I cancelled my LA Times subscription over this. The Sacbee came out against 75. Also today the California State Firefighters Association pulled all support for Arnold.

The Sac Bee did indeed come out against 75. This is important and should be noted. Here is an excerpt from their editorial:

---FROM THE SAC BEE---

It will come as no surprise to regular readers that this page often finds fault with the agendas and tactics of California's public employee unions. These powerful unions are one cause of many of the problems that afflict both state and local governments and make the state essentially ungovernable.

But the actions of these unions are only one cause. California's woes - its debt, its crushing pension obligations, its crumbling roads, its inadequate public schools, its inability to act on even the most pressing needs - are the result of a relentless, take-no-prisoners competition between interest groups. In this political culture, the pursuit of narrow interests - ideological purity; the protection or exploitation of a resource or of a segment of the population; simple greed - dominate. The public interest is an afterthought, when it is thought of at all.

---END SAC BEE---

So my question to you readers - is when does the public interest finally come first? If you read my friend Brian Dennert's blog, you can see the public interest has been replaced by partisan bickering, protests, selfish campaigns an the like - When they discuss the public interest over there, it's about how to manipulate it, not better it.

If we want California to return to the golden age, where would you begin?

Tim

Tim,
Print the entire Sacbee story on them coming out against Prop 75, taking only a part is not in the best interest of readers. Do you think Arnold should give back the $250,000 check from Wal Mart he got for his veto?

Tim,

Want to hear something crazy? I think Arnold is acting in the public interest.

I also believe the same about those who disagree with him.

I just believe they don't agree what is the public interest.

I think I have almost always been more civil about the public interest then you have ( You make fun of Brett Wagner and what he says was a violent attack, and a sentence later predict a winner in a stacked race).

I admit I am mean to Scott though. ( sorry Scott)

I think the politcal process is the way we argue about and determine the publics goals.

That being said, I created my blog to make the inside functions of local politics easier to access for the average person. If you want to get ahold of some activists/current thought on local issues from local players I think my blog serves that function.

For example, if someone wants to recruit, organize, or understand the issues in the county race either for Mikels or Dantona there is a long thread on the topic.

There are campaigns and there is governing. The drawback is that the campaign windows are getting bigger and bigger ( two special elections plus normal elections in the last few years) and the governing is getting shorter and shorter.

I hope the outcome of this election is that both sides are humbled some what and sit down to work out some compromises that help us all.

I think we have some great leaders that stand for things here in California in both parties. I would include in that list, although I don't always agree with them, Tom McClintock, Jack O'Connell, Fran Pavely, Tom Campbell, and others, We need people that stand for something besides power.

We get the leaders we deserve as a people. We lack leadership right now. How about we start blaming ourselves?

Brian,

Good points. Though I think I have also been an equal opportunity basher. I have gone after the president and the governor more than I am sure their supporters, well support.

I couldn't agree with you more that we get the leaders (or lack of leaders) we elect. I think we both do a good job at having forums at holding them accountable, albeit in different ways.

But with regard to Wagner - I met the man, read the comments in your blog and simply remain with one question. Is this REALLY the best the dems can do? You have to admit, the thought of Brett Wagner leading the charge to reform Washington borders on laughable.

I am looking forward to continuing the debate.

Tim Keaney

Arleigh,

Great suggestion. Below is the entire article, which is almost verbatim what I have been saying in this blog for months. This special election points to nothing more than the need for an overhaul of our state leadership, finances and the lobbying/industrial complex.

---SAC BEE on 75---

Editorial: No on Proposition 75
Union dues measure is politics at its worst

Published 2:15 am PDT Thursday, October 13, 2005

Story appeared in Editorials section, Page B8
One morning recently, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal peered down from the heights, surveyed the California special election ballot, espied Proposition 75 and proclaimed, "There is no more important election this year."

The editorial board of that publication is not known for its devotion to California's public interest. So when it pays such attention to affairs here, voters are entitled to wonder, "What's that all about?"

The answer is simple: Proposition 75, which appears on the November special election ballot, is the latest expression of a national drive by conservatives to diminish the power of unions. Some previous efforts, such as Proposition 226 (which California voters rejected in 1998) were scattershot attempts to defang all unions. This time around, the aim is limited to unions representing California's public employees.

