Skip

University of California Budget Walkout
September 24, 2009 4:16 PM   Subscribe

Thousands of students, faculty, and staff have walked out today in protest of the University of California's budget cuts.

Today marks the first day of classes for eight of the ten UC campuses, all of which have been hit hard by budget cuts as a result of the statewide budget crisis, which has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of reductions to UC's budget. The cuts are being implemented via pay cuts and forced furloughs for UC faculty and staff, and drastic fee increases have been proposed.

UC employees are worried about what is seen as the potential privatization of the nation's largest public university system. Many see the California budget process, hampered by a two-thirds majority requirement and numerous ballot initiatives blocking tax increases, as the source of the problem.

Local coverage per campus:
Berkeley
Los Angeles
Davis
Santa Barbara
Irvine
posted by spitefulcrow (56 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite

 
Without being flippant surely walking out when they're trying to cut staff/students is sort of playing into their hands?
posted by Damienmce at 4:21 PM on September 24, 2009


Yeah, there's one furlough day they don't have to worry about.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:24 PM on September 24, 2009


There were some proposed ballot initiatives in California last year to raise taxes and people voted them down. It only would have required a simple majority to pass.
posted by delmoi at 4:25 PM on September 24, 2009 [4 favorites]


And again being actually cynical, everything everywhere is kinda f*kked right now, what about sharing some of the pain? I've taken a paycut and so has my boss, less turnover, not rocket science, accounting 101.
posted by Damienmce at 4:25 PM on September 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


Dear God I sound like PJ O'Rourke.
posted by Damienmce at 4:29 PM on September 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


And again being actually cynical, everything everywhere is kinda f*kked right now, what about sharing some of the pain? I've taken a paycut and so has my boss, less turnover, not rocket science, accounting 101.

Hasn't politics (rather than economic pain) played large part of California's budget crisis?
posted by KokuRyu at 4:30 PM on September 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


Yes, everything everywhere is kinda fucked right now, but California is particularly messed up, and the governor and assembly have seen fit to pass the problem off to an institution that was originally chartered as a free educational system for Californian students.

Faculty and staff are being forced to take up to 11% pay cuts in addition to two weeks of unpaid furlough time, and they are not given any choice in when to take the furlough days. These policies were set in a closed emergency session by the UC President and Regents during the summer recess. As a student at what was (and mostly still is) the greatest public university, I find this shameful.
posted by spitefulcrow at 4:31 PM on September 24, 2009 [3 favorites]


> ...and numerous ballot initiatives blocking tax increases...

> It's been a long, slow tumble from the Golden State's glamorous peak in the 1960s--when Governor Pat Brown built an efficient network of freeways and thriving, affordable public universities...

You know how you pay for cool stuff like freeways and universities? TAXES. I will never get my head around how people want society and all its awesome shit delivered to them - personally - on a platter, but don't want to pay anything for it. The Simpsons effectively lampooned this attitude in the episode where Principal Skinner and Edna debate the school's budget ("The finger thing means the taxes!").
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:32 PM on September 24, 2009 [12 favorites]


And again being actually cynical, everything everywhere is kinda f*kked right now, what about sharing some of the pain?

California's problems are due to voters refusing to share the pain of taxation in exchange for decent public services.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 4:34 PM on September 24, 2009 [9 favorites]


Hasn't politics (rather than economic pain) played large part of California's budget crisis?

Yes. The whole thing started when Proposition 13 was passed: California is unable to increase property taxes without a two-thirds majority vote in both houses, and taxes have been limited to a level vastly below those paid anywhere else. With its major source of revenue capped at such a low level, the state has turned elsewhere to make up the difference, which is why CA sales tax is so high. This year, state Republicans created a pact not to pass any tax increases in the budget, and since the constitution requires a two-thirds majority to pass a budget, Democrats were unable to effectively increase revenue. The resulting budget cut funding to nearly all state services, including UC.

It pretty much boils down to the Californian populace wanting services without having to pay for them. The whole thing is fucked up.
posted by spitefulcrow at 4:36 PM on September 24, 2009


Hasn't politics (rather than economic pain) played large part of California's budget crisis?

