WEATHER »

Does the county need Measure M?

No, the millions to pay for Measure M will come out of money essential for public safety and health and human services. 46% 217 votes
Yes, spending $18 million-$44 million annually for the $341 million in overdue fixes to county roads, parks, and buildings is crucial. 53% 246 votes
463 total votes

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

53% yes in the liberal Indy survey indicates M is a slam dunk.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 24, 2014 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is the most objectively worded poll I've seen in the Indy yet!

Botany (anonymous profile)
May 24, 2014 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

gosh JL, you almost always hate these polls and their wording, but you dig this one. don't worry, it's just 170 people, M is dead. Vote NO on M.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 24, 2014 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

M est morte.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 24, 2014 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I usually hate the polls because their choice of answers is incomplete. This one is quite clear. M will pass.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 25, 2014 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If voters go for Wolf, they know they also have to pass Measure M at the same time.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 25, 2014 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

foo, I think you don't really understand those who vote for Wolf. They are the me first, something for nothing crowd. Still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, never learned about the Golden Goose.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 26, 2014 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is something for nothing as far as politicians are concerned. The something is fat pensions for public employees that won't come due until long after the politician that approves them leaves office. (which is nothing for the politicians)

Botany (anonymous profile)
May 26, 2014 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

which is why public employees support people like Wolf and why collective bargaining by public employees should never have been allowed (thanks, Moonbeam), and should be eliminated.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 27, 2014 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JL, read again what I wrote. If you vote for Janet Wolf you had better also vote for Measure M because she has proven she has no discipline about spending your tax dollars.

Measure M will tie her free-spenging hands, if you want to keep her. Yes on Measure M and Yes on Wolf is the only way to go if you still want union tool Janet Wolf.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 27, 2014 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Collective bargaining is not so much the issue as now mandatory union shop and skimming union dues off the tops of employee paychecks and sending the mandatory dues directly to the union bosses to foster their own self-serving agendas. That was the recent shift that finally pushed this state over the edge.

Union can have a place - arm-length and on one side of the bargaining table only with no bad morale threats or emotional blackmail used as a bargaining tactic. Collective bargaining needs to be an independent objective analysis of budget numbers, needs and shared mission only.

But when someone like Janet Wolf walks into the bargaining table already heavily compromised by union donations and support, there is no morality left for this to be an objective and thoughtful process. Wolf has already made her position known: give the unions what ever they demand.

Collective-bargaing allows fair pay for similar job descriptions and avoids having to hand out employee contracts one by one. Most public sector workers are fungible along a few job description categories of work demanded of them, so paying collectively by basic job description categories makes sense.

Unions buying and selling friendly elected officials and voters who still can't figure this out is where everything has gone wrong. And why voters end up saying it doesn't matter who you vote for, because nothing changes.

File that under "well duh" if you keep voting for the union endorsed candidates.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 27, 2014 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cannot imagine any way of allowing collective bargaining while preventing undue influence by unions with lots of money to spend and lots of votes under their control. Wisconsin, the birthplace of Socialism in the US, has figured this out and eliminated collective bargaining by government employees.

So far as "fair pay for similar job descriptions" it's more like "fair pay for similar job titles", a system which has been manipulated in favor of gov employees for decades (personal experience here).

If a union endorses a candidate I don't vote for that candidate. Simple. If many others did that, problem solved.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 28, 2014 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Exactly, JL. Once voters recognize a union endorsement does them no good whatsoever, one can weed out this systemic corruption of the public sector in 2-3 election cycles. And then be alert to the next undue influence corruption cycle.

Best place to start is analyzing why voters feel comfortable voting for union endorsed candidates.

How do these candidates present themselves to the voters that make them appear to be the better choice?

Since many voters choose candidates for superficial reasons, they do feel comforted if the "employees" like this person.

Next step is to publicize exactly why the "employees" like this candidate and how that operates against the voters best interests when that candidate has also run up a huge public debt., that the voter/taxpayer will ultimately have to make good on.

Short term feel-good thinking versus long-term prudence. Which one has been most likely to prevail. Which one do the union dollars most likely present. The buzz words they use are laughable, but one cannot ignore they have been very effective.

And the pensions debts keep rising and the present services keep declining. Go figure, voters do react emotionally and do want to "feel good" when the cast their votes.

Challenge is how to make them feel good voting against the employee self-interests and yet keep an effective workforce. Fair proposition.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 28, 2014 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Does anyone else find Foo's obsession with public worker unions disturbing too. Just too many people writing about their obsessions lately.

Validated (anonymous profile)
May 28, 2014 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oooowww, seeds of a witch hunt. Is that what you have in mind, Validated. Trying to inside e-mob violence with rumor and innuendo?

Stick with the ideas and the principles and you will do okay.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 28, 2014 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

no witch hunt, I validate Validated's comment about foo's OCD and repetitive blarney, mostly cut and paste, about public worker unions. He's hired by the Koch Bros or some like them, thinking if he's repeats his BS a few FOOls may begin believing his boring HATE UNIONS mantra.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 28, 2014 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just mailed in my ballot, DD. Yes on M - it was so easy to do, and the proposition reads like a no-brainer to support.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 28, 2014 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BTW: Excellent letter from the mayor of Solvang who supports Measure M, stating the "sky will not fall" if Measure M passes - he makes very valid points as he defangs the opposition, point by point:

http://www.noozhawk.com/article/lette...

If you have not made up your mind about Measure M yet, be sure to read his letter in support of Measure M.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 28, 2014 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since DD and Validated do not read widely, let me pass on another Sacramento pundit who also shares the conclusion public sector employee unions and their now exposed string of excesses will be in for a rough ride:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/05/27/6436...

Dan Walters take on union politics, CalTrans and the 3500 jobs feather-bedding. It is happening all over this state and up and down the state budget and in every aspect of government employment.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 28, 2014 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: