| Search
|
|
|
Recommendations for Propositions 73 - 80 in the Election of November 8, 2005. |
 |
|
Location: Blogs Opinions of Dan FernandesState Issues |
 | | Posted by: Dan Fernandes | 10/27/2005 11:30 AM | 73 (parental consent for an abortion): This intrusive law will do none of the good things claimed, but it may add to our supply of dumpster babies. Very few young girls get an abortion without a parent's knowledge, but those who do generally have one abusive parent whom they fear. Under 73, that abusive parent still couldn’t legally prevent the abortion, but he/she might try to do so by being abusive. There is no substitute for human judgment in each case; that is what abortion councilors are for. We don’t need another law to tie their hands. No on 73.
74 (to extend teacher un-tenured period from 2 years to 5 years): The current 2 year period is too short to give new teachers a fair evaluation. Yes on 74. ( I would have preferred abolishing tenure but let's take what we can get.)
75 (public employee union permission to spend member's money on politics): Public employee unions claim members already have the right to refuse permission for political spending. Then what are the unions afraid of? The fact is - the process of refusing permission is so difficult that it is seldom used. This would make it easier. Public employee unions also claim 75 is unfair because businesses don’t need permission to use employee money for politics. Oh yes they do! So are the unions lying, or just ignorant? Yes on 75.
76 (Grants Governor extended power to reduce state spending): Of course the public employee unions are spending millions to defeat this proposition; they prefer we continue to operate in deficit until we reach the brink of bankruptcy, then raise taxes. Yes on 76.
77 (redistricting by non-partisan judges): Opponents claim it won't work because even the judges are partisan. Maybe, but 77 also puts in place districting rules which make it difficult to cheat. No matter what happens, it is bound to be better than what we have now, which is blatantly partisan and computerized! Yes on 77.
78 and 79 (socialized prescription drugs): 79 is an attempt to extend medi-Cal drug benefits to the middle class. But that's just the bone the trial lawyers have thrown to the socialist voters in order to pass their real agenda, which is to gain the power to extort money from drug companies. 78 is the drug company response to 79, to install a socialized prescription drug program more to their own liking. No on both 78 and 79!
80 (electric power re-re-regulation): This is being pushed by the same consumer advocate and legal groups who wrote the so-called "Electric Power De-Regulation Act of 1996", which was actually a complex scheme of over-regulation. Their ignorance of fundamental economics shows now as it did then. Because their 1996 law led to such disaster, their regulatory schemes can no longer pass in the legislature, so they thought they would try us naive voters! Yes the current regulatory system is a mess, but to cram complex regulatory issues into a proposition is a misuse of the initiative process. No on 80.
| | | Permalink | Trackback |
|
|
| | |