Since 2007 California has had a total of about $60 billion in budget deficits. $47 billion of that is due to decline in taxes. But much of that decline is led by collapsing sales taxes. ... California's spending over the last 6 or 7 years has been flat.

Floundering around to make the necessary cuts didn't help anything, but there is more than politics at play.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:39 PM on September 24, 2009


> And again being actually cynical, everything everywhere is kinda f*kked right now, what about sharing some of the pain?

Yeah, Wall Street, what about that?

Different state, different situation, I know...but I find it curious that when it comes time for belt-tightening and pain-sharing, it's always the middle and lower classes who are expected to lead the way. Is this, like, the opposite of trickle-up economics?
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:40 PM on September 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


It only would have required a simple majority to pass.

Alternatively, it would have taken only 3 Republicans in each house of the California legislature to budge from their raise-no-taxes position to get the 2/3 majority to have raised taxes, passed the budget, and not spent over $2 million on a special election.
posted by Zed at 4:40 PM on September 24, 2009 [5 favorites]


California's problems are due to voters refusing to share the pain of taxation in exchange for decent public services.

I was going to dispute this, because technically I place the blame on a system where elected officials don't have to do their damned jobs and make the hard decisions in a time of financial crisis. But then I realized I REALLY blame the person who thought up the "ballot initiative" process, wherein we need less consensus to take away a fundamental right than we need to fund a damn school system. And THEN I realized that it doesn't matter. We're all sinking in the boat we built ourselves.
posted by muddgirl at 4:40 PM on September 24, 2009 [5 favorites]


As much as I feel for the UC schools, I gotta say, the CA State system has been hit waaay harder by these cuts. I'm currently participating in both systems (did my undergrad at UC, now at State, but also spent the summer at UC and am taking one class there now), and you can actually see the difference, regardless of whether or not you are affected by it (I'm currently getting it from both ends, which is fun). In my program at State, I've watched half our core classes get cut and am struggling to figure out how to graduate without the professors, classes, and facilities to do so. Oh, and my tuition went up by a total of 30% in the last year. It's totally sad and ridiculous. Things are compromised at every level and it's hard to keep the faith up.
posted by iamkimiam at 4:43 PM on September 24, 2009 [3 favorites]


Yes, everything everywhere is kinda fucked right now, but California is particularly messed up, and the governor and assembly have seen fit to pass the problem off to an institution that was originally chartered as a free educational system for Californian students

I'm very sorry your university has less money and your plans have had to change but so did mine and much more immediately. Less money for education is a bad thing but so is me having less money for food but I'm not asking Argentina to cry for me. Them's the breaks.
posted by Damienmce at 4:46 PM on September 24, 2009


California shows the dangers of too-direct-of-a democracy. 2/3rd majority of the state Senate to raise taxes but only 50.1% of the voting public to invalidate gay marriage.
posted by MoreForMad at 4:51 PM on September 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


Faculty and staff are being forced to take up to 11% pay cuts in addition to two weeks of unpaid furlough time, and they are not given any choice in when to take the furlough days.

Up to 10%, and that only for anyone making over $240,000. Here's the sliding scale. The pay cuts aren't in addition to unpaid furlough time, per se; it's more that the pay cut is what makes the furlough time functionally unpaid. The furlough days become basically equivalent to paid vacation days -- you're just being paid less overall. And it's only 10 furlough days one doesn't get a choice in scheduling. That's almost all of them if you make $40,000 or less and only get 11 furlough days; it's less than half if you make over $90,000 and get 21 of them.

California is unable to increase property taxes without a two-thirds majority vote in both houses

You're conflating different elements of Prop 13. It established the requirement of a 2/3 majority in the legislature to raise any statewide taxes, and further imposed a strict limit on raising property taxes.
posted by Zed at 5:02 PM on September 24, 2009 [4 favorites]


Can't we blame this on the illegals? shucks. The good news: Arnie is going to be in a new film with Sly Stalone and Bruce Willis, and perhaps his take can restore everything the state needs.
posted by Postroad at 5:04 PM on September 24, 2009


I didn't mean to come off all "Yeah, you think that's bad, well look at this...."

