Support Crashes for California's Proposition 30

The Los Angeles Times released a number of poll findings over the last week, but I've been focused on national politics. The raw survey is here. And here's the write-up on the tanking support for this ridiculous tax-hike initiative, "Support plunges for Prop. 30, Gov. Jerry Brown's tax initiative":

SACRAMENTO — Support has plunged for Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to raise billions of dollars in taxes, a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll shows, with less than half of voters planning to cast ballots in favor of the measure.

Only 46% of registered voters now support Brown's initiative, a 9-point drop over the last month, and 42% oppose it. The findings follow a lackluster month of campaigning by the governor, who had spent little time on the stump and found himself fighting off attacks from backers of a separate ballot measure that would raise taxes for schools.

Although Brown recently launched a frantic push for votes, both proposals could fail. Tax measures rarely gain support in the closing days of a campaign.

Proposition 30 would temporarily raise taxes on individuals earning more than $250,000 a year and impose a quarter-cent hike in the state sales tax. Enthusiasm for the governor's plan has fallen across the political spectrum.

The steepest decline is among voters who register without a party preference — a crucial voting bloc for Brown. Support from those Californians dropped from 63% a month ago to 48%.

"Proposition 30 has been under attack from the left and the right," said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC. "It has taken a toll."

The USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times poll surveyed 1,504 registered voters by telephone from Oct. 15 to Oct. 21. It was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a Democratic firm, in conjunction with American Viewpoint, a Republican company. The margin of error is 2.9 percentage points.

The Los Angeles Times editorial page endorsed the measure, mainly because the initiative's funding doesn't have to be spent on education! But see the Stockton Record, "Proposition 30 is voter manipulation at its finest":

Gov. Brown and proponents of Prop. 30 make it seem like Prop. 30 requires education cuts by saying that the initiative prevents them. But, there is nothing in Prop. 30 that mandates funding cuts to education if it doesn't pass. The governor and the Legislature can change the budget at any time. They have made a choice to cut education. This is voter manipulation at its finest. The message the governor is sending is essentially this: "Give us more money or we're taking it out on schools."

Sacramento politicians are notorious for poor budgeting. Voting yes on Prop. 30 sends a message that we are OK with the tax-and-spend system that is crippling California. We all want good schools, but Prop. 30 doesn't help them. Prop 30 is another ploy from Sacramento politicians to get us to hand over more of our tax dollars. This November, Californians must say enough is enough. Vote no on Prop. 30.

Stop Paycheck Theft: Vote Yes on Proposition 32

From the letters to the editors, at the Los Angeles Times, "Letters: Prop. 32, unions and political giving":

Re "Prop. 32's real purpose," Column, Oct. 18

George Skelton calls Proposition 32, which would prohibit unions from making payroll deductions to raise money for political spending, a "self-serving sham." So should we continue to allow teachers unions to force their members to donate to their leaders' favorite political causes?

Why must my wife, a first-grade teacher, contribute to political causes she doesn't like? How would Skelton feel if The Times effectively forced him to support Mitt Romney via a paycheck deduction?

If unions want their members to give to certain causes, let them persuade the workers to do it. Forcing people to give to political causes they don't believe in runs contrary to the basic rules of a democracy.

I believe Proposition 32 would reduce the power of special interests and let candidates work for all Californians and not just for their donors. And I'm a dedicated Democrat.

Vince Scully
Long Beach

Get that? A "dedicated Democrat" and his union-member wife don't like big labor stealing their hard-earned dollars. Because that's what it is. If you have no choice about the matter, the unions are taking your money against your will. See also the recent editorial at the Orange County Register, "Editorial: Yes on Prop. 32 (unions)":

Anyone familiar with California politics knows that the most powerful forces, by far, in the state Capitol are the public-employee unions. Their clout was demonstrated this year when the California Teachers Association, the most powerful of them all, killed Senate Bill 1530, which would have made it easier to fire bad teachers for actions "that involve certain sex offenses, controlled-substance offenses or child abuse offenses."

SB1530 was not concocted by a conservative Republican, but by state Sen. Alex Padilla of Los Angeles, a liberal Democrat. The bill advanced after several cases of teacher abuse against children came to light, especially a disgusting scenario allegedly involving Los Angeles Unified School District teacher Mark Berndt. The bill passed overwhelmingly in the state Senate, 33-4. Then the CTA killed it in the Assembly Education Committee.