It will come as no surprise to regular readers that this page often finds fault with the agendas and tactics of California's public employee unions. These powerful unions are one cause of many of the problems that afflict both state and local governments and make the state essentially ungovernable.

But the actions of these unions are only one cause. California's woes - its debt, its crushing pension obligations, its crumbling roads, its inadequate public schools, its inability to act on even the most pressing needs - are the result of a relentless, take-no-prisoners competition between interest groups. In this political culture, the pursuit of narrow interests - ideological purity; the protection or exploitation of a resource or of a segment of the population; simple greed - dominate. The public interest is an afterthought, when it is thought of at all.

Proposition 75 is an example of this culture in action. Proponents of this measure claim it protects individual rights - which is arguably in the public interest - by requiring that public employee unions gain the explicit permission of members before spending their money for political purposes. But it's hard to believe it's really about that. Public employees already have the right to opt out of political contributions; in California, tens of thousands of them do so every year.

So what is Proposition 75 really about? It is a simple power play, aimed at diminishing the power of these unions, or at least delivering them a stinging public rebuke.

Whether the measure would have any lasting impact on the unions' power is open to question. Similar restrictions in other states initially have sharply reduced the number of members who contribute to political funds, but those numbers have tended to grow over time. And, as in other states' measures, loopholes in Proposition 75 are likely to allow unions to find ways around the law.

Even if Proposition 75 were guaranteed to reduce the political funds at unions' disposal, however, it would not improve the state's political system, any more than another act of retribution by either side is likely to create a civil society in Northern Ireland. What its passage most likely would accomplish would be to set off a frenzied effort by the unions and their supporters to regain lost ground or at least to inflict a similar public indignity on their adversaries. That would make what California politics needs most - a functional political center, dedicated to the public interest - even harder to attain.

If Proposition 75 were a broad measure, thoughtfully drafted and aimed at limiting both the power of unions and of corporate interests, it would merit enthusiastic support.

That's not what it is, though. Instead, it is a slap aimed at one side in the state's political wars.

Real improvements in the state's political life will require changes across the spectrum. It's tempting - oh, is it tempting! - to deliver such a slap to the public employee unions. But Californians should resist the temptation and hold out for reforms that actually change the state's politics for the better.

Tim,

The district is stacked. Would a great democrat have a decent chance against a below average republican?

I doubt it.

So, are you really upset the democrats aren't fighting more to be sacrificed?

I think the democrats, like the republicans, have some great leaders both locally and on the state level. How is the candidate recruiting going for republicans against brad sherman?

brian dennert

If I was in Sherman's district, I would run against him (assuming I could keep the SUV's from parking too closely to me).

But at the risk of turning this blog into yours (we have yours for that!) - here is my take on that.

If takes GUTS to speak truth to power. Are you saying because someone is in an enviable election position, no one with ideas or dissent should run and try to defeat them, or at least raise enough money to get the message out?

Smartly run, well-financed organized campaigns can do a number of things - Inform the public, raise the debate and hold elected officials accountable. Even when they lose, they serve a good, public purpose.

When you send up sacrificial lambs however, they do get slaughtered.

Find the right candidates Brian (like a Dantona vs. Mikels) and the whole thing gets interesting. Right now, interesting it is not.

Tim Keaney

Tim,

Then how come nobody runs for city council in Simi Valley? ( One candidate doesn't make a race). Are you saying there is something wrong with the citizens of Simi Valley?

I'd bet a large majority could not name the current council and a super majority could not name their pet projects or issues.

Can I sign you up?

Brian,

Considering I can name the council members, AND their pet projects, I am afraid you are pointing your question in the wrong direction. I support the Mayor, the council, the city manager and their work.

The question is really back to you. Why don't the folks "on your side of the aisle" run for the Simi Valley City Council? If you, or they think something is wrong with the city, isn't there a citizen responsibility to speak up, raise the money and make the run?

In other words, where are YOUR lawn signs Brian?

It can be said that the Simi Valley citizenry understands there are issues in our schools, and occassionally issues in our park district, and you will from time to time see competitive races for those boards.

The same citizenry obviously feels differently about the City.