I feel for you too; we're all in this sinking ship together.
posted by iamkimiam at 5:07 PM on September 24, 2009


This is the point in the story where Arnie saves the day at the last minute by killing everyone, right?
posted by Joe Beese at 5:09 PM on September 24, 2009


There were some proposed ballot initiatives in California last year to raise taxes and people voted them down. It only would have required a simple majority to pass.

I thought that any measure to raise taxes required a supermajority, and that was the basis of the problem.
posted by fatbird at 5:29 PM on September 24, 2009


Joe Beese: If so, we know what he'll use.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:30 PM on September 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


One lesson here: if you make it hard to increase taxes, you need to make it equally hard to increase spending.
posted by Malor at 5:37 PM on September 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


I thought that any measure to raise taxes required a supermajority, and that was the basis of the problem.

Nope. The legislature requires a supermajority to raise taxes. But a ballot initiative can freakin' amend the state constitution with a simple majority of the voters.
posted by Zed at 5:48 PM on September 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


First day of classes? This is the end of fifth week for me!
posted by aaronetc at 6:08 PM on September 24, 2009


First day of classes? This is the end of fifth week for me!

Yes, it is. All of the other (read: not Berkeley, Hastings, or UCSF) UCs are on quarters and start today.
posted by spitefulcrow at 6:13 PM on September 24, 2009


Yes, everything everywhere is kinda fucked right now

Whoa, whoa. Not everybody's getting fucked over here:

Execs still get raises as UC cuts staffing, pay

Hefty pay raises in troubled times on campus

Just you worthless slaves who do all the work, get all the grants, sign over your patents and allow Mr. UC President to write himself and his buddies big fat paychecks on the march to privatization. And that it helps to muddy the waters for increased state funding when the administration cries "Poor" but lavishes themselves with perks and money - hey, that's your problem.

Now back in line, slaves!
posted by peppito at 6:17 PM on September 24, 2009 [12 favorites]


peppito: "Not everybody's getting fucked over here: ... Just you worthless slaves who do all the work, get all the grants, sign over your patents and allow Mr. UC President to write himself and his buddies big fat paychecks on the march to privatization."

Well, look at it this way. They did go there to get an education.

They just got one.
posted by Joe Beese at 6:22 PM on September 24, 2009 [4 favorites]


The problems with CalPERS don't seem to be helping either. You can read more here and here.

Public employee pension systems like California's seem to put the burden of losses in the pension's investments upon the state's taxpayers. When you can't raise taxes without a major push, it's damn near impossible to make ends meet.
posted by reenum at 6:23 PM on September 24, 2009


Heh. Stupid typo on my part: "UC faculty and staff", not "and stuff".
posted by spitefulcrow at 6:45 PM on September 24, 2009


The furlough days become basically equivalent to paid vacation days -- you're just being paid less overall.

Well, not really -- it's not as if the faculty aren't going to work on those days. They're more like, well, what they are -- days when we work for free.

Not that I'm complaining. Faculty at big state universities get paid pretty well, and we're more able to bear temporary financial pain than the staff and the students are.
posted by escabeche at 6:52 PM on September 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


I will never get my head around how people want society and all its awesome shit delivered to them - personally - on a platter, but don't want to pay anything for it.

Selfishness. There's a whole political party built on this you may have heard of.
posted by DU at 7:00 PM on September 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


Well, not really -- it's not as if the faculty aren't going to work on those days.

Point taken, for faculty. My viewpoint was somewhat non-faculty-staff-centric (there's a reason I'm so familiar with the terms of the furlough.)
posted by Zed at 7:02 PM on September 24, 2009


It's a terrible shame, but what is walking out supposed to accomplish?
posted by clockzero at 7:26 PM on September 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


what is walking out supposed to accomplish?

Same thing most general strikes and/or protests want to accomplish: to spur reform by drawing attention to the issues at hand.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 7:38 PM on September 24, 2009


.


Again.

[Berkeley PhD '96]
posted by erniepan at 7:54 PM on September 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


and Clark Kerr rolls over in his grave.
posted by Edward L at 8:19 PM on September 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


Nice:
Exempted employees include:
[...]
Student employees, including postdoctoral, graduate and undergraduate employees, health sciences trainees and postdoctoral fellows, except where those employees are exclusively represented by unions


So, graduate students are exempted. Except TA's, because they're represented by a union (at least at UCSB, where I was a grad student once). That'll show 'em! Of course, they'll still have to show up to work on furlough days, because shit has to get done. And they'd probably just waste that 4% of their income on food and shelter anyway.

