I wish someone could explain to me what the heck is going on in Wisconsin. As I see, their governor is trying to balance his budget and one way he is attempting to do that is by reducing salaries of the government employees. Further, he is trying to eliminate their collective bargaining rights. If I have any of this information incorrect, I hope someone will please set me straight. So to speak.
Let's take a closer look at what I see going on in Wisconsin. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the per capita personal income in Wisconsin was $29,196 in the year 2000. I couldn't find anything more recent but this figure should work. Just keep in mind it's 11 years old so it might need to be dusted a bit. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Median Household Income in Wisconsin is $45,349. The national average is $42,148, so Wisconsin is ahead of the curve.
Now, $29,196 doesn't sound like much but remember, this is Wisconsin. According to the Wisconsin Realtor's Association, the Median Price paid for a home in that state in January 2010 was $135,000. This means that if someone earning the per capita average of $29,196 was to take out a mortgage with nothing down (which is highly unusual but this is purely hypothetical) and took that loan at 7% (which is higher than interest rates actually are at the moment) they would have a monthly payment of $898.16. With a salary of $29,196 even if they were in the 30% income tax range (which would be very high) they would have a monthly take-home salary of $1,703.10.
What does this mean? It means that on a salary of $29,196 a person can afford to buy a house in Wisconsin. This means that this is a livable salary, since the person making it can live on it. It's not excessive and it's not going to buy many luxuries but it will provide the necessities and if budgeted properly, there might even be a little left over at the end of the week.
In 2008, according to the Census Data, the average state employee in Wisconsin was paid $49,760. That's 70% more than the per capita personal income. It's important to understand here that the per capita number is all the residents of the state, where the state employee number is only those people employed by the state. In other words, the employees are making 70% higher wages than their employers.
But wait, there's more. According to Sunshinereview.org, the average Wisconsin state employee pays 6% of the cost of their healthcare insurance. The National Conference of State Legislatures says that the national average is 22%. The Wisconsin state employees are therefore getting paid more and spending less.
The governor is trying to do his job and balance the budget and one area where he sees waste is in overpaid state employees. At 70% above the state average, how is he not correct? Further, if the average to pay for healthcare is 22% and the Wisconsin state employees are only paying 6%, shouldn't the state employees be expected to contribute more?
The governor is going after their collective bargaining agreements because those agreements are what allowed the state employees' unions to get these high wages in the first place. Reducing their wages is only the first step because the unions will only get the wages back. Ridding the state of the bargaining rights ensures the taxpayers that the state employees will have salaries that are in line with the rest of the state.
It sound to me like the Cheesehead knows what he's doing. Reduce the state employee salaries to an average of $35,000, which is still higher than the state average. Additionally, increase contributions to healthcare from 6% to 15%, which is still lower than the national average. Finally, rid the state of collective bargaining agreements and pass legislation tying state salaries to the state averages, adjusted annually (nominally) for cost of living and true these up every ten years when the census is taken.
There was a time when unions were necessary in this country. Paying their employees 70% above the state average only shows the abuse that unions have been allowed to get away with for many years.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
18 Days to Freedom
The citizens of Egypt accomplished in 18 days what the United States military has been trying to do for eight years; they ousted a dictatorial leader and reformed their nation. What's more, they did it without firing a single shot. Something our government cannot brag about.
While the Egyptian uprising was largely peaceful, no revolution is ever entirely so and toppling the leadership of the Egyptian government has come at a cost of human lives. The exact number is not known at the moment but it is certainly at least 2 and possibly as high as 300. Some might even go as high as 1,000. The loss of even one life is tragic but here in the United States, we have always believed that one thing worth dying for is freedom.
Compare this figure with our war in Iraq where 4,436 American soldiers have given their lives (as of January 26, 2011). Added to this are the estimated 1,421,933 Iraqi citizens who have lost their lives (according to JustForeignPolicy.com). Even if the Egyptian dead total 1,000 it doesn't compare to the number who died in Iraq.
Added to that is the cost of the Iraq war. Since its inception on March 19, 2003 the United States has spent more than $3 Trillion dollars on this war. I'm sure the numbers in Egypt aren't in yet but I would venture to guess that like their dead, the cost will be far less than we have paid.
What is the lesson to be learned here? That toppling a dictatorial regime does not take military strength but the strength of conviction. The power borne of a desire to be free. It must come from within and be lead by those who have finally reached their breaking point, not by a military beyond their borders. We could have assisted the Iraqis to topple Saddam Husein if we had merely enacted economic sanctions against Iraq. If we had refused to buy oil and requested our allies to do the same. If we had ended any monetary contributions and again, made this request of our allies.