Thanks for your comments -

Tim Keaney

Tim,

1. Reading your statement literally would lead us to believe you think there are no issues for the city council.

2. Do the city council members all agree on all issues? If not, run against the one you don't agree with. Scott has told me they all don't agree. Therefore, you can't agree with all the members. ( Scott is never wrong).

3. I said the majority of citizens, not blog writers, could not name the office holders or issues. Therefore, there is no way they think could knowingly approve ( or be disapprove) the current council members. Do you approve of the city council of Timbuktu? An election could educate the people of Simi Valley about the issues.

I Don't think on the local level it is a liberal vs. conservative divide. I don't think a "side" is missing candidates as much as the whole city is missing candidates. I might choose an incumbent over a challenger, but I still want a choice. Don't you? When did elections become a dirty thing?

But since you somehow agree with all 5 ( even when they disagree ) can I sign you up for state assembly? Or is that election already decided before the populace knows the candidate or his issues? Could you take us into that smoke filled room someday?

Lastly,

Tim you now take advice from the LA Times?

Brian,

While I am unclear what your questions have to do with Prop 75, I appreciate your endorsement for my race for City Council, even though I am not running. If asked, I will not run, if drafted, I will not serve.

I think the Council is doing a good job at managing our fine city, doing a GREAT job at moving us from a city dependant on developer fees to a sales tax driven city. City has an excellent committment to public safety and emergency preparedness and is a shining example of operational efficiency compared to the other major agency in town.

Are there issues in town. Of course there are. Frankly, I think this council can handle them. But you seem to be implying that there are some sinister, dark forces keeping people from running? The council barely gets gadflys running against it. Heck, guys like Dantona & Wagner choose to run elsewhere.

I think that says more about respect for the City, than it does anything else.

p.s. The majority of Americans can't name the Vice President, or tell you what the supreme court does, or how many houses there are in congress (let alone who their congressman is). Your tax dollars in our schools at work once again, which is MY WHOLE POINT.

SO, I will ask again. Where are the challengers Brian?

Tim

I am asking you where the challengers are but you keep asking me.

I think I can sum it up:

1. You think a lack of candidates is a sign of health in a democracy because everything must be great and everyone is happy.

2. I think it is a sympton of a disease. I haven't clearly labeled the disease, but I can tell the patient is sick.

Maybe many Americans can't name the supreme court, but they don't live in the same town as us, and we don't directly vote for them.

In the state assembly, it appears the race is already over. Is that healthy?

Tim, it is impossilble for you to agree with all of the city council, because they don't always agree with each other. Nice try. Hold them to task just like you do for other politicos ( You hold Republicans and Democrats across the nation to task, but never the local city council).

You either agree that they don't always agree, or you call Scott Blough foolish. I think you should be nicer to Scott.

It is not sinister, but it is a break down in our democracy when voters only have one choice.

Brian,

Your logic escapes me. I keep answering your questions, and your responses seem to be along the lines of:

"yeah, but"

Sorry, but that is simply not a stellar debating technique.

Can you copy and paste the exact line where I said "I think the council always agrees with each other and I agree with them on everything" or even anything remotely like that?

I'm going to say it a final time... Listen real close like: Brian, if you don't like how the City is run, or if you think it is a break down in our democracy when voters only have one choice, then you have a responsibility to run, or find someone that will.

This is a blog about educational issues - and I know you're continuing to try to change the subject as you don't want to debate 22% proficiency in reading and math; you'd rather debate what our cops could have done better during the fires (not much)... But I am not going to debate Prop 75 with you by "holding the City Council Accountable".

Now debate me on 75, before you tick me off enough to endorse it.

Tim Keaney

When did Tim call me foolish?

Scott

Scott

Tim said the city council is doing a fine job, I was going off of your thought that they aren't monolithic, therefore, they aren't all doing an equal job. You can't agree with differing viewpoints.

The city seems to be run fairly well. I don't see hordes of pillagers running through the streets. Police Response time seems fine. There is a new mall that sounds promising. If given a choice, I might prefer the staus quo over it, but I want a choice. And wish you felt the same.

I have little interest in debating prop. 75, so I will but out and allow others to discuss it. I only started commenting on this thread because you gave my blog a plug.