I love the way this shit breaks down. Grad students making $25k per year lose 4% of their income, and bigwigs making $240K+ lose 10%. Yeah, the pain's being spread around real well.
posted by Humanzee at 8:23 PM on September 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


Graduate students and workers at UC Santa Cruz have escalated the protest and are now occupying the graduate student commons. Here's their blog.
posted by dr. boludo at 9:26 PM on September 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


Grad students making $25k per year lose 4% of their income

Grad students at Cal would be thrilled to take a 4% pay cut on 25k a year. That would be a net pay raise. Fortunately, the just-negotiated union / university contract for TAs has no pay cuts in it.
posted by one_bean at 10:26 PM on September 24, 2009




"Grad students making $25k per year"

Keereist. Solidarity and all, but it wasn't all that long ago I was on a full ride for a graduate program. 25k is twice what I got, and my school is considered to be one of the best in my field.
posted by bardic at 1:53 AM on September 25, 2009


You realize that universities today spend an incredible amount on non-academic staff, whose layoffs wouldn't effect students nearly so much.

Btw, the original problem was that UC tried cheating it's faculty by not furloughing them on teaching days, i.e. you work just as much but we pay you less.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:36 AM on September 25, 2009


Just to be clear, I wasn't saying "pity me, I make $25K per year". I'm not a graduate student, and haven't been one for a few years now (and I'm no long in CA). I was just guessing, I'm sure there are grad students who make less (I made less than that at the time, and I knew students who made less than $20K for sure). Nonetheless, grad students have a tough job and living on ~$25K per year in an expensive place like Santa Barbara is NOT easy. Doing it on half that would be nearly impossible. Additionally, grad students have a crap safety net. We had no dental, and a friend of mine had his teeth knocked out, setting him back over $10K.

I'm just bothered by the unfairness of hitting graduate students and low-salary staff with this furlough, and I don't like what seems like a gratuitous shot at the union either.
posted by Humanzee at 5:43 AM on September 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


I think research assistants often make $25k per year, maybe even $30k, but RAs are doing highly skilled labor that brings in outside funding and may even generate patents. A TA usually earns far far less than an RA.

RAs salaries are definitely increased by both competition between different universities, i.e. you pay your students more if your future grants depend upon them, as well as NSF GRFs being identical across all fields, i.e. math GRFs earn more because the NSF doesn't like biologists turning down GRFs for ordinary RAships. Btw, I even know one guy who was offered a $70k RAship in CS, but he was already famous as an open source developer.

TA salaries are also dragged down by humanities TAs, for which supply far overwhelms demand. I think most schools have "competitiveness pools" that allow them to pay their math and science TAs more than their humanities TAs. But, if your base humanities TA salary is $14k and the university offers another $4k for sciences, then you're still only talking $18k.

I think math any physics are really suffering from not enough industry or applied linked RA money, meaning too many mathematicians and physicists enter very pure fields and too few enter applied fields. Btw, the UCLA math dept started providing summer grad student support for collaboration with applied faculty.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:28 AM on September 25, 2009


Oh horrible. California has shot themselves in the foot, and now they're bitching about how others caused them to shoot in a downward position, directed at their feet. Whine, whine, whine. If a state has a massive debt (such as California), why not take money away from free education? TANSTAAFL, people. No matter how much you wish it were otherwise, you've gotta pay for the things you get.
posted by CountSpatula at 6:51 AM on September 25, 2009


But then I realized I REALLY blame the person who thought up the "ballot initiative" process, wherein we need less consensus to take away a fundamental right than we need to fund a damn school system.

So we have Hiram Johnson to blame. Let's dig him up from the grave and burn him at the torch.

