Proposition 75 - It's a GOOD Thing!

If you've read some of my previous posts, it is no secret that I support Arnold Schwarzenegger for reelection in 2006 even if I am always not sure if I am spelling his name properly. At least when I say 'Arnold,' everyone knows who I am talking about. And it is no secret that I loathe unions, especially the ones sponsoring those dishonest, chicken anti-Arnold commercials polluting our television airwaves at the present time.

Once again the various parties against Prop 75 are at it, trying to villify Arnold. They show firemen and policemen telling you how Arnold is trying to take even more of their rights to speak up away from them (as if somehow he has already done some taking away). They make it sound like the Terminator is trying to put a pillow over them.

Everyone ought to find out for his or herself exactly what Prop 75 is about, rather than listening to these self-interested union-backed misinformed people on the television. You can find out about it by clicking here. This is the State of California's website containing the actual proposition along with the arguments for and against, same as you will be seeing on the upcoming ballot.

Basically, at this time members of a public employees union can opt out of having their dues used for political contributions. This means that one has to be proactive if they don't want to have their dues used in this manner. Prop 75 changes that by requiring that employees must opt in and be proactive if they do want to have their dues used for political contributions. Without their explicit consent, the union administrators and leaders would not be able to use those dues for political contributions.

Detractors of this proposition say that Arnold is trying to make it more difficult for democrats. After all, the majority of union members are democrats and unions generally support the democratic candidates and more liberal propositions on the ballots. So by supposedly limiting the ability of unions to make political contributions, this hurts the democrats more than the republicans. Since Arnold is a republican, the critics say he is trying to influence elections against democrats.

Now I can understand these arguments, but I don't agree. First of all, there is nothing whatsoever that says anyone's right to speak up is going to be taken away or diminished by this proposition. Yes, if you do not actively indicate you want your union dues to be used for political contributions, then indirectly that does prevent you from being heard, assuming your views coincide with whatever your union is trying to promote. But all you have to do is give your consent. Is that so hard? We see all these media pictures of union rallies with the members all gung ho looking like they just burst out of the tunnel into the 2nd half of a USC football game, ready to take on the world. So is it just that difficult for them to fill out a form giving their consent to use their dues? Or aren't they literate enough to understand the printed word?

Given the way unions usually work, if Prop 75 should pass I am sure that union management will be out in force persuading (to put it lightly) their members to sign the election form. I am sure there will be no trouble whatsoever obtaining a form if any member so desires it; he or she will probably receive tons of them in the mail along with reminders left and right if they fail to submit it on the first pass.

So what's the problem with that? You know that most people are prone to favor inaction rather than action even if it means they are getting their 2nd choice in something. That's why people who are trying to win favor for something prefer to use a silence implies consent approach rather than an active consent approach because they know a whole bunch of people aren't going to respond even if they either don't care one way or another, or are opposed to the measure.

Take a look at all those privacy disclosure statements you get in the mail from your credit card companies, banks and other institutions. They tell you, after reading all this fine print that some slimy lawyer put together, that if you wish to opt out of whatever list they want to put you on to invade your privacy, you must actively notify them that you want to opt out. Well, don't you get sick and tired of receiving so many of these things and having to go to the trouble of opting out on each one? I know I sure do. I am sure many people don't even bother to read this junk and just put it in the round file instead, thinking it is just another advertisement for a Simpsons commemorative plate, or a bunch of credit card vouchers you can use just like checks and be charged 22% interest from day one if you are stupid enough to use them.

Would it not be easier and more legitimate if you actively had to opt in to allow other companies to invade your privacy and send you trash because your credit card company or bank gave them a mailing list with your name and address on it? In other words, if you didn't want to put up with this annoyance, then you just wouldn't respond. Of course it would be easier and most people are fed up with junk mail and would prefer not to get any more. But nooooo, all these companies who want your business know that if you actually had to opt in to give permission to have your name distributed on a mailing list, that list would be significantly smaller than the list obtained by making you actively opt out of such a list.

So naturally unions would prefer that members have to opt out of allowing them to make political contributions, rather than having members opt in. It is so much easier for the unions.

But let's think about this. Maybe what the union wants politics-wise is what you want. So fine, you don't mind having your dues used by them for political purposes. But let's say you don't agree with them. Or, you don't like how much they use of your dues, so much that after the political contribution portion is taken out, there isn't enough (in your opinion) for things that you feel the union ought to be doing to support you. Instead, the union is using your money for their self interests.

So what is wrong with saying that before the union can do anything like this, they have to have your written permission?? Nothing, that's what!

And that really is all Prop 75 is about. Read it yourself and see. Now if the shoe were on the other foot and the republicans stood to lose out, how would I feel? Well, I wouldn't like it but I also could not argue that it was unfair. I'd have to admit that it made sense. That doesn't mean I would necessarily vote for it but I also could not say in good conscience that such a proposition was attempting to prevent me from speaking up. That's a bald faced lie. I really don't feel anyone with any integrity could appear on those anti-Prop 75 commercials and say what they are saying.

Finally, take a look at the arguments for and against Prop 75 that appear on the State's website. Look who is for and look who is against. The people against are union members, ones who, in my opinion, are as greedy and selfish as they come. The ones who want to take and take and dip into your tax dollars rather than understand that we all have to cut back because of the sorry State of California's sorry state of finances. And they are afraid that voters are going to come to their senses and eliminate the gravy train they've enjoyed all these years.

Also take a look at who wrote the rebuttal to the argument against Prop 75- you've got three union members. Rather than take the greed path, they are taking the path of trying to make California a better state for everyone and promote accountability, rather than the union way of making a better state for unions and a better state for unions and (so on and so on).

Like I said, read Prop 75 yourself, then listen to those misleading and downright mendacious ads put on by the unions against Prop 75, and then you decide for yourself who is really trying to prevent union members from speaking their mind.