Democrats are Pussies

[Mikey]

Two recent examples, one national and one California.

1. They "saved" the judicial filibuster by agreeing not to fillibuster any of Bush's judicial nominations. Yeah that works. Every one of the nominees that were previously so abhorrent is now getting automatic confirmation. There's a real victory for you. Pussies.

2. The Governator last year cut $3 billion of education funding for this year as a way of trying to cut into the deficit with the school systems' and teachers' unions reluctant approval. That approval was contingent on not only restoring the funding for the following year bu repaying what was shorted. Now, he's not only refusing to pay it back but wants to continue the cuts.

He's a bold faced liar and what are the Dems, who control the State Assembly and State Senate going to do? They're rolling over because they're afraid of looking bad before the $80 million special election that Ahnold is calling in November to de-nut the Assembly and Senate and concentrate more authority in the Governor's office. Pussies.

We need more Howard Deans out there.

[Variable]

The Governator last year cut $3 billion of education funding for this year as a way of trying to cut into the deficit with the school systems' and teachers' unions reluctant approval. That approval was contingent on not only restoring the funding for the following year bu repaying what was shorted. Now, he's not only refusing to pay it back but wants to continue the cuts.

He cut a scheduled increase, not the actual budget. Besides, have you ever taken a look at how LAUSD does business? Meetings at the four seasons, meetings catered by Wolfgang Puck, meetings in Hawaii ... No real secret that our school administration is way overpaid and our kids are way underfunded. If he threw more money at education, all they'd do is spend the extra on salary increases and perks rather than increasing $/kid.

He said he was going to go to Sacramento and balance the budget and try to root out the special interests and their vise-like grip on legistlative Democrats. Why is any of this a surprise? Thank God we finally have someone in office who isn't a do-nothing.

[Mister Bushice]

And they have paid big bucks for a scathing ad campaign on TV and in print to slam ahhnold for it.

Perhaps if they turned that money into school funding and shut the hell up we'd get somewhere.

No one wants to make any sacrifices, yet everyone wants the problem fixed. pah.

[mothster]

Two recent examples, one national and one California.

1. They "saved" the judicial filibuster by agreeing not to fillibuster any of Bush's judicial nominations. Yeah that works. Every one of the nominees that were previously so abhorrent is now getting automatic confirmation. There's a real victory for you. Pussies.

2. The Governator last year cut $3 billion of education funding for this year as a way of trying to cut into the deficit with the school systems' and teachers' unions reluctant approval. That approval was contingent on not only restoring the funding for the following year bu repaying what was shorted. Now, he's not only refusing to pay it back but wants to continue the cuts.

He's a bold faced liar and what are the Dems, who control the State Assembly and State Senate going to do? They're rolling over because they're afraid of looking bad before the $80 million special election that Ahnold is calling in November to de-nut the Assembly and Senate and concentrate more authority in the Governor's office. Pussies.

We need more Howard Deans out there.

well at least santa monica city college is sacking up

[Mikey]

The Governator last year cut $3 billion of education funding for this year as a way of trying to cut into the deficit with the school systems' and teachers' unions reluctant approval. That approval was contingent on not only restoring the funding for the following year bu repaying what was shorted. Now, he's not only refusing to pay it back but wants to continue the cuts.

He cut a scheduled increase, not the actual budget. Besides, have you ever taken a look at how LAUSD does business? Meetings at the four seasons, meetings catered by Wolfgang Puck, meetings in Hawaii ... No real secret that our school administration is way overpaid and our kids are way underfunded. If he threw more money at education, all they'd do is spend the extra on salary increases and perks rather than increasing $/kid.

He said he was going to go to Sacramento and balance the budget and try to root out the special interests and their vise-like grip on legistlative Democrats. Why is any of this a surprise? Thank God we finally have someone in office who isn't a do-nothing.

While that may be true, it's a problem that the LA School District should be required to clean up.

The administration and teachers in our small district are not way overpaid and our kids are way underfunded. They were way underfunded before the cuts and even more underfunded after the cuts.
We are not a "special interest", and providing enough money for the district to educate the students is not "throwing more money at education". You gut the school system for short term savings and you'll see the results a few years down the line. But whatever the situation in any district, the fact that he made a deal for the first year and lied about living up to it should make anybody think twice about trusting this person on any agreement.

