Coincidentally, Texas state Representative Stefani Carter filed a bill in the Texas legislature to make Texas a little more like, you guessed it, California.
After the jump, Carter's own brain fart.
It sometimes feels like California is becoming ungovernable, in part because of the widespread referendum and initiative process there. The voters have cut taxes, increased benefits, and imposed super majority requirements on the legislature that prevent them from achieving balance.
Now, Stefani Carter wants to increase the use of the referendum in Texas, too. She's introduced a bill to take away school boards' power to set superintendent salaries and give that power directly to voters. Who can be against letting the voters decide?
Unfair Park reader John1073 gave a tart response to what another reader called Carter's "pandering to her Tea Party base":
Representative democracy, where voters elect representatives to study issues and render reasoned judgment, is generally better than pure democracy, where details like school superintendents' salaries are put directly to the voters, few of whom have any understanding what a superintendent even does. Proof of the inferiority of direct election is the fact that direct election gave us a legislator like Stefani Carter. Say no more. ;-)We already have a say in these salaries. It's called getting off your lazy butt and voting for the school board. Carter should have ran for school board if she was so concerned instead of wasting space in the TX Legislature.
Source: Unfair Park.
Days after a Texas judge ruled that the Texas school finance system is unconstitutionally inadequate and unfair, all Stefani Carter can do is attack the salaries of school district superintendents. Barely a brain fart, as they say. If there's anyone not earning their pay, it's legislators like Stefani Carter.
4 comments:
Now, Alan North wants to increase the use of the referendum in Richardson, too. He's introduced a petition drive to take away the City Council's power to elect the mayor and give that power directly to voters. Who can be against letting the voters decide?
John Doe gave a tart response to what another reader called North's "pandering to his Tea Party base":
"We already have a say in these salaries. It's called getting off your lazy butt and voting for the councilmembers who elect the mayor. North should have run for Council if he was so concerned - but wait, he did, only he never showed up!"
Representative democracy, where voters elect representatives to study issues and render reasoned judgment, is generally better than pure democracy, where details like the mayor's duties are put directly to the voters, few of whom have any understanding what a mayor even does. Proof of the inferiority of direct election is the fact that 2/3rds of the residents who signed the petition for the Charter change to directly elect the mayor had never voted in a municipal election in Richardson. Say no more. ;-)
Both arguments make perfect sense...clearly, the people who couldn't elect the mayor that they wanted finally decided to change the rules of the game to see if that helps...
Bill
Bill, you struck a rich vein with that reply, one that I'll let go unmined. :-)
Made up nonsense definitely needs to be let go and unmined!
Reminder: Unsigned comments are subject to deletion. First names, initials or other incomplete identification is not sufficient, nor is using an online account identified by an alias.
Post a Comment