Posted on 10/29/2010 1:08:50 PM PDT by LibWhacker
He’s in favor of 50% only if Constitutional limits are restored. Otherwise, 50% will lead to bankruptcy. Prop 25 gives us 50%, but does nothing to restore limits. That’s my interpretation.
“As an employer, drug tests should be something I can use to screen out certain employees.”
They do that now.
Do you believe the Proposition wording is intended to take away from an employer, his choice to have clean/sober employees?
Twenty sound pretty good until you remember what it looks like on the C-Span call-in line.
Democrats call in and support Democrats.
Republicans call in and support Republicans.
People claiming not to be from either party call in and support Democrats by 85% or more.
With the California Legislature in control in California, how can I trust that this commission won’t be packed with people who are friendly to the majority party?
How is this really going to change things? I remain unconvinced. What we have now isn’t working either. That’s for damned sure.
What I fear is something similar to what the schools do every five years or so. They announce that they ARE STILL FAILING to teach our kids, and come up with another idea that is assured of failure.
Is this plan assured of failure? I am almost convinced it is.
If someone has something convincing to explain to me on the subject, I’d love to hear it. I’d like to be able to support it.
Hey, I didn’t know there was a McClintock voting recommendations list. Can I get on it? I value his advise on the propositions more than any other. Wish he put out one for judges, candidates, etc.!
I got his list last. I’m voting exactly this way.
Thank you for the resource.
Voted almost two weeks ago. I voted with Tom on the Propositions. Straight Republican ballot.
Sigh.
It should have read, “I got his list last week. Im voting exactly this way”.
Could you please take a look at my post in 23, and see if you can give me a reason to have more confidence in this plan?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2617292/posts?page=23#23
That goes right to the heart of the matter; how are the bipartisan commissions chosen? Tom McClintock seems to trust the process and that's a pretty good indication to me that we can trust it. But you're right to ask the question and now I want to know how they're chosen myself!
Thank you. I’ll check around a little bit too. One thing I note right off the bat is that the number of seats on that commission isn’t divisible by three. There are three categories of individuals supposed to sit on it.
Democrats, Republicans, and other...
I think we ought to just go one way or the other - 50% or 2/3.
BTW, the number is 14 seats. Sorry...
I have to admit, Tom's commentary surprised me. This is such an obvious "NO! HELL NO!!" vote, I was surprised to see any commentary at all. But to read that Tom actually supports abandoning the 2/3 provision as long as certain conditions ("restore constitutional spending and borrowing limits") are met, floored me. McClintock has been around long enough to know that such "limits" would be disposed of faster than snotty Kleenex tissues, but the annual tax hikes would go on forever.
Tom's commentary is ridiculous, even though his vote recommendation is (obviously) correct.
Yeah, surprised me too. What do you think of his argument that the supermajority requirement actually “bids up” the cost of the budget; i.e., if I’m a legislator and you want to persuade me to vote for the budget so you can get to two-thirds, you’ll have to throw my constituents a bone (and maybe a big beautiful park).
Always liked the 2/3rds reqirement myself, but this argument does give me pause.
And this year he endorsed a radical left-winger for governor.
The ping list is for anything or everything McClintock.
I originally put it together when he was still in Sacramento and writing some really good articles.
So, people who are on that list, whether from California or not, get to be pinged to threads like this, LOL.
You want on the list? Anybody else?
It also doesn’t cut off the “fee” loophole, something the legislature increases whenever they see fit.
It’s the old “a fee is not a tax” argument from these pick pockets.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Californa 'We Draw the Lines' Resource
The application period for becoming a commissioner has ended.
The first phase of the application process to become a member of the Commission ran from Dec 15 through Feb 16, 2010, and the second phase the supplemental application phaseclosed on Apr 19, 2010. Applicants who were tentatively eligible based on information they provided in the first application, were invited to complete the supplemental application. Applicants had until April 19, 2010, 5pm to complete the supplemental application. The Applicant Review Panel (panel) has reviewed the applications and interviewed nearly 120 applicants between August 6, 2010 through September 10, 2010. On September 22 and 23, 2010, the Panel held its final meeting and reduced the applicant pool to 60 of the most qualified applicants20 Republicans, 20 Democrats, and 20 not affliated with either of those two parties. All the panel meetings were public and agendas are posted here. The panel on September 29, 2010 submitted the list of names to Legislative leadership. Legislative leadership can strike up to 8 names from each of the three groups. To learn more about the selection process, go to this link.
* * * * *
I note this would be whittled down by... wait for it... wait for it... the Legislative Leadership. They can only cut eight from each group of 20 though. This should wind up with a final field of 36 from which to seat the 14 commissioners.
* * * * *
Ah, this helps... at the above provided link at the bottom.
* * * * *
What happens now that the Applicant Review Panel narrowed the Applicant Pool to 60?
On Sept 29, 2010 the Applicant Review Panel transmitted the names and other information related to the 60 most qualified applicants to the Legislature. As required by the Voters FIRST Act, this pool of 60 of the most qualified consists of three groups of twenty each: one group includes 20 applicants who are registered Democrats, 20 who are registered Republicans, and 20 who are not registered with either of those two parties. Next, the Majority and Minority Leaders in the California Senate and Assembly may each strike, or remove, 2 applicants from each of the 3 pools of 20. This means that there may be a total of 8 strikes from each of the 3 pools of twenty. Assuming these Legislative leaders fully exercise their right to remove applicants from the 3 pools, this would mean that 8 applicants would be removed from each of the three pools of twenty, leaving 12 names remaining in each of the three pools. The leaders have until November 15 to make their decisions.
The name of the applicants who remain in the Applicant Pool after the Legislative Leaders have exercised their strikes, then come back to the State Auditor, who is required by the Voters FIRST Act to conduct a random drawing where the first 8 members of the Citizens Redistricting Commission are selected. This random drawing must be conducted by no later than November 20, 2010.
Finally, the first 8 members of the Citizens Redistricting Commission are required, by no later than December 31, 2010 to select the final six members of the commission from among those applicants who remain in the Applicant Pool.
This entire process of application and selection is set out in greater detail in the Act and in the regulations that the State Auditor adopted to implement
* * * * *
Okay, then this could wind up pretty lopsided either way, if the luck of the draw for the initial eight members were more Dem or Pubbie.
If there had been an intial group of nine, and the state auditor was required to pull three names from each group, it might have been more equitable.
This does seem to allow for a potential lopsided panel. Even if it's tilted towards Republicans, I don't like it. I want equity so that there doesn't come a time when Democrats rule the roost.
* * * * *
This State PDF document may go into more detail. I don't have time now to review it in full. In the first few pages it seemed to reiterate the same as above.
Farther down, it may give better breakdown on the selection of the eight.
LINK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.