The Iraq war was never necessary. George W. Bush was wrong. 4,436 American soldiers have paid dearly for a war that should not have been.
While the Egyptian uprising was largely peaceful, no revolution is ever entirely so and toppling the leadership of the Egyptian government has come at a cost of human lives. The exact number is not known at the moment but it is certainly at least 2 and possibly as high as 300. Some might even go as high as 1,000. The loss of even one life is tragic but here in the United States, we have always believed that one thing worth dying for is freedom.
Compare this figure with our war in Iraq where 4,436 American soldiers have given their lives (as of January 26, 2011). Added to this are the estimated 1,421,933 Iraqi citizens who have lost their lives (according to JustForeignPolicy.com). Even if the Egyptian dead total 1,000 it doesn't compare to the number who died in Iraq.
Added to that is the cost of the Iraq war. Since its inception on March 19, 2003 the United States has spent more than $3 Trillion dollars on this war. I'm sure the numbers in Egypt aren't in yet but I would venture to guess that like their dead, the cost will be far less than we have paid.
What is the lesson to be learned here? That toppling a dictatorial regime does not take military strength but the strength of conviction. The power borne of a desire to be free. It must come from within and be lead by those who have finally reached their breaking point, not by a military beyond their borders. We could have assisted the Iraqis to topple Saddam Husein if we had merely enacted economic sanctions against Iraq. If we had refused to buy oil and requested our allies to do the same. If we had ended any monetary contributions and again, made this request of our allies.
The Iraq war was never necessary. George W. Bush was wrong. 4,436 American soldiers have paid dearly for a war that should not have been.
Monday, August 30, 2010
A Brief Look at Meg Whitman
Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for governor of the state of California, is running her campaign based solely on her experience as CEO of ebay. Her ads claim she took ebay from a company of 30 people in 1998 to 15,000 in 2008, raising revenues from $4 million to $8 billion. Like most political ads, this information is technically true, but a closer look at her time at ebay is in order.
Meg built ebay up by restructuring and dividing. She split the company into factions and built up each faction and on the surface that strategy looks to have been successful, however if she is going to lead our state, we need to look deeper than the surface. Under Meg ebay's stock soared to its highest value of $58 in November 2004. This would be a laudable accomplishment were it not for the fact that the stock had fallen to $33.53 when she left. That doesn't sound too bad, but consider that Meg stayed on as an advisor for another year and that period saw the stock fall to its lowest level since ebay became public, selling at $12 a share in November 2008.
John Donahoe took over the reigns of ebay when Meg stepped down and one his first tasks was to reduce the spending, including salaries, that Meg had put into place. Over 10% of the workforce was let go. As is evidenced by the falling stock prices, Meg's growth was not sustainable.
There was also the matter of how to pay for this expansion. Meg did not seem to take this into consideration, apparently spending with wild abandon and raising fees to pay the bills. In fact, under Meg Whitman ebay's fees increased in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. During this time many of the "ebay stores" that were small Mom & Pop operations were forced to close. It should also be noted that in this same period, Meg's salary quadrupled.
I have to wonder what would happen if Meg became governor of California. She has already stated she will create a "Grand Jury" that will clean up the problems in our state. She hasn't said where the money will come from to pay these people. Nor has she mentioned how big this jury will be, what their salaries will be, what their benefits will be or how long they will remain employed by the state.
Her "Grand Jury" is just the beginning of her design to change the state. What else is she planning and where will the money come from? Looking at her record at ebay, it is fairly certain that she intends to raise taxes to fund her schemes. Can California afford Meg Whitman?
Meg built ebay up by restructuring and dividing. She split the company into factions and built up each faction and on the surface that strategy looks to have been successful, however if she is going to lead our state, we need to look deeper than the surface. Under Meg ebay's stock soared to its highest value of $58 in November 2004. This would be a laudable accomplishment were it not for the fact that the stock had fallen to $33.53 when she left. That doesn't sound too bad, but consider that Meg stayed on as an advisor for another year and that period saw the stock fall to its lowest level since ebay became public, selling at $12 a share in November 2008.
John Donahoe took over the reigns of ebay when Meg stepped down and one his first tasks was to reduce the spending, including salaries, that Meg had put into place. Over 10% of the workforce was let go. As is evidenced by the falling stock prices, Meg's growth was not sustainable.