Also, those who are unhappy that UC grad students are making the obscene total of $25,000 per year may want to take a look at the housing costs and other costs of living in most areas where UC institutions are based. It is virtually impossible for anyone making what the UCs pay their educators to survive on those wages unless you have a spouse or partner who is earning enough to make up the difference, or unless there is some other source of income. That is one of the main reasons I left California almost a year ago.
posted by blucevalo at 7:00 AM on September 25, 2009 [2 favorites]


Also, those who are unhappy that UC grad students are making the obscene total of $25,000 per year

And let me re-iterate: grad students at UC are not making anywhere close to $25,000 per year. And "RAs" (what we call GSRs) make basically the same amount as the TAs, except TAs pay union dues.

you've gotta pay for the things you get

Yes, but what you're misunderstanding is who's paying for what, and what are the things they're getting. You're viewing it as an issue of really smart kids trying to get an education. I'm viewing it as the fact that California now spends more money on putting those kids in prison than educating them to be productive citizens of their state and country. I really think you ought to read this article from the SF Chronicle. 18-24 year-olds without a college education are 31 times as likely to be incarcerated as those with a college education. Incarcerated at $45,000 / prisoner / year. So, does California want to spend the money now to train and educate their youth, or do they want to spend the money later to imprison them?

We all have to pay for the the things we get. I'd rather have an educated work force than a ballooning prison population. People framing this as a bunch of whiny little communists who want a free ride from the state are vastly misunderstanding the purpose of government.
posted by one_bean at 9:57 AM on September 25, 2009 [4 favorites]


Let me just put this a different way. To everybody saying that the fee increases make sense because you have to pay for everything you get, let me ask: do you feel that elementary and secondary education should be privatized as well? If not, why is post-secondary education different?
posted by one_bean at 10:01 AM on September 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


UC employee here. (An apparently long-winded one, on preview.)

>Faculty and staff are being forced to take up to 11% pay cuts in addition to two weeks of unpaid furlough time, and they are not given any choice in when to take the furlough days. These policies were set in a closed emergency session by the UC President and Regents during the summer recess. As a student at what was (and mostly still is) the greatest public university, I find this shameful.

The 10% pay cut applies to people who make more than $240,000 a year. The average UC employee -- people like me who just work for a living -- received a 4-6% cut. Not great, no, but really not all that awful given the enormous cuts that state workers have been forced to take. (Last figure I heard for them was close to 25%.)

As for furlough days, they're not 'unpaid,' and we do have a choice (mostly) on when to take them.

Here's how it works: The pay cut will be taken out of every paycheck over the next 12 months (starting with the one we get next Thursday). The university where I work is going to close during winter break for 7 days. So, 7 furlough days will be used up then. The additional 4-9 days (again, for the average employee) can be taken at any time during the year. They are NOT unpaid days off. Since the pay cut is taken out of every paycheck, you could take 9 furlough days in October and 0 furlough days in November, and your October/November paychecks would be exactly the same.

And those 7 days in December and January when the university is closed? Those are 7 vacation days that we don't have to use during the holidays. And we also get 4 paid holidays during that time -- 12/24, 12/25, 12/31, and 1/1. We basically get 11 days off in December and January, and our December/January paychecks will be exactly the same as the other 10 months'.

I'm not an apologist for the regents, and I won't defend them -- especially in light of the proposed fee hikes, which are ludicrous and, yes, shameful. But as an employee, the furlough plan was the best of a bunch of bad options. Am I willing to take a relatively small cut and handful of what are essentially paid days off in lieu of layoffs? You bet. And I haven't heard any of my coworkers say anything different. We are all grateful to have jobs. Period.

The problem -- and what is going to end up screwing people like me -- is the unions. (I'm generally pro-union, by the way, but I'm getting really pissed off at the ones that represent UC employees.) Because the unions refuse to accept the furlough plan -- which, again, is acceptable (if grudgingly accepted) to every average, cube-farm employee I know -- the university is going to be put in the position of instituting massive layoffs. The unions have to sign off on the furlough plan in order for it to apply to represented workers. They are saying they'll refuse. If they don't accept the furloughs, the university will cut staff. It's that simple.

The unions are not representing the common worker. They're representing their balls, which they want to prove are as big and steely as the university's. And in the end, THAT'S what's going to be the tragedy for employees like me. The furloughs are off-putting, but they're not that hard to live with.

>>As much as I feel for the UC schools, I gotta say, the CA State system has been hit waaay harder by these cuts.

