolutely no oversight or accountability.
Again, a scary lie that doesn’t pass the red face test. This scare tactic refers to keeping the budget somehow locked in a committee. Can’t happen. The Legislature can force a bill out of committee and bring it to discussion and vote.
-CLAIMS THAT PROPOSITION 76 PREVENTS NEW TAXES ARE ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. This initiative does nothing to prevent higher taxes. If it passes, the Governor and Legislature can raise car taxes, income taxes, or sales taxes without voter approval. Even the President of the California Republican Assembly says that Proposition 76 “actually encourages tax increases.”
Where do these people come up with this? Not only is this a lie, it’s completely made up. Prop 76 doesn’t claim that new taxes are prevented, nor do its supporters.
Let’s see what they say, so we can avoid the spin.
California Proposition 74:
This California proposition is simple, implementing two needed initiatives:
Increase the probationary period for California teachers before the tenure can be awarded. Currently, the probationary period is two years. Prop. 74 extends the probationary period to five.
Make removal of tenured teachers easier. Two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations constitute a finding of “unsatisfactory performance”. Teacher evaluation boards would no longer need to give the teacher a 90 day grace period between each evaluation, and would not have to provide additional evidence of unsatisfactory performance beyond that required for the unsatisfactory performance evaluation.
Why Prop. 74 is a good idea: Teachers need to be held accountable for their actions. A teacher who isn’t making the grade should be let go, just like any other employee in any other business. Why do we award tenure, and make it almost impossible to remove tenured teachers, when so many teachers aren’t doing their jobs?
The Democrat Spin (backed by the Teachers Unions):
- PROPOSITION 74 IS DECEPTIVE, UNNECESSARY, AND UNFAIR. It won’t improve student achievement and it won’t help reform public education in any meaningful way. Furthermore, it will cost school districts tens of millions of dollars to implement. Proposition 74 doesn’t reduce class size or provide new textbooks, computers, or other urgently needed learning materials. It doesn’t improve teacher training or campus safety. Nor does it increase educational funding or fix one leaking school roof.
Clearly A Lie. This requires you to set aside common sense – if it’s harder to get tenure, and removal is easier, a teacher must perform. Under the current system, it’s all but impossible to remove an under performing teacher. Under Prop 74 it becomes a little easier to remove a tenured teacher and requires the teacher have a five year track record before giving tenure.
-PROPOSITION 74 IS DECEPTIVE BECAUSE IT MISLEADS PEOPLE ABOUT HOW TEACHER EMPLOYMENT REALLY WORKS. California teachers are not guaranteed a job for life, which means they don’t have tenure. All teachers receive after a two-year probationary period is the right to a hearing before they are dismissed.
No employee in private business has tenure. They have to perform or be replaced. Politicians need to be re-elected – if they don’t perform, they are replaced. To say teachers deserve tenure is like telling a politician they deserve tenure.
-PROPOSITION 74 IS UNFAIR TO TEACHERS BECAUSE IT TAKES AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO A HEARING BEFORE THEY ARE FIRED.
Another Lie. Proposition 74 does not remove any hearings prior to being fired. Teachers have the ability to appeal all the way to the California State Supreme Court, and this doesn’t change.
California Proposition 75:
This California proposition is even more simple:
This measure amends state statutes to require public employee unions to get annual, written consent from a government employee in order to charge and use that employee’s dues or fees for political purposes. This requirement would apply to both members and nonmembers of a union.
Currently, unions use member dues for any purpose, and the members are required to pay dues. In many cases, it’s impossible to stay in a particular job unless you’re in the union, such as public service employees, fire fighters, police, and nurses.
60% of union families are for Prop. 75.
The Democrat Spin (backed by Union Leaders):
-Prop. 75 is unnecessary and unfair. Its hidden agenda is to weaken public employees and strengthen the political influence of big corporations. Prop. 75 does not protect the rights of teachers, nurses, police, and firefighters. Instead it’s designed to reduce their ability to respond when politicians would harm education, health care, and public safety.
In 1998, voters rejected a similar proposition and union members voted NO overwhelmingly. TARGETS TEACHERS, NURSES, FIREFIGHTERS, AND POLICE
Smoke, Mirrors, and Lies again – to claim that giving the individual union members the ability to choose not allow their dues to be used for political purposes is a clear increase of rights. No one’s political voice is affected, and I’d argue that they’re magnified – if a union member doesn’t agree with union politics, the member can choose not to support those politics.
No one is targeted – Union members are simply given a choice.
California Proposition 76:
This one has a few more moving parts:
• Limits state spending to prior year’s level plus three previous years’ average revenue growth.
• Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98); eliminates repayment requirement when minimum funding suspended.
• Excludes appropriations above the minimum from schools’ funding base.
• Directs excess General Fund revenues, currently directed to schools/tax relief, to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment.
• Permits Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce appropriations of Governor’s choosing, including employee compensation/state contracts.
• Continues prior year appropriations if state budget delayed.
• Prohibits state special funds borrowing.