There was also the matter of how to pay for this expansion. Meg did not seem to take this into consideration, apparently spending with wild abandon and raising fees to pay the bills. In fact, under Meg Whitman ebay's fees increased in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. During this time many of the "ebay stores" that were small Mom & Pop operations were forced to close. It should also be noted that in this same period, Meg's salary quadrupled.
I have to wonder what would happen if Meg became governor of California. She has already stated she will create a "Grand Jury" that will clean up the problems in our state. She hasn't said where the money will come from to pay these people. Nor has she mentioned how big this jury will be, what their salaries will be, what their benefits will be or how long they will remain employed by the state.
Her "Grand Jury" is just the beginning of her design to change the state. What else is she planning and where will the money come from? Looking at her record at ebay, it is fairly certain that she intends to raise taxes to fund her schemes. Can California afford Meg Whitman?
Monday, July 12, 2010
The Roman Polanski Saga Continues
The news announced today that Switzerland will not extradite Roman Polanski to the United States, and that he will now be allowed to return to his home in France. Visiting the United States is still something that he cannot do, as the warrant for his arrest here still stands. Steve Cooley, the Los Angeles District Attorney is not happy with this turn of events.
What Steve Cooley does not say is how much money the city of Los Angeles has spent on this extradition. Roman Polanski entered a guilty plea to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse. That was in 1977. When he was 43. He raped a 13-year-old girl. Now, I don't condone his behavior, but I do question why we are still pursuing this. Polanski has spent the last 33 years outside of the United States, and not allowed to come back here. That is punishment. He has also been forced to avoid other countries that have extradition agreements with the United States, which is also punishment.
But to Steve Cooley, nothing short of jail time will do. Steve Cooley apparently does not understand that justice comes in many forms. To spend millions of dollars to bring this man back to Los Angeles only for the pleasure of trying him, and possibly convicting him, thus allowing him to be placed in our jails, which will cost us more money, is an exercise in lunacy. Cooley is not looking at the big picture. The victim has asked that this case be dropped, there is no point in pursuing it and yet Cooley persists.
The purpose of incarceration is to rehabilitate criminals. When a crime is committed and the perpetrator is caught, they are incarcerated in order to teach them that they must not do this again. Polanski is now in his 70s. Is it likely that he will do this again? In the past 33 years that he has been on the run, have any charges been brought against him? It seems that the purpose of incarceration has been negated in this case and therefore, it would be unnecessary at this point.
Not to Cooley. Apparently, not to Barbara Blaine either. Blaine is the President of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. She and her group are in Chicago picketing the Swiss consulate for the actions of the Swiss government. Now, Blaine has to keep abuse by priests in the spotlight because this is how she makes her money. In 2006 and 2007 she was paid $75,000 in salary for her position as president. In 2008 she was raised to $75,750 (these figures are from the Form 990 filed with the IRS for these years). The 2009 filing is not yet available.
My question to Blaine is, when did Polanski become a priest? Her organization is specifically against Priests (hence the name) yet she is speaking out against Polanski because, why? Is he Catholic? Is that enough for SNAP now? Blaine made the claim that she heard there might be another victim, but since no charges have been filed, this claim is spurious at best. It would not be admissible in court, yet she still makes the claim. That doesn't speak well of her credibility.
Let's do the best thing we can in this situation, and drop it. If Cooley wants to keep the warrant in place, that's fine. It's pointless, but he can have it. Polanski can stay in France or Poland, where he is free from extradition. And Blaine can shut up and mind her own business and collect her $75,000 whether she actually earns it or not.
What Steve Cooley does not say is how much money the city of Los Angeles has spent on this extradition. Roman Polanski entered a guilty plea to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse. That was in 1977. When he was 43. He raped a 13-year-old girl. Now, I don't condone his behavior, but I do question why we are still pursuing this. Polanski has spent the last 33 years outside of the United States, and not allowed to come back here. That is punishment. He has also been forced to avoid other countries that have extradition agreements with the United States, which is also punishment.
But to Steve Cooley, nothing short of jail time will do. Steve Cooley apparently does not understand that justice comes in many forms. To spend millions of dollars to bring this man back to Los Angeles only for the pleasure of trying him, and possibly convicting him, thus allowing him to be placed in our jails, which will cost us more money, is an exercise in lunacy. Cooley is not looking at the big picture. The victim has asked that this case be dropped, there is no point in pursuing it and yet Cooley persists.