[Mikey]

And they have paid big bucks for a scathing ad campaign on TV and in print to slam ahhnold for it.

If he didn't lie about the budget and then decide on his own to spend $80 million on this idiotic special election there wouldn't have to be any ad campaign.

Tell me, what other ways are there to fight for what was promised? Maybe the Governator should spend the $80 million on education instead of his ill advised power grab.

[Mister Bushice]

He's fighting an uphill losing battle against career politicians in sacramento who were the reason things got fucked up in the first place. Them and gray davis.

[Mikey]

He's fighting an uphill losing battle against career politicians in sacramento who were the reason things got fucked up in the first place. Them and gray davis.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gray Davis is not there anymore.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pete Wilson signed the bill to "deregulate" the electric utilities.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Assembly they term out after 6 years max and in the Senate after 8 years. Career politicians? That's what Ahnold would like you to believe but the truth is that most of them are so inexperienced that they don't know wtf they're doing and haven't had time to learn the ropes. The Governator has platoons of career politicians and career bureaucrats working for him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Gray Davis fan, but Ahnold's act is getting a bit old. He's lied and obfuscated on almost every issue. His main deal is to call anybody who disagrees with him a "special interest", while I guess those that don't aren't?

And I'm getting pretty fucking sick of the way he says "Cauli - for - knee - ahhh".

[Mister Bushice]

He's fighting an uphill losing battle against career politicians in sacramento who were the reason things got fucked up in the first place. Them and gray davis.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gray Davis is not there anymore.

Thankfully, no, but Arnold is dealing with the mess he helped create

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pete Wilson signed the bill to "deregulate" the electric utilities.

But it was Davis who signed those horrible long term high cost contracts with the energy barons that helped to empty the state treasury.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Assembly they term out after 6 years max and in the Senate after 8 years. Career politicians? That's what Ahnold would like you to believe but the truth is that most of them are so inexperienced that they don't know wtf they're doing and haven't had time to learn the ropes. The Governator has platoons of career politicians and career bureaucrats working for him.

oops my bad. Meant career bureaucrats also. Besides, that time frame of 6 and 8 years encompasses the whole mess that we now have.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Gray Davis fan, but Ahnold's act is getting a bit old. He's lied and obfuscated on almost every issue. His main deal is to call anybody who disagrees with him a "special interest", while I guess those that don't aren't?

And I'm getting pretty fucking sick of the way he says "Cauli - for - knee - ahhh".

Yes but I do like how he says "Madisons queer garden." :)

I stil think Arnold is a better option than any other. He was handed a near impossible task, and he's taking heat for his decisions. If he said something early and now is backtracking it's partly because you can't squeeze water from a stone. and the pols up there have been fighting him every step of the way.

[Variable]

I stil think Arnold is a better option than any other. He was handed a near impossible task, and he's taking heat for his decisions. If he said something early and now is backtracking it's partly because you can't squeeze water from a stone. and the pols up there have been fighting him every step of the way.

Well said.

Arnold's biggest problem isn't that he's a liar, or that he lies on purpose, it's that the guy honestly wants to make everyone happy, gets ahead of himself and says things that he shouldn't.

He's the closest thing to non-partisan that we've had in a long time and actually wants to fix things, rather than just keep on truckin into bankruptcy. Why not give the guy a chance?

BTW, it's Davis's giveaways to the unions that are killing us and to a much lesser degree the long term energy contracts.

[BSmack]

He's the closest thing to non-partisan that we've had in a long time ...

Are you talking about the same Ahnold that stood up last year at the RNC and compared Democrats to the communists in Eastern Europe?

Just checking.

[Mikey]

Yes I know that the LA Times is a Commie mouthpiece for the Democrat party, but try and ingore that temporarily while refuting anything you can in this editorial that appeared in this morning's business section. Then explain to me how anything that the Governator is putting on the ballot in his $80 million waste of money is going to have any immediate or positive effect on the state economy or government and why it couldn't wait six months for the general election.