The episode illustrates what has happened since California public-employee unions were given collective bargaining rights in the 1970s by Gov. Jerry Brown. This occurred even though such stalwart liberal private-sector union partisans as President Franklin Roosevelt had warned that public-sector unionization would lead to too much union power and the loss of public trust in the government.

That is so nausea-induceing it's literally perverse. But that's what you get when you have the hard-left, socialist-backed teachers' unions as the most powerful political force in California. These thugs are literally bringing the state down low, morally, politically, and economically. This is how nations self-destruct. You get the image of the end of the republic right here in the once-great "Golden State."

PREVIOUSLY: "Long Beach Press-Telegram: Yes on 32."

Is College Really for Everyone?

Well, the educational system just assumes that it is. Mostly, though, kids have to find out for themselves, and that wastes a lot of people's time and resources. Perhaps there's a better way.

In any case, from Patrice Apodaca, at The Daily Pilot, "Is College Really For Everyone?"

Long Beach Press-Telegram: Yes on 32

I'm glad to see it.

"Endorsement: Yes on Proposition 32 -- Unions have inordinate amount of power in state politics":

To understand the need for Proposition 32, all a voter has to do is look at the the vast sums of cash pouring into the campaign against it. A total of more than $50 million has been donated to the "yes" and "no" campaigns. Of that, the vast majority has gone to fund advertising for the "no" side. And of that, most has come from unions representing California teachers and other public employees.

This is an example of the financial power that gives unions outsized political influence everywhere from election campaigns to the halls of the state Legislature and local city halls, too often resulting in laws that benefit union members over the interests of all Californians.

Now California voters have a chance to rein in that power. They should not miss the opportunity on Nov. 6. The editorial board urges passage of Proposition 32.

The measure would do three things: It would ban donations to state and local candidates by unions and corporations. It would ban the political use of money deducted from paychecks by unions or corporations. And it would ban government contractors from contributing to the campaigns of public officials who control the awarding of those contracts.

The measure's well-funded opponents complain that it would affect labor interests more than business interests -- because businesses don't use payroll deductions in the same way as unions, and because companies that aren't corporations are exempt from the proposition.

But the proponents don't pretend they're aiming for balance in the proposal. They want to curb the influence of unions over the decisions of state lawmakers, which has been out of balance for years.

That is a cause that this page has supported for a long time. We endorsed 2005's Proposition 75 and 1998's Proposition 226, which would have required unions to get individual members' permission before spending dues money on politics. (Those propositions lost by 8 percent and 6 percent, respectively.)

The arguments then are no less valid now.

Recent examples of Big Labor's influence in Sacramento include the power it has exerted over pension reform and prison issues. Another egregious example that arose this summer was a bill considered by the Assembly Education Committee to make it easier for school districts to fire teachers accused of terrible crimes involving sex, violence or drugs.

Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of Pacoima had introduced the bill in the wake of several child sex-abuse cases in Los Angeles schools. The bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support. It had popular support.

But the California Teachers Association bused in members to confront the key Assembly committee, underscoring its arguments for protecting the job security of teachers with a not-so-subtle reminder of the union's 800-pound-gorilla influence. Enough committee members voted against the bill to kill it.

They bused in thugs. That's what they always do.

More at the link.

Constitution Day: Long Beach City College

Here's the announcement: "Constitution Day Panel Discussion."

Constitution Day is September 17th, but the college scheduled the panel for the 20th (for scheduling convenience, one assumes). I was a reluctant participant. Also on the panel was my highly esteemed colleague, Dr. Julian Delgaudio. He's a communist. A nice fellow, actually, I just can't stand his arrogance, hypocrisy, and ideological bankruptcy. The original invitation asked presenters to prepare a two-minute introduction. That's my department chair Professor Gene Goss who introduces the panelists. Professor Delgaudio spoke first. I thought he was defending a dissertation or something. He was droning on and on about how terrible ---- terrible! ---- is the U.S. Constitution. Professor Goss had to ask him to wrap up his comments at least three times. Talk about a bloviator. I had a student who flagged me down on campus last week asking, "Who was that guy who spoke first?" And even one of the part-time faculty members had questions. He obviously left an impression, and it wasn't a great one. And frankly, Professor Delgaudio was not well versed in how the Constitution actually works. It wasn't designed to prevent wealth accumulation. Delgaudio conflates wealth with power, and thus the Constitution "failed" since enormous wealth has been concentrated at the top of the social hierarchy historically. Whatever. All the other panelists did a wonderful job. I just don't like communists, and I don't think people like this are doing LBCC students any favors.