The purpose of incarceration is to rehabilitate criminals. When a crime is committed and the perpetrator is caught, they are incarcerated in order to teach them that they must not do this again. Polanski is now in his 70s. Is it likely that he will do this again? In the past 33 years that he has been on the run, have any charges been brought against him? It seems that the purpose of incarceration has been negated in this case and therefore, it would be unnecessary at this point.
Not to Cooley. Apparently, not to Barbara Blaine either. Blaine is the President of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. She and her group are in Chicago picketing the Swiss consulate for the actions of the Swiss government. Now, Blaine has to keep abuse by priests in the spotlight because this is how she makes her money. In 2006 and 2007 she was paid $75,000 in salary for her position as president. In 2008 she was raised to $75,750 (these figures are from the Form 990 filed with the IRS for these years). The 2009 filing is not yet available.
My question to Blaine is, when did Polanski become a priest? Her organization is specifically against Priests (hence the name) yet she is speaking out against Polanski because, why? Is he Catholic? Is that enough for SNAP now? Blaine made the claim that she heard there might be another victim, but since no charges have been filed, this claim is spurious at best. It would not be admissible in court, yet she still makes the claim. That doesn't speak well of her credibility.
Let's do the best thing we can in this situation, and drop it. If Cooley wants to keep the warrant in place, that's fine. It's pointless, but he can have it. Polanski can stay in France or Poland, where he is free from extradition. And Blaine can shut up and mind her own business and collect her $75,000 whether she actually earns it or not.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Los Angeles Unified School District Reform
The system is broken, and when something is broken, it needs to be fixed. Fixing the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) won't be easy, but it can be done. To do this, we need sweeping changes in the way the district is run, and in the people who work for the district.
First, we need to balance the budget. LAUSD has operated for many years without the needed funds, and the money that comes in is often spent badly. This is the second largest school district in America for the number of students, yet it has a high school drop-out rate of over 25%. More than one quarter of the young people attending schools in the district never finish, which severely limits their potential for jobs in the future. This also reduces their earnings potential, which manifests itself in their ability to pay taxes. Drop-outs hurt all of us.
To start reforming this mess the district needs additional money. The mortgage meltdown has reduced the amount of money that all school districts receive, and LAUSD is no exception. In order to help alleviate this shortage, we need to charge tuition for all students. This amount can be nominal; $100 per student per year. This would give the district nearly $70 million additional dollars. Note that this money comes with certain restrictions; first, the state is not allowed to reduce money to the school based on the tuition money. This wouldn't alleviate the problems, but merely transfer a small part of the financial burden.
Second, the tuition money is paid directly to the school where the student attends and not to the district. Third, the money is controlled by the teachers in each school, and only by the teachers. The administration and parents do not have any say in how the money is spent. Lastly, the money cannot be used to pay any salaries. It can only be used for those things that the school needs, either as a whole or in individual classrooms.
Next, we need to limit the amount of money being spent, and much of the money is being spent on salaries. We need to cap the salary of the Superintendent of School at $100,000 annually, and cap all other salaries at $80,000. This includes over-time and bonuses. Benefits for all employees will be the same, and will be limited to medical, dental and vision insurance, paid holidays and paid vacation with the following restrictions:
Insurance premiums (medical, dental and vision) shall be paid 60% by the district and 40% by the employee. Spouse and dependents can be added to the policy and will be paid 40% by the district and 60% by the employee. Any other insurance (life, AD&D, etc.) will be paid 100% by the employee.
Holidays will be based on the Federal list of holidays (not the state list). Any other days off will be unpaid.
Vacation will be paid at the rate of three weeks per year. Upon completion of ten years of service, the employee's vacation time will increase to four weeks per year. Four weeks is the maximum for any employee.
These changes will save the district millions of dollars annually.
Next, the students must be encouraged to participate and work better. This can only come partially from the classroom, but must also come from home. In order to do this, all parents of students attending school in the district will be required to provide 10 hours of service to the school (not the district, but the individual school) per year. This 10 hours is per student, so a parent with five children in school will contribute 50 hours of volunteer time per year.
Additionally, any child who arrives at school unwashed, unfed or in any way unkept, or who has not completed the required homework assigned will be immediately sent to the principal's office. The principal will contact both parents (as is applicable) and those parents must report to the school within two hours to explain the condition of their child. Failure to appear will result in an arrest warrant being served, and the parents will immediately be taken into custody and will be fined $500 per parent. At this time they will also face charges of violation of the school code resulting in a maximum fine of $1,000 and 100 hours of community service.
Finally, any changes made to balance the budget in the forms of reduction of salaries or services may only have 25% of the total coming from classrooms and teachers. The remainder must come from the administration, either of the school in question or the district as a whole.