GOLDEN STATE
The Cost of Buffing Governor's Self-Image
Michael Hiltzik
Golden State

June 16, 2005

Is Arnold Schwarzenegger the most expensive governor in California history?

With his announcement this week that we will have a special election in November, we can add $50 million to $80 million to the bill Californians will pay to keep his self-image buffed. That's the estimate of how much the special election will cost taxpayers.

And it's on top of what he is costing us by having borrowed billions of dollars to replace the annual revenue the state once collected from the car tax, which he rolled back without bothering to find a less costly way to make up the loss.

If one calculates the lost revenue in his two years in office at roughly $8 billion, which was bonded out at 4.025% a year, the annual interest cost is about $322 million. That's a high price to pay for the huzzahs Schwarzenegger garnered for his crowd-pleasing tax stunt.

In his speech Monday announcing the election, Schwarzenegger called it "a fantastic bargain" that will "fix a broken system and save the state billions of dollars." Given his childlike enthusiasm, it seems almost cruel to point out the paucity of the menu he's offering voters. Here are the three main ballot initiatives around which the special election is designed:

• A fiscal reform measure that will make the annual budget process even more unwieldy than it already is.

• A redistricting reform proposal that can't reasonably be implemented before 2010, according to Schwarzenegger's handpicked secretary of state, Bruce McPherson.

• A measure that extends the period a public school teacher must work before receiving tenure to five years from two.

So we have one measure that won't do anything to improve the state's fiscal condition, another that can't be put into practice for six years and a third that will have about as much impact on the quality of education as changing the brand of chalk in the classrooms. (Two other initiatives have also qualified for the special election, and three more are likely to.)

Apparently these things are so crucial to the health of the California Republic that Schwarzenegger couldn't wait an extra six months to place them on the regular ballot in June. Instead, he decided to further indulge in personality governance by rushing them to a vote this fall.

I wouldn't want to leave anyone with the impression that I'm against the special election. Any red-blooded newspaper columnist in California would be nuts to oppose the governor's move, for the simple reason that the coming campaign is bound to be rich in material. I expect to spend the summer in a hammock under the elms, while ripe nuggets of electoral hypocrisy fall upon me from the skies, like pellets of guano.

Indeed, I didn't even have to wait for Schwarzenegger's announcement before the first pellet landed, courtesy of the California Republican Party.

The GOP, responding to a vote by the state teachers union to raise dues to fund a $54-million campaign to oppose the governor's proposals, set up a fake "grass-roots" website at the address stoptheteachertax.com. The website sheds crocodile tears over the union's vote in a sophomorically transparent attempt to paint the dues — which, as this column previously noted, are not mandatory — as a tax. (The phone number posted on the site, by the way, connects callers directly with Republican Party headquarters in Burbank.)

"Many teachers personally buy classroom supplies for their students," the site states, commiserating ostentatiously. "And now those teachers are being told by the powerful union lobby to pay even more for a political agenda that they may not even agree with."

What's shameless about this appeal is that it doesn't mention that GOP legislators went along with a budget measure last year that killed a state teacher tax credit valued at up to $1,500 per teacher, or roughly $200 million per year — four times the dues increase. (Much as it likes to blame the budget mess on Democrats, the GOP holds enough seats in Sacramento to be a full partner in all budget legislation.) This was money that many teachers, with whom the GOP pretends to sympathize, relied on to purchase the classroom supplies that the Legislature is too cheap to provide through the state budget.

The goal of the tax credit was to retain credentialed teachers in the state's K-12 system by showing that the state valued, if begrudgingly, its public school educators. That was in 2001. But the winds have shifted in the last four years, and Gov. Schwarzenegger's version of education reform, which derives entirely from his personal pique at the teachers union, is to stiffen tenure requirements to discourage qualified teachers from even joining the system.

Is this really the be-all and end-all of the governor's education policy? Doesn't seem to be worth rushing into an $80-million election, does it?

The low blows that will characterize this completely unnecessary electoral campaign are just beginning, and no doubt they will go lower than this. Schwarzenegger was already out and about this week telling elderly homeowners that his Democratic opponents are plotting to change Proposition 13 in a way that could deprive them of their homes. In the old days, we would call that statement a baldfaced lie; today, I suppose, we're supposed to accept it as merely a charming fabrication.