• Requires payment of local government mandates.
Minimum California School Funding Changes:
The Prop. 98 minimum funding guarantees still apply. The main addition with Prop. 76 is the ability for the State Legislature to suspend Prop. 98 by a 2/3 vote. Elimination of Test 3 of Prop 98. (click on the Prop. 76 link above) – Funding will not fall below Test 2 levels. Test 3 was put in place for slow growth years, while Test 2 was put in place for normal-strong growth years.
If Governor declares a fiscal state of emergency (the main new power of the Governor…see below) AND the legislature doesn’t reduce spending within 45 days, the Governor can unilaterally reduce spending, which could include reducing school funding.
The big issue here are the new powers given to the Governor. Here they are (and study the link above as well):
Fiscal Emergency. The measure grants the Governor new powers to (1) declare a fiscal
emergency based on his or her administration’s fiscal estimates, and (2) unilaterally reduce spending when an agreement cannot be reached on how to address the emergency.
Specifically, the measure permits the Governor to issue a proclamation of a fiscal emergency when his or her administration finds either of the following two conditions:
• General Fund revenues have fallen by at least 1.5 percent below the administration’s estimates (blog author note: these estimates are subject to public and legislative oversight, and must follow accounting standards).
• The balance of the state’s reserve fund will decline by more than one-half between the beginning and the end of the fiscal year. Once the emergency is declared by the Governor, the Legislature would be called into special session and then have 45 days (30 days in the case of a late budget) to enact legislation which addresses the shortfall. If such legislation is not enacted, the measure grants the Governor new powers to reduce
state spending (with the exception of the items discussed below)—at his or her discretion—to eliminate the shortfall. The Legislature could not override these reductions.
I can already hear the Democrats howling at this one, but only because their candidate isn’t the current Governor of California.
Democrat Spin(backed by Union leaders):
-PROPOSITION 76 WILL CUT FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS, HEALTH CARE, POLICE, AND FIRE. It undermines our democratic system of checks and balances by giving the governor awesome new powers without any oversight. And it opens the door to higher taxes.
No, this is a lie. Budgets are still determined in the normal way, by the legislature.
Governor budget estimates have public and legislative oversight, and must follow accounting standards.
Wow…Democrats decrying a possible increase in taxes…imagine that.
-PROPOSITION 76 OVERTURNS THE MINIMUM SCHOOL FUNDING PROTECTIONS APPROVED BY CALIFORNIA VOTERS WHEN THEY PASSED PROPOSITION 98. Proposition 76 allows the Governor to permanently reduce school funding without a vote of the people.
This is a lie. Prop 76 actually increases school funding in slow years.
The only way the Governor can reduce school funding is 1) a fiscal state of emergency exists and 2) the legislature doesn’t act.
-PROPOSITION 76 DEPRIVES CITIES AND COUNTIES OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN STATE FUNDING NEEDED FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND HEALTH CARE. Incredibly, if a “fiscal emergency” is declared, this initiative requires funding be cut for vital services like education, health care, fire, and police, but actually prevents cutting “pork barrel” road projects.
This is a lie. Doesn’t even pass the “red face” test. There are no programs that are “required” to be cut, and there are many budget areas that are protected.
Prop 76 doesn’t deprive anyone of anything. It sets state spending limits that will keep California financially sound, and allow the Governor to act when 1) there’s a fiscal state of emergency and 2) the legislature doesn’t act.
-PROPOSITION 76 ATTACKS CALIFORNIA’S SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES BY PLACING TOO MUCH POWER IN THE HANDS OF ONE PERSON— THE GOVERNOR. Even if you trust this Governor, who knows what future Governors might do with this unlimited new power.
Scare tactic, and doesn’t pass the common sense test. Prop 76 puts in a back-stop measure that will allow the Governor to get California in a fiscally sound position when there’s a fiscal state of emergency and when the legislature fails to act.
-THIS INITIATIVE ALSO GIVES STATE LEGISLATORS NEW POWER TO MAKE MISCHIEF. Just 14 of 120 legislators could block passage of the budget indefinitely, putting government spending on autopilot. This could allow the Governor to declare a “fiscal emergency,” giving the Governor sweeping new powers to make state spending
and budget decisions “at his discretion,” with absolutely no oversight or accountability.
Again, a scary lie that doesn’t pass the red face test. This scare tactic refers to keeping the budget somehow locked in a committee. Can’t happen. The Legislature can force a bill out of committee and bring it to discussion and vote.
-CLAIMS THAT PROPOSITION 76 PREVENTS NEW TAXES ARE ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. This initiative does nothing to prevent higher taxes. If it passes, the Governor and Legislature can raise car taxes, income taxes, or sales taxes without voter approval. Even the President of the California Republican Assembly says that Proposition 76 “actually encourages tax increases.”
Where do these people come up with this? Not only is this a lie, it’s completely made up. Prop 76 doesn’t claim that new taxes are prevented, nor do its supporters.
posted by cookies at 9:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home