These changes are radical, but they would result in a better school district. They would allow the teachers the financial resources to teach properly, while eliminating the constant threat of cutting teaching jobs while administrators run amok. They would increase the role of parents in the education of their children and lower the drop-out rate, while ensuring that all children are performing at their best.
These changes are sorely needed at the LAUSD, but will never happen by the current school board. In order to really change the district, we need an initiative placed on the ballot so the people of this city can vote on it. Only then will we see our district improve.
First, we need to balance the budget. LAUSD has operated for many years without the needed funds, and the money that comes in is often spent badly. This is the second largest school district in America for the number of students, yet it has a high school drop-out rate of over 25%. More than one quarter of the young people attending schools in the district never finish, which severely limits their potential for jobs in the future. This also reduces their earnings potential, which manifests itself in their ability to pay taxes. Drop-outs hurt all of us.
To start reforming this mess the district needs additional money. The mortgage meltdown has reduced the amount of money that all school districts receive, and LAUSD is no exception. In order to help alleviate this shortage, we need to charge tuition for all students. This amount can be nominal; $100 per student per year. This would give the district nearly $70 million additional dollars. Note that this money comes with certain restrictions; first, the state is not allowed to reduce money to the school based on the tuition money. This wouldn't alleviate the problems, but merely transfer a small part of the financial burden.
Second, the tuition money is paid directly to the school where the student attends and not to the district. Third, the money is controlled by the teachers in each school, and only by the teachers. The administration and parents do not have any say in how the money is spent. Lastly, the money cannot be used to pay any salaries. It can only be used for those things that the school needs, either as a whole or in individual classrooms.
Next, we need to limit the amount of money being spent, and much of the money is being spent on salaries. We need to cap the salary of the Superintendent of School at $100,000 annually, and cap all other salaries at $80,000. This includes over-time and bonuses. Benefits for all employees will be the same, and will be limited to medical, dental and vision insurance, paid holidays and paid vacation with the following restrictions:
Insurance premiums (medical, dental and vision) shall be paid 60% by the district and 40% by the employee. Spouse and dependents can be added to the policy and will be paid 40% by the district and 60% by the employee. Any other insurance (life, AD&D, etc.) will be paid 100% by the employee.
Holidays will be based on the Federal list of holidays (not the state list). Any other days off will be unpaid.
Vacation will be paid at the rate of three weeks per year. Upon completion of ten years of service, the employee's vacation time will increase to four weeks per year. Four weeks is the maximum for any employee.
These changes will save the district millions of dollars annually.
Next, the students must be encouraged to participate and work better. This can only come partially from the classroom, but must also come from home. In order to do this, all parents of students attending school in the district will be required to provide 10 hours of service to the school (not the district, but the individual school) per year. This 10 hours is per student, so a parent with five children in school will contribute 50 hours of volunteer time per year.
Additionally, any child who arrives at school unwashed, unfed or in any way unkept, or who has not completed the required homework assigned will be immediately sent to the principal's office. The principal will contact both parents (as is applicable) and those parents must report to the school within two hours to explain the condition of their child. Failure to appear will result in an arrest warrant being served, and the parents will immediately be taken into custody and will be fined $500 per parent. At this time they will also face charges of violation of the school code resulting in a maximum fine of $1,000 and 100 hours of community service.
Finally, any changes made to balance the budget in the forms of reduction of salaries or services may only have 25% of the total coming from classrooms and teachers. The remainder must come from the administration, either of the school in question or the district as a whole.
These changes are radical, but they would result in a better school district. They would allow the teachers the financial resources to teach properly, while eliminating the constant threat of cutting teaching jobs while administrators run amok. They would increase the role of parents in the education of their children and lower the drop-out rate, while ensuring that all children are performing at their best.
These changes are sorely needed at the LAUSD, but will never happen by the current school board. In order to really change the district, we need an initiative placed on the ballot so the people of this city can vote on it. Only then will we see our district improve.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Proposition 17
By now you've probably heard the ads for Prop 17 that state that there is a "flaw in the law" that allows you to have a discount on your auto insurance, but only with your current carrier. The ads state that passage of Prop 17 will allow you take this discount to any insurance company, and on the surface that sounds good. It's not the entire truth.
Currently, if you have had bodily injury liability coverage your insurance company MAY offer you a discount. They don't have to. You can only use that discount with the carrier you are currently using. The term used in the current law is Persistency of Coverage. Persistency exists even if there is a lapse of coverage of up to two years while serving in the military, or 90 days in the last five years for any other reason.