Fifty years ago, during another period in which lying and stupidity passed for fine political discourse, a courtly Boston lawyer said to the Republican star of the day: "Have you no sense of decency?" It looks like we'll have plenty more opportunities to ask our political leaders the same question in the weeks to come.

Perhaps if they turned that money into school funding and shut the hell up we'd get somewhere.

Are you saying that the teachers should have put the money that they voluntarily put up fof the ad campaign into school funding instead? I assume you mean on top of the money they already shell out and no longer get a tax credit for?

[Variable]

It's okay Mikey, only Dr. D and BSmack play the "your link sucks" game. :D Besides, that editorial is loaded with tons of facts.

I have no problem with Schwarzeneggar having a special election. Half of the reason good measures don't get passed during regular elections is because there's just too damn many of them.

A fiscal reform measure that will make the annual budget process even more unwieldy than it already is.

As it currently stands, we spend far more than we take in and end up declaring a "state of emergency" every year, which allows the legislature to steal money from the highway fund (among others) to fund their retarded pet programs. I'm glad that dude is actually trying to fix this inane way of doing business and really don't understand why everyone else isn't.

A redistricting reform proposal that can't reasonably be implemented before 2010, according to Schwarzenegger's handpicked secretary of state, Bruce McPherson.

Sure, this may take a long time to enact, but it makes absolute sense. As it sits right now, both Republicans and Democrats are in safe districts. They have no reason to appeal to voters, since an incumbent in a safe district all but has a lifetime pass, and end up selling out to special interests instead.

A measure that extends the period a public school teacher must work before receiving tenure to five years from two.

Tenure makes no sense in the first place. I want to work two years at my job so that I can never be fired too! They're lucky he's not asking the voters to repeal the practice entirely.

[DrDetroit]

Variable you going to link me to one post where I attacked the poster's link?

Well?

Are you?

Do not lie about what I do here. I call people out for not citing their sources and then I attack the content.

I expect a retraction, pussy.

[Variable]

Errr...damn, got me there. Retracted. In the future, it's probably best not to ask for a retraction and then call someone a pussy. A pussy wouldn't retract. Make sense, please.

[Mister Bushice]

Don't kill this thread Detroit.

[BSmack]

Variable you going to link me to one post where I attacked the poster's link?

Well?

Are you?

Do not lie about what I do here. I call people out for not citing their sources and then I attack the content.

I expect a retraction, pussy.

Uh oh. Sounds like somebody's got a case of the mondays.

http://www.bullshitjob.com/officespace/mondays.wav

[Mister Bushice]

BTW, it's Davis's giveaways to the unions that are killing us and to a much lesser degree the long term energy contracts.

Aren't those two tied together as part of the same package? Essentially his caving to the special interest groups that got him elected result in this horrific budget problem. It was pushed over the edge by the energy crisis when he had to empty the states coffers to buy energy at overinflated prices.

[Mister Bushice]

MrBushice wrote:
Perhaps if they turned that money into school funding and shut the hell up we'd get somewhere.

Are you saying that the teachers should have put the money that they voluntarily put up fof the ad campaign into school funding instead? I assume you mean on top of the money they already shell out and no longer get a tax credit for?

That money came from the teachers union. Ads are NOT cheap. Just because they agreed to fund the ads doesn't make the rank and file "voluntarily" contributing.

And those ads serve little purpose. They won't change anything, just like the indian casino ads didn't.

[BSmack]

BTW, it's Davis's giveaways to the unions that are killing us and to a much lesser degree the long term energy contracts.

Aren't those two tied together as part of the same package? Essentially his caving to the special interest groups that got him elected result in this horrific budget problem. It was pushed over the edge by the energy crisis when he had to empty the states coffers to buy energy at overinflated prices.

You mean the energy crisis that was precipitated by Enron's market manipulations? Damn amazing how that worked out. You guys still having rolling blackouts?

[Variable]

Aren't those two tied together as part of the same package? Essentially his caving to the special interest groups that got him elected result in this horrific budget problem. It was pushed over the edge by the energy crisis when he had to empty the states coffers to buy energy at overinflated prices.

