Giving Arnie His Props....Or Not

So I just got my first official absentee ballot as a California voter. Yes, I'm "up to speed" on all the issues or propositions, although I have stronger opinions on some propositions as opposed to others. For instance, there is Prop 73, which requires a waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor's pregnancy. At first I thought I would for "yes" on this prop, but the more I thought about it, the less appealing this seemed to me. As a parent (if I had a daughter), I'd want to know if my daughter was contemplating this. However, I would hope that I would have the kind of relationship where I would not be informed by an abortion clinic that my daughter was in trouble. I also don't like the idea of young girls getting dangerous procedures done in order to keep sensitive information from their parents. I am still undecided on this issue, but I'll have to figure it out soon as my ballot will have to be mailed off soon. Next, we have Prop 74, which increases a public school employee's waiting period for permanent status from two years to five years. I've already received my indoctrination speech from the union reps about why I should vote "no" to this, however, I disagree. Even though "permanent status" is not the same as tenure, you pretty much have to pull a "Mary Kay LeTourneau" to lose your job at that point because of the strength of the union and all the rules. From my standpoint, if I am worth my salt, I don't mind waiting for five years to receive "permanent status" because it would not affect me being asked to return the following year, my benefits would remain the same, and I would still move up the salary scale. Now, I can see how this would be an issue as far as retaining hard-to-get teachers like special education instructors and other specialists. Also, five years is past the well-documented three year burnout rate of special education staff. Even so, I'm still leaning towards "yes" on this prop. Prop 75 addresses public employee union dues and having restrictions on dues being used for any kind of political contribution or affiliation without employee consent. This prop I will actually vote "no" on because do you know how many employees a school district has? If there are no political contributions, then do we lose our voice and our ability to strike and demonstrate, as TV ads would suggest? I'm not sure, but if there's a remote chance of that happening, then I would hate for our rights to speak about educational reform and other such issues being taken away. I was reading the Mercury News opinion section yesterday and it was interesting how divided people are on Prop 76, which would limit state spending AND school funding. If it was just about state spending, I would probably be more open-minded about this proposition. However, anyone who knows anything about the California public school system realizes that we are already suffering from reduced funding. Having recently moved here from Washington state, I'm appalled at the lack of services already in place due to budget constraints. For instance, there are only psychologists in the schools here who have to handle referrals for testing, behavioral observations, 504 plans, burning fires AND counseling at risk students (in WA, there are school psychs AND counselors because there's no way in hell that all of those responsibilities can be covered by one person). Here, there are no music, art, PE, or tech teachers (in WA schools, there are those "specialists"). Each classroom teacher assumes the responsibility for teaching all of those areas to their students. Yes, in Washington, educators get paid less (and the cost of living is quite a bit less), but at least we had adequate resources to do our jobs! And now Arnold wants the power to reduce budget appropriations "at his choosing"?!? I think not! Prop 77 has to do with redistricting California's Senate, Assembly, and Congressional districts. I don't have much information about this. The voter's packet is not very helpful in this process. They have a statement on the "fiscal impact", but it always seems downplayed to me. Exactly who writes the "fiscal impact" statements, anyway? Prop 78 and 79 seem like a good idea to me - discounts on prescription drugs for low- and moderate- income Californians. I know it would cost the state more money, but I've seen too many people (my grandmother included) go without the medication they need. It's just not right. Prop 80 wants to restrict my rights to change from private utility providers to other providers? Wasn't the big energy bill hike just a few years ago? Why on earth would I want to give Pacific Gas and Energy a monopoly on screwing me out of money? Sheesh!