Absolutely correct. CSU receives a much larger portion of its overall funding from the state budget. UC's state funding is something like 16% of its overall budget. CSU receives almost all of its funding from the state. When the state slashed its budget, it decimated CSU's. The furlough cuts for CSU faculty and staff are horrible, and they're another reason why the UC employees and unions need to keep their damn mouths shut. We simply don't have it so bad.

[The funding issue is one of the things that UC affiliates can be legitimately upset about. There's really been no explanation of why the cuts have been so deep when the state budget shouldn't affect UC all that much.]

>>>You realize that universities today spend an incredible amount on non-academic staff, whose layoffs wouldn't effect students nearly so much.

Bullshit. Non-academic staff RUN the university. They literally do the work that makes the university operate. Courses don't get scheduled, TAs don't get hired, rooms for classes don't get reserved, grades don't get recorded, transcripts don't get generated, and students don't get academic or other advising without non-academic staff. Cut those jobs and there IS no university. Faculty might as well meet in the city park and give their lectures there. (And maybe there's an argument for that. But that's not a university.)

My basic point is this: I'm pro-labor. I'm a dedicated lefty. I don't like crossing picket lines. But on my way into work yesterday, I passed the screaming throng of picketers and I wanted to beat them over the head with their placards. We are lucky, all of us, to have jobs. The furloughs, all things considered, are not horrible. They have a pretty shiny silver lining, in fact. And as poor as I am (and believe me I'm poor), I can live with a 5% pay cut.

The whiny-assed unions representing UC workers need to get some perspective and START REPRESENTING UC WORKERS instead of sending out daily press releases about how hard they're fighting this horrible injustice. I get those emails from the CUE union. They make me want to put a fist through my monitor. They are collectively bargaining me right out of a job.
posted by mudpuppie at 10:05 AM on September 25, 2009 [8 favorites]


As a former UC employee myself, as much as I appreciate the unions in theory, on reading mudpuppie's comment (not having been in the thick of things since I left a year ago), I would agree with her remarks about the unions and the seemingly unilateral decisions that they make on behalf of their constituents, without much (if any) opportunity for differing views to be heard or incorporated. The specifics she's talking about (unions not accepting a furlough on principle, whether it ends in a ultimately beneficial result or not) are a direct result of that unilateral decision process.

Also, she's 100% correct that without non-academic staff, the entire university system would grind to a very abrupt and unceremonious halt.
posted by blucevalo at 11:24 AM on September 25, 2009


Q Where has the Governator been in all this?

A I think [Mr. Schwarzenegger has] done an excellent job, but unfortunately he's in a situation where there's a significant Democratic majority in the assembly and the senate, which makes it difficult to pass a legislative strategy. He'll be remembered for bringing some level of order to the budget, cutting spending. But it can be a thankless job. I was disappointed he did not do more to resist the call to increase spending during the good times. Not long after he became Governor, the economy prospered and government spending increased sharply. While he wanted to put money away, the state legislature spent it all and more. He should've fought then, like he did recently. No question it's a challenge, but I think he caved too easily in some of those good years.

posted by KokuRyu at 1:32 PM on September 25, 2009


Grad students making $25k per year lose 4% of their income

Grad students at Cal would be thrilled to take a 4% pay cut on 25k a year. That would be a net pay raise. Fortunately, the just-negotiated union / university contract for TAs has no pay cuts in it.


It's not as simple as that. Fees increased on everything. It's still a net cut.
posted by peppito at 2:09 PM on September 25, 2009


Q Where has the Governator been in all this?

A I think [Mr. Schwarzenegger has] done an excellent job, but unfortunately he's in a situation where there's a significant Democratic majority in the assembly and the senate, which makes it difficult to pass a legislative strategy.


With all due respect to James Doti, who no doubt sees things differently from his lofty aerie in Orange County, Mr. Schwarzenegger has not done "an excellent job." He hasn't done a minimally good job -- ever.

And blaming the deadlock exclusively on Democrats is absurd, given the veto power that the Republican minority in the Assembly has over getting anything done that requires a 2/3rd vote. It's disingenuous in the extreme for Mr. Doti to say otherwise.
posted by blucevalo at 2:32 PM on September 25, 2009


Can California Be Fixed?
posted by homunculus at 8:38 AM on September 26, 2009


« Older College makes you an atheist!   |   Creed Taylor International Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post