Sure it's both, but the union giveaways are the worst, because those costs increased $2 billion after Davis lowered the age of retirement for firefighters to 55 AND let them retire at 90% of their most recent wage. Every year more and more of them are retiring early.

Davis also took away the requirement for Prison Guards to need a supervisor's approval prior to working overtime. Must be nice.

Supervisor: What are you doing here, Johnson? Your shift was over four hours ago.
Johnson: Fuck off, I'm working overtime.

Yeah, any of those fuckos working time-and-a-half whenever they want regardless of manning levels isn't going to cost.

You mean the energy crisis that was precipitated by Enron's market manipulations? Damn amazing how that worked out. You guys still having rolling blackouts?

Actually, Duke Energy was the worst of the violators, which Davis let go on for months without taking any action while Duke was lining their pockets. Wanna take a wild stab at who another of Davis's campaign donors was?

[Mikey]

MrBushice wrote:
Perhaps if they turned that money into school funding and shut the hell up we'd get somewhere.

Are you saying that the teachers should have put the money that they voluntarily put up fof the ad campaign into school funding instead? I assume you mean on top of the money they already shell out and no longer get a tax credit for?

That money came from the teachers union. Ads are NOT cheap. Just because they agreed to fund the ads doesn't make the rank and file "voluntarily" contributing.

And those ads serve little purpose. They won't change anything, just like the indian casino ads didn't.

I guess you didn't read the whole article. The funds paid by the union wre not from mandatory dues.

[BSmack]

You mean the energy crisis that was precipitated by Enron's market manipulations? Damn amazing how that worked out. You guys still having rolling blackouts?

Actually, Duke Energy was the worst of the violators, which Davis let go on for months without taking any action while Duke was lining their pockets. Wanna take a wild stab at who another of Davis's campaign donors was?

Duke Energy donations run 84% to 16% in favor of the GOP.

Next?

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/c ... sp?Ind=E08

[Variable]

That money came from the teachers union. Ads are NOT cheap. Just because they agreed to fund the ads doesn't make the rank and file "voluntarily" contributing.

According to the news broadcast I heard, that isn't true. The Teachers' Union did a one-time "dues increase" of $150 to 370,000 teachers to raise the money. The teachers had no say so either way.

This has actually brought up a big issue in CA, because many states now have a law that says that union members must have the right to vote on whether they want their dues paid for advertising campaigns or not. According to the broadcast, those votes frequently come back with less than 10% voting "yes".

[Diego in Seattle]

You mean the energy crisis that was precipitated by Enron's market manipulations? Damn amazing how that worked out. You guys still having rolling blackouts?

Actually, Duke Energy was the worst of the violators, which Davis let go on for months without taking any action while Duke was lining their pockets. Wanna take a wild stab at who another of Davis's campaign donors was?

Duke Energy donations run 84% to 16% in favor of the GOP.

Which, when looked at through the eyes of repugnantcans, is equal (tax cuts for the wealthy are equal to tax cuts for the middle class & poor).

[Diogenes]

BTW, it's Davis's giveaways to the unions that are killing us and to a much lesser degree the long term energy contracts.

Aren't those two tied together as part of the same package? Essentially his caving to the special interest groups that got him elected result in this horrific budget problem. It was pushed over the edge by the energy crisis when he had to empty the states coffers to buy energy at overinflated prices.

You mean the energy crisis that was precipitated by Enron's market manipulations?

You mean the one caused by the Sierra Club having their lackeys in the democrat legislature blocking the building of a single power plant for over two decades?

[Diogenes]

Plan asks 65 cents of $1 to fund classrooms

Robbie Sherwood
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 1, 2005 12:00 AM

An out-of-state online tycoon will help the state's two top Republican legislators push for a 2006 vote to force Arizona schools to spend more money on classroom instruction and less on administration, transportation, food services and other costs.

The plan is similar to ones being introduced in several other states. It would seek to boost student performance by requiring Arizona schools to spend at least 65 cents of every education dollar on teacher salaries, instruction supplies and other classroom needs. The statewide average is about 58 cents and the national average 61 cents.