Brian,

Thanks for, uh, clearing that up. Again, I don't see any place, any where where I oppose election choices. I guess I am just not conspiratorial enough to think that it's on purpose. If people don't have the courage to step up and run, and defend their beliefs, there's not a whole lot any of us can do about it. If people don't choose to run, then I guess we have to support their choice.

You are welcome to post any time.

Tim

Tim,
Thanks for posting the entire editorial. I for one would vote for an initiative that gave public funding for candidates and initiatives, equal amounts to both sides, and the winners of the primaries and allowed no one else to give a penny. I doubt the corporations would ever go along with this and would jerk the chain of any republican who agreed with this.

Tim,
I have noticed that some of the signs we have put up for the election have been getting stolen. What a sad commentary that those who disagree would stoop to this. Maybe you can do a blog about the Bill of Rights and tell people how wrong that is. Thanks.

Arleigh,

Same thing happened to me last year. I think there is a real problem with signs in this town, and people have a problem with them. I wonder how many that Tech Stone guy has lost.

Do you guys have signs for the individual props? I would think you would have more signs out if you seperated them out. There are people who are for 76, while totally opposed to 74.

T

Sign stealing is unacceptable on both sides. Last year, I actually witnessed a van pull up to a corner, grab signs, and drive away.

I even saw a sign where someone decided to draw a devil on it. It was crazy last year and I think the sign stealing added to the negative tone of a lot of the races.

I mean, the minute a sign disappears, you think its your opponents...

I had one that kept getting thrown in the trees every day I'd have to climb the tree and put it back into the spot.

It's too bad free speech can't be respected.

Scott

Arleigh,

I don't know if I support public financing of political campaigns. I think if someone wants to run, then they should pony up the money and run, and so should their supporters.

I would be more interested in a law that required campaigns and initiatives to tell the truth, or demand that they reference an impartial analysis.

I don't inherently believe in fundraising limits, spending limits or restrictions on speech.

I think if someone runs, you should know what it will cost to win.

I think it's in the public interest to make sure they are well represented, that districts make sense and that they vote. I don't think it's in the public's interest to finance every campaign.

Tim

I agree Tim. They should have to use their own money. That way we could exclude those that are poor, since they aren't winners. This will also exclude people that don't have rich friends or supporters. If you don't have rich friends how good of a politician can you be?

If democracy is worth it, people should be willing to pay. And if they don't have the money, they don't deserve to run.

It would be easier to run elections if we just had property owners vote.

Just messing with you Tim.
All of the above is a joke.

Brian,

You kidder!

Tim

Tim,
Look at Props 78 and 79. The drug companies will spend 100 million to promote 78 and to kill 79. Since no one for 79 has that kind of money to get their word out is it really a fair contest? If the drug companies gave a candidate a 100 million and the other guy only could raise a million is that really fair? During the last campaign whenever I put up signs I also picked up and replaced any signs I saw knocked down of the other candidates. We only have signs this year with all three initiatives, we could not afford the cost of single signs.

Both props 78 & 79 should have been debated and voted on UP or DOWN in the legislature. The fact that such convoluted drug and health policy is even on the ballot is ridiculous. And it was only a matter of time before someone dragged out the seniors to make the case for free or discounted drugs.

I don't think the 79 people should have qualified it if they didn't have the cash to run a campaign.

Tim

Tim,
Sounds like you are saying democracy should be determined by the all mighty dollar, and not by qualifications or merit. Whoever can spend the most should win. In that case I hope you will vote no on 75 to keep the playing field even. Also before you guys start blasting me for my letter to the editor today just let me say that I gave my opinion on Greg's opinion, I'm sure someone will write an opinion of my opinion, that is democracy in action. I can take it and dish it out, and I don't cry about it.

Arleigh:

I actually agree with you in saying that prop 13 "was and is needed for homeowners". However, I disagree with Mr. Murphy when he says that prop 13 is the reason for all the funding problems in California.

Clearly, Murphy lacks the understanding you have that prop 13 contributes to affordable housing that is direly needed in all our communities. I'm sure if he had his way, he would repeal prop 13, so homeowners lose their homes through tax sales and California becomes a rental state, but clearly you understand it much differently and much more in depth.

Californians pay for a first class ticket in taxes each year, yet services seem to never measure up to that first class ticket.

