Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2012 at 8:38 am
Thank you Patrick. If we want to elect candidates that are beholden to labor unions then we should elect the democrats. I don't want my representative beholden to the labor unions. I won't be voting for any democrats.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2012 at 11:51 am
That is correct, however the democrats that are elected to represent us are beholden to the labor unions. If you don't beleive it look no further than the vote for the HSR boondoggle. Or if you need another, the outrageous pensions given to public employees unions by our elected officias that are bankrupting our state. Yes, democrats elected to office in this state are beholden to the labor unions.
Posted by Margaret Fruth, a resident of another community, on Oct 20, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Menlo Park City Council could use a CPA in its budget planning. Menlo Park City Council could use someone with experience on a City Board or Commission--experience with the ins & outs of working with staff and citizens. East Menlo Park/Belle Haven has never been represented on the Menlo Park City Council, other than a Raychem employee many years ago.
Fortunately, there is a candidate who has all of these qualifications. Please join me in supporting Carolyn Clarke for Menlo Park City Council.
Posted by anomaly , a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2012 at 5:50 am
If elected officials are beholden to labor unions, they will be compelled to support the supervisor candidate that carries the torch for SEIU. In this election, Shelly Masur is that candidate, but the only elected officials from Menlo Park that have endorsed Masur are Kelly Fergusson, Heyward Robinson and Virginia Chang Kiraly (Web Link). Kiraly is currently on the Republican Central Committee, but was also endorsed by the Labor Council when she ran for the fire board in 2011.
Posted by really?, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Dumb decisions about pensions and other benefits have been made at many levels, particularly in government. Rather than blame a particular party, I think the real reason is local government elected officials who really don't understand basic business and financial concepts, who are supported by staff who don't paint the long-term picture that could result from decisions. There is a really really bad practice in place of relying on only one scenario of what the future might look like. Any good business does sensitivity analysis to see what happens by changing some of the assumptions.
Unfortunately not only do elected officials not ask for this (and staff not provide)but also greedy developers will paint the rosiest of pictures.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2012 at 2:48 pm
or is it an issue of the politicians giving smaller pay raises and kicking the can down the road with big retirement increases? All the while claiming they were being tough with the unions. You know, the unions that gave them big fat donations for their election/reelection. The politicians knowing full well there would come a time to pay the piper, but they'd be long gone and it would be someone elses problem?
I've spent enough years watching politics and politicians to believe they knew damn well what they were doing. They had to pay the piper, their union benefactors.
Posted by really?, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2012 at 9:39 am
Menlo Voter - you may be right about a few politicians, but from what I've seen locally, the decisionmakers didn't have the financial acumen to even ask the right questions, and staff had no incentive to offer up information they weren't asked to provide.
You basically regard elected politicians as corrupt - all of them, even at the local level. And that all Democrats approve whatever unions want. Get a grip.
btw - There is far, far more money in elections from very wealthy people and corporations, both of which usually support Republicans.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2012 at 2:10 pm
I don't think your statement about far more money coming from the wealthy and corporations is correct. Awhile back POGO posted a link which showed otherwise. I will see if I can dig it up and post it.
Yes, I basically regard all politicians as corrupt. The whole process has been badly corrupted by money. It takes a lot of money to run a campaign even at the local level. Those that supply it expect something for their money. They're not giving it out of a sense of civic duty.
Posted by Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2012 at 5:45 pm
I would also add to your comment that having the advantage when it comes to having a well financed campaign is no guarantee for a candidate's success. Meg Whitman outspent Jerry Brown nearly 5 to 1 ($140M of her own money compared to Jerry Brown's $25M) and lost by a landslide and neither candidate was an incumbent. Menlo Voter implies that money (whether from unions or the Koch Bros. or super pacs)enables candidates to buy more votes and that voters are not capable of making their own informed decision.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Whitman is the exception that proves the rule. Look at most other elections and you will see the winner typically outspent the loser. Money doesn't buy voters votes, it buys exposure. It has been repeatedly shown more exposure equals more elections. Why do you think incumbants have such an advantage? Their name has more exposure.
And you're right, most voters are not capable of making an informed decision. If they were it wouldn't be necessary for candidates to spend all of the money they do on advertising. An informed electorate informs themselves. An uniformed electorate is informed by advertising. Frankly, it's scary how uninformed and ignorant most voters are.