Senate President Ken Bennett and House Speaker Jim Weiers said Thursday that they will introduce the last-minute referendum Monday and seek approval from lawmakers to place it on the 2006 ballot before the session wraps up in a few weeks. advertisement




Arizona could be a test case for the proposal. Similar referendums and initiatives are set to launch in four other states, all with financial backing from Patrick Byrne of Salt Lake City, chief executive of Internet retailer Overstock.com. Byrne is a prime backer of First Class Education, a Scottsdale non-profit organization pushing for the voter measures here and elsewhere.

The organization has already taped a television commercial featuring Bennett and Weiers, to be aired beginning Sunday morning.

Proponents say the referendum would benefit children by pouring more money into salaries for their teachers and essential school materials. But critics say the plan could be especially hard on children in poor urban schools and rural districts, where cuts to money for support services would be especially painful.

While touted as a positive for kids, the plan is also sure to become a political hammer. Bennett and other backers launched broadsides at Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, who enjoys strong backing from educators.

"The concept of spending 65 percent of our education dollars was announced by candidate Napolitano when she ran for governor," said Bennett, R-Prescott. "We have not made progress in the first two years of her administration. So this is not a new idea, but it's the right thing to do for Arizona."

Napolitano challenged schools in 2004 to voluntarily "put a nickel in the classroom" with a goal of reaching 62 cents on the dollar for classrooms, then the national average. Her spokeswoman called Bennett's statement about lack of progress "just not true." Arizona's classroom spending has remained steady at 58 cents, but the national average has dropped.

"The effort we put forth has had a positive effect," said Napolitano spokeswoman Jeanine L'Ecuyer. "It was a campaign promise the governor made, and she's held true to that. In the first year of the Nickel In a Classroom, a little more than $108 million was moved to the classroom statewide."

And, while Napolitano might share the same goal of increasing classroom funding, she is not comfortable with a mandate that's "tying districts' hands without looking at individual district resources," L'Ecuyer said.


Rural schools


Officials from rural schools, where transportation costs run abnormally high, said they would be hit hard if voters approve the referendum. It was the same concern at poor urban schools because the high number of counselors and social workers needed to work with English-language learners do not count as classroom expenses.

"Unless districts are already close to the 65 percent, it will take years to accomplish this, and I'm not sure it's even possible," said Lorrie Drobny, assistant superintendent for business and operations for Phoenix Union High School District, adding that the district's classroom expenditure rate hovers at about 56 percent.

Randy Pullen, Arizona's Republican National committeeman and chairman of the referendum campaign, said concerns about the plan are overblown.

"It's not about transportation costs, it's about assistant curriculum coordinators, deans of boys, deans of girls, administrative assistants, assistant superintendents and assistant principals," Pullen said. "That's where the money is getting sucked up into the education system, in the administrative side."

Although the referendum will receive outside financial support, Pullen predicted that more than 90 percent of the $500,000 needed for a campaign would be raised locally.


School services


District officials worry they would have to cut services for kids if the referendum gets on the ballot and passes.

The Scottsdale Unified School District, for instance, has increased the percentage of dollars going toward the classroom to 63.7 percent in 2004 from 58.6 percent in 2001. Administrative costs have fallen to 8.4 percent from 10.1 percent. This is a shift of more than $6 million, said Bob Flach, the district's chief financial officer. To reach 65 percent, the school district would have to trim $1.8 million from what the state considers "non-classroom expenses."

Flach said many student services such as guidance counselors, librarians and speech therapists are considered "non-classroom expenses" under the state's definition, even though they provide direct services to kids. Cutting back on these services, just to reach the 65 percent threshold, would hurt kids in the long run, he said. "We've got to make sure we don't hurt kids to put more money in the classroom," he said.

The Dysart Unified Elementary School District, headquartered in El Mirage, is spending 55 percent of its dollars in the classroom. For it to hit the magic number of 65 percent, Dysart will have to take a serious look at what is expendable, said Timothy Tait, district spokesman. Saying more dollars would be spent in the classroom without increasing taxes leads voters and parents to believe districts in Arizona are wasting money, he said.

"Where do we get that 10 percent from? Do we build (fewer) schools? Do we start to cut crossing guards or security personnel?" he asked.