Prop 17 would change the law to allow the discount with any insurer, not just the current insurer. Note that it doesn't guarantee you a discount, it only says the insurance company MAY offer it. By that argument, an insurance company could just as easily reduce the premiums if they wanted to. What really changes is the persistency period. Service in the military is still a valid reason for lapse of coverage, but the 90 days in the last five years for any other reason will be changed to "90 days in the last five years for any reason other than nonpayment of premium." In other words, anyone whose coverage has lapsed because they weren't able to pay premiums for three months will lose the discount. In short, the insurance companies get to raise their rates.
In a time when unemployment is at an all-time high and people are trying to pay their mortgages and put food on the table, it doesn't seem fair to allow an insurance company to raise their rates. That's what Prop 17 does. It was sponsored by Mercury Insurance Company as a change to Prop 103 that was passed in 1988. Mercury is spending millions on this campaign, knowing that no grass roots organization has the financial means to stop them.
This is where you come in. First, send this email to your friends in California. Even if they don't vote, they probably know people who do. Get the word out on what this initiative really is.
Second, if you are able to donate to get this message out, go to http://www.stopthesurcharge.org and make a donation.
Lastly, if you need additional information, you can read the entire text of the Proposition in the California Statewide Direct Primary Election, Tuesday, June 8, 2010 Official Voter Information Guide that came from the Secretary of State's office. The text begins on page 76. If you didn't receive this document in the mail, you can also read it here: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/text-proposed-laws.pdf
Monday, April 12, 2010
New Life for Gay Marriage
Few things in this world happen in a vacuum and the announcement in today's news on gay marriage is no exception. It was revealed today that the supporters of placing a ban on Prop 8 did not get enough signatures to put the measure on the November ballot. Supporters of Prop 8 see this as a victory but they might be premature.
Proposition 8 was passed in California in a previous election and makes the legal definition of marriage in this state between one man and one woman. This is not only a blow for those of us who support gay marriage, but also for anyone who wants to have more than one spouse. Both are outlawed in our state (as they are in most states).
A move was enacted to garner enough signatures to put a measure on the November ballot to allow the voters another try and hopefully overturn the original initiative. This attempt has failed, since not enough signatures were gathered, but another measure has made the ballot that should be of interest to our side.
In November the voters of California will decide whether or not to continue the current law outlawing the recreational use of marijuana. In recent polls, over 50% of likely voters have said they would vote to legalize its recreational use (it is already legal medically), and this can be good news to the people looking to overturn Prop 8.
In November we will likely pass the marijuana initiative, which will allow adults age 21 and over to have and use up to one ounce of marijuana, as well as grow their own (within certain limits). The sale of marijuana will also be eligible to be taxed, thus giving much-needed revenue to our state.
What this means for supporters of overturning the gay marriage ban is that they have another year to gather enough signatures for the ballot in 2011. By that time, a good portion of the population of this state will have spent the past year smoking pot any where and any time they want, and will undoubtedly be so mellow that they'll vote for just about anything.
So, for the people who joined the movement to overturn Prop 8, kick back, light up a bowl and bide your time. By next year, it will be a whole new world.
Proposition 8 was passed in California in a previous election and makes the legal definition of marriage in this state between one man and one woman. This is not only a blow for those of us who support gay marriage, but also for anyone who wants to have more than one spouse. Both are outlawed in our state (as they are in most states).
A move was enacted to garner enough signatures to put a measure on the November ballot to allow the voters another try and hopefully overturn the original initiative. This attempt has failed, since not enough signatures were gathered, but another measure has made the ballot that should be of interest to our side.
In November the voters of California will decide whether or not to continue the current law outlawing the recreational use of marijuana. In recent polls, over 50% of likely voters have said they would vote to legalize its recreational use (it is already legal medically), and this can be good news to the people looking to overturn Prop 8.
In November we will likely pass the marijuana initiative, which will allow adults age 21 and over to have and use up to one ounce of marijuana, as well as grow their own (within certain limits). The sale of marijuana will also be eligible to be taxed, thus giving much-needed revenue to our state.
What this means for supporters of overturning the gay marriage ban is that they have another year to gather enough signatures for the ballot in 2011. By that time, a good portion of the population of this state will have spent the past year smoking pot any where and any time they want, and will undoubtedly be so mellow that they'll vote for just about anything.
So, for the people who joined the movement to overturn Prop 8, kick back, light up a bowl and bide your time. By next year, it will be a whole new world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