And, it's not the teachers or the public employees, to me, its the archaic administrative structures that are pushing that first class ticket into the steerage level each year.

Californians don't deserve to pay more, they deserve more for their money.

Scott

And there needs to be a recognition that there is now more money than ever statewide, not less.

Any discussion in California regarding taxes or tax relief has to be done in the context that Californians have one, if not THE highest tax burden of any state.

This is because we have the big 3: Sales Tax, Income Tax and Property tax. In many states, they only have 2/3 of those, so the overall tax burden is less, and is more balanced.

This is why, when this special election is over, the Governor should call a special session of the legislature and call for a complete overhaul of the state Tax system and the antiquated administrative structure it now supports.

Tim

But will he?

The answer is no... watch.

Tim

Don't forget federal taxes...

There is a growing war on homeowners and private property. The administration wants to go after the interest deduction at the federal level too.

Let's see, new eminent domain laws mean you can take property away from owners, so long as you give them just compensation. Government now has been given the broader powers to turn your neighborhood into a shopping mall.

They want to get rid of the interest deduction and prop 13 and develop more stringent environmental review that makes it almost impossible to develop affordable units.

Sounds like a war on owning property to me.

No wonder the middle class is shrinking.

Scott

I don't like to call it a "war". We are fighting one war right now, and I think the more we call things "war" the less seriously we take the one at hand.

At the same time, there is a growing movement to withdraw property rights for the "public good". But who is left to determine the public good? In a perfect world, it would be our legislative leaders, who we vote for executing our will. Now, special interests right the bills, legislators carry the water and we pay the tax.

I have felt for some time that at many levels, we are getting taxation without representation.

Tim

Arleigh,

I appreciate your comments. I know you can take it, but can Murphy?

T

Murphy is a good guy. I have not spoken to him in about six months as he left the District to take a job as an administrator at a private school. I laughed when I saw he letter below mine today, I'm sure some people thought it was coordinated, but it was not. He and I just think alike. I did say Prop 13 is needed for homeowners, and it is. I do think Prop 13 should be looked at in terms of businesses to see if it has truly been applied fairly since 1978, I know Warren Buffett told Arnold it was not working fairly for big corporations vs homeowners. In terms of total taxes in California how does it break down per person vs other states that have fewer people? Connecticut spends more per student, are their taxes higher or lower? Should California keep getting only 76 cents back for every dollar we send Washington DC? Has the war in Iraq been worth over 300 billion and the deaths, as of today, of over 2,000 American soldiers? Will Dick Cheney resign as VP over the CIA outing scandal? Possible, that way W. can appoint a new VP who is a viable Presidential candidate in 08. Of course he cannot pick someone too viable or else they will show him up. Also you guys never commented on Arnold snubbing W. and Simi Valley the other day. Is his fundraising with special interests really more important than honoring our late President Reagan?

Tim:

Show me where using the term "war" detracts in this case from the war overseas?

Private property rights is the key assurance to maintaining a free society and keeping government in check. Should we not take that seriously and mock those that do?

Scott

Arleigh:

I absolutely felt the Governor should have come to Simi Valley to see such a great event. I have still not been there myself, but felt like Simi Valley's big day to honor our President should have been put ahead of politics.

What other questions might I be dodging?

Scott

I did answer the blog about the Governor vs Bush, right where you asked me about it, in another entry:

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/vcs/keaney/archives/2005/10/where_have_all.html

I also posted news about Wal-Mart there, at your request.

Scott- I think it de-values the service of our brave men and women in battle when we have a "war" on property rights. The whole reason we are at war is over freedom and to defeat the scourge of our generation - Islamic Terrorism. The war on terrorism should re-focus all on the fundamental rights we have, including our property rights.

This is not a shot at you, this is a shot at the typical media packaging.

Tim

Tim:

What about the war on drugs? Does this demean the troops or war on illegal immigration?

What about the term campaign? Campaign is used as a political word, but its root are in "military campaign"? Do we demean the troops when we steal the word campaign?

Are you prepared to call the papers/TV and tell them to stop using these words as they are offensive to the troops?

Tim:

The troops are tough enough to handle brutal terrorists and murderers effectively on a daily basis and win this war. God Bless them. Despite what you think, they are tough enough to handle the english language too.

