California says no thank you to the Gov.

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09ballot.html?hp&ex=1131598800&en=cf3fe8ce4caba634&ei=5094&partner=homepage[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09ballot.html?hp&ex=1131598800&en=cf3fe8ce4caba634&ei=5094&partner=homepage&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The Governor wasted millions of taxpayer dollars trying to destroy working people…and they spoke back…No Thank you…</p>

<p>The end result is that he has brought a lot of teachers, nurses and firefighters over to the political side of things. Now who is the “girly man”?</p>

<p>I’ve been thinking that one day we Californians will suddenly wake up and say: “Wait a minute! We somehow have selected an Austrian bodybuilder as our governor!” Maybe yesterday was that day.</p>

<p>Well, Arnold really stirred things up in the neighborhood, didn’t he? I have never gotten so many phone calls as I did for this election, urging me to vote no. And two people stopped by the house. One of them was a middle school teacher who took the day off to campaign!</p>

<p>When are we Californians gonna wake up to how much money our state wastes on these propositions every six months, win or lose? It really doesn’t matter if you vote republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, all California politics are corrupt and money wasting !!!</p>

<p>Republican and democratic leadership are all the same…they all waste our money! They’re all crooks!</p>

<p>I will enjoy watching California go broke and lose businesses in a mass exodus as crushing taxes and rules push out anyone who has to make a payroll–besides the public employees of course.</p>

<p>Yup. They lost me. I moved up to Washington. ;)</p>

<p>Yeah, barrons, please advise everyone you know, at every possible opportunity, what a godforsakenhellhole California is! Really, this place is horrible. No one in their right mind would want to come here, except as a tourist. Honest. Don’t move here. If you are here, move away. I hear taxes are really low in Tennessee and Alabama so that’s a pretty good option. After all, the proof is in the pudding - and you can see how poor everyone in California is… and nobody ever starts a new business here… It’s really a terrible place. Honest.</p>

<p>I spent 5 years in California so I’ve done my time. I go back to LA now and most of it looks wornout and cheap. After 30 the beach is no longer that big an attraction. So after I finish here it’s back to the east coast where things were built to last and fads do not originate.</p>

<p>Thank you for leaving! Keep spreading the good word! :)</p>

<p>Well, I spent 20 years in California and now I can’t <em>afford</em> to go back. So I’m jumping on kluge’s bandwagon. Then when things have just about emptied out, I’ll sneak back in. ;)</p>

<p>Jm, Here…here! Hear…hear!?! tired old burned out hills! barren!</p>

<p>I guess I’m in the minority here, but I voted for all of Ahnold’s propositions. I was shocked to find out that teachers can get tenure after only two years and was happy to vote to change that (to five). Unfortunately, that proposition, like all the others, failed. One of the many things I love about private school is that the teachers don’t have tenure, but have to continue to prove themselves to keep their jobs.</p>

<p>

As is the case elsewhere in the real world. Those who are best at what they do don’t need artificial props to maintain their employment…real paying customers/employers actually want them.</p>

<p>I agree driver. Imagine if other professions such as nurses or firefighters had tenure and you couldn’t fire them for incompetence. Teachers keep their jobs no matter how bad they are and it is shameful.</p>

<p>I can not believe how many people bought into the lies of the union thugs and voted the props down. I know Mr. B is gloating, but he should not be so glib…our state is in the hands of the ignorant.</p>

<p>Arnold now says that he looks forward to working with the legislature. Maybe he should have tried that before the election…</p>

<p>Voters didn’t just reject the propostions; they rejected the arrogance and inflexibility with which they were offered.</p>

<p>The reality is that the average public school teacher leaves before 5 years are up, so the tenure thing didn’t mean anything one way or another. It was a Terminator soundbite. If he was serious, he would have put something on the ballot that would have helped RETAIN qualified teachers in low-income neighborhoods (the schools impacted under the Williams decision), and supported qualified individuals as they seek to join the profession. </p>

<p>But I don’t believe he had any interest in the schools to begin with, so why am I not surprised?</p>

<p>

Interesting statistic. Where does it come from? Did you mean average inner city public school teacher?

What would that be? Bouncers? Armed guards? I ask, because I had a conversation with a friend whose son had just returned to teach at a local private school after 8 years in the Chicago public system. He said he spent too much time attempting to impose discipline to have anything like enough time to teach. Even the girls were fistfighting.</p>

<p>No, I meant ALL public school teachers. You can check with the U.S. Dept of Ed. (last time I looked - which was about two years ago, it was 3.7 years; a little less for women, a little more for men.) In California, it is less, around 3 years.</p>

<p>Let’s assume you are correct about the inner city schools (the Williams v. California suit, which Governator settled for a billion dollars because he knew he was on the hook for over 8 billion, provides a very different picture) - what do you do when you send soldiers into combat? You PAY to recruit them, you PAY to protect them better, you PAY to train them better, you provide combat PAY, and you PAY them bonuses to re-enlist.</p>

<p>Yeah - Mini hit it on the head - the teacher prop was a bad solution to the wrong problem. The funny thing is - I voted for one of the props - the redistricting one - because I thought it was a good idea. Lost in the noise, though. The election was all about politics and zero about actual policy - a good enough reason for people to vote no on everything, I guess.</p>

<p>< they rejected the arrogance and inflexibility with which they were offered.></p>

<p>Arrogance doesn’t wear well. We have had some conservative governors - Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson. What these guys had, even if you didn’t agree with their politics, is an ounce of humility. They worked with the elected representatives to achieve thier goals - they didn’t try to go around them, insult them, and try to eliminate them. They worked to convince and compromised when necessary.
Our currrent governor promised to work with the legislature, but he never even tried. If he didn’t get his way, he went around them - this time to the tune of 60 million of our tax-dollars. He forgot that the people elected the state representatives, too.</p>