Scott

I do think the City of Simi Valley did a great thing by using E. Domain to take the property on Tapo. It was great to see them okay the new plan for that site and I look forward to that eyesore being gone. It will be good for Simi and great for Tapo St.

Arleigh:

I think it's how you define "blight". The Supreme court loosely interpreted blight, which could lead to abuse such as clearing homeowners out, so you can develop a mini-mall. I think blight should be strictly defined, so as to avoid abuse.

I agree on the Tapo project. the teachers should be happy because the council just approved about 345K to the schools last monday night through the community development agency. Pretty cool huh?

Scott

This is an interesting article from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association...

Prop. 75: Leading Where Members Want To Go

By Jon Coupal

We have a saying at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: "We can't lead where our members don't want to go." This is an acknowledgement
that support for our work comes from member dues and that affiliation with this taxpayer organization is voluntary. If dues-paying members
are not convinced that HJTA is working to advance their interests as taxpayers, they won't be dues paying members for long and theorganization will wither. Needless to say, we are motivated to pay
close attention to their concerns.

Let's contrast this approach with that of the leadership of ourstate's public employee unions.

First, it should be noted, California is not a right-to-work state, so paying union dues is mandatory. Sure, government workers can opt out
of actual union membership, but they must still pay the same money to the union in the form of an agency shop fee.

Especially galling to some members is that a major portion of their dues go to support the unions' political activities, which are often
unrelated to legitimate union business. A prime example is the millions of dollars spent by the California Teachers Association on
two recent efforts to qualify initiatives to undo the property tax protections provided by Proposition 13. In fact, the teachers union
recently raised dues $180 on each of nearly 350,000 members over the next three years to pay for a campaign to oppose special election
ballot measures. The union's opposition to Proposition 75 -- a measure that would require public employee union leaders to get permission
from each individual member before dipping into their wallets to support political activity -- is particularly fierce.

Union spokespersons rush to point out that there is already a procedure that allows members to block the use of their money for
politics. But it is just that, an inconvenient "procedure" that
requires the union member to formally request paperwork that must be filled out and submitted, with a lengthy lag time before it takes
affect. Of course choosing to take this action will spotlight the union member as a "malcontent" setting them up for possible
retribution and harassment.

As if the current situation isn't absurd enough for public employee union members who find that they are contributing to support a
political agenda with which they disagree, this unrestrained political spending has propelled one of the major public employee unions --
again the teachers -- to the brink of bankruptcy.

In a document submitted to the U.S. District Court in San Jose inresponse to a suit filed by teachers disgruntled over the dues
increase, union controller Carlos Mareno states that the duesincrease was necessary to "maintain fiscal solvency." According to
Mareno, the CTA has already spent on the initiative campaign the equivalent of what the temporary dues increase would bring over three
years.

The teachers union has already spent $50 million on the Novemberspecial election, borrowed an additional $37 million, and is attempting to get another loan of $40 million, all in the name of
politics. If the union goes bankrupt as the controller fears, it will be hard pressed to meet the legitimate needs of its members for
collective bargaining and benefits.

Regardless of how this solvency question is resolved for the teachers union -- and other government worker unions have made major
investments in politics this year -- the issue remains, should union members be "forced" to contribute?

There are union supporters who say that requiring public employee union leaders to get permission to take members' money for politics is
unfair because the same rules do not apply to corporations who use money for political activity without checking with stockholders.

However, this is comparing apples and oranges. Corporations have an adversarial relationship with private sector unions, not government
employee unions. Proposition 75 has no impact on private sector
unions.

Unless Proposition 75 passes, government worker union leaders are likely to continue to spend their members' money recklessly and
unabated. However, in response to criticism they argue that the reforms provided by Proposition 75 are unnecessary because they have the unquestioned support of their members. If it is true that they are leading where their members want to follow, then Proposition 75 will
do no harm; union members will overwhelmingly sign off to continue to
allow their paychecks to be tapped for political activity. But if Proposition 75 passes, one thing is certain, the union bosses will be
more responsive to those they claim to represent.

Jon Coupal is an attorney and president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association -- California's largest taxpayer organization with offices
in Los Angeles and Sacramento.