Patterico's Pontifications

2/3/2008

No on 93

Filed under: 2008 Election,General — Patterico @ 12:39 pm



Armed Liberal: No on 93.

I agree.

18 Responses to “No on 93”

  1. I was going to vote for Proposition 93, because I think term limits are broken and the proposed fix is a good one.

    But Armed Liberal’s argument convinced me to switch to the other side, and I voted against.

    aphrael (db0b5a)

  2. I agree with AL 100% that what we what we really need is impartial redistricting so that elections are competitive in California, but will still vote for Proposition 93. IMO the current term limits have just made the California government dysfunctional in a different way, not better than it was before.

    JayHub (0a6237)

  3. It makes me sick the way they try to weasal there way into longer terms by these misleading ballots. The LA city council did the same thing by claiming a vote for prop x was a vote for ethics oversight (something that they should have imposed on themselves decades ago) and in the language of the prop was an extension of their terms of office. Disgusting.

    And most disgusting are these state officials like Nunez with his taxpayer paid holidays to France and Barcelona.

    tired (6ae407)

  4. [Comment deleted – posted on the wrong thread. Sorry. — DRJ]

    DRJ (517d26)

  5. Tired; how is the ballot initiative misleading? Maybe the advertising is; I haven’t seen it. But the initiative itself is very clear.

    aphrael (db0b5a)

  6. Aphrael, I quote Dale Franks of QandO regarding Prop 93…

    Ostensibly, this law will reduce the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years, and allow a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both. That would be a reduction from the current 14-year limit. However…it contains a “transition period” for current politicians, allowing them to serve for another 12 years after passage. Basically, it’s a scam for current politicians to avoid being term-limited out. Most of the newspapers in California have called the proposition a fraud. It would also actually lengthen terms, since you can serve 12 years in a single house, instead of the current 6-year limitation for the Assembly and 8-year limitation in the Senate.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  7. As Scott says, Proposition 93 is widely derided as a scam by its opponents. It is certainly true that it will extend the terms of a number of influential “termed out” legislators, and I’m sure that this was (at least on their part) a major impetus to its being on the ballot.

    That being said, however, doesn’t mean that there aren’t good reasons to pass the proposition anyway. In my view, Proposition 93 would at least do something to undo the negative effects term limits have had on California’s government.

    The supposed idea behind terms limits is that they “break the stranglehold that power-hungry career politicians [have] had on our state legislature,” giving them less “time to develop cozy relationships with lobbyists,” to quote the argument against the Proposition. Instead, we are told, term limits allow us to send a mix of independent people with real world experience to Sacramento, who can rise above special interests, make the difficult policy decisions and then just go home, to be replaced by the next set of independent real people.

    To my mind this is a complete fantasy; right out of Frank Capra’s “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” or Disney’s “Davey Crockett Goes to Congress.

    California is the 10th largest economy in the world with a population of over 36,000,000 people. The problems facing it are complex and difficult to resolve. Its governmental structure and processes are complex and difficult to manage. We need people in the Legislature who are there long enough to understand what the problems are and how things work. Would you have amateurs run a Fortune 500 company?

    The current term limits are way too short. All they have lead to is a Legislature full of people who don’t know what they’re doing, have no reason to work with each other to craft practical bi-partisan solutions, and are mostly interested in setting up what their next job will be. Ironically, they must rely even more on the lobbyists, the only ones with the institutional knowledge of how things work, since they never go home.

    Of course, if your position is that government should be paralyzed and unable to do anything at all, then short term limits are your choice.

    I believe, however, that government is not always the problem and that good, experienced legislators are a benefit to the people So, letting them stay there longer to gain some expertise is a good thing on balance.

    Government is always messy and prone to corruption, but the solution to “power-hungry career politicians” is not term limits. That just throws the good out with the bad. The solution is the ballot box, which means we what we really need is impartial redistricting so that elections are competitive.

    JayHub (0a6237)

  8. Since, all our state government does is spend money, yes, I prefer it to be paralyzed and unable to do anything at all.

    tired (6ae407)

  9. “And most disgusting are these state officials like Nunez with his taxpayer paid holidays to France and Barcelona.”

    If I can’t pay for myself to go on holiday to Barcelona or France, I’m certainly not willing to pay for anyone else, especially one who is a manipulative and corrupt politician.

    NO on 93 – Absolutely!

    JayHub #7, if the good are actually that good, it would stand to reason that they would run again and get re-elected by their constituents, yes?

    Dana (6176db)

  10. The current term limits are way too short. All they have lead to is a Legislature full of people who don’t know what they’re doing, have no reason to work with each other to craft practical bi-partisan solutions. . .

    We do not have term limits on the Federal level, yet I don’t see Congress as a beacon of cooperation between the two parties.

    Ironically, they must rely even more on the lobbyists, the only ones with the institutional knowledge of how things work, since they never go home.

    I think the real problem here is government overreach, i.e. meddling in areas where government has no proper business. And even with experienced legislators you still have lobbyists doing much of the heavy lifting. Does anyone believe that these legislators are the ones who draft the actual legislation? It is clearly the permanent government industry in Sacramento that does the heavy lifting.

    I would have been happy to support Proposition 93 had (1) the legislature already dealt with the issue of redistricting and (2) the proposition had not been written to grant an extension to the current crop of clowns. If they are going to pull this kind of chicanery, I’m gonna vote against it.

    JVW (b03dfa)

  11. Dana, term limits means they can’t run again and be re-elected by their constituents. They aren’t actually allowed to run.

    aphrael (db0b5a)

  12. Hey, I helped vote in the original term limits referendum, and I voted yes on prop 187. I think that the politicians in California, including the Governator, are brain dead and need to be shown the political unemployment line.

    I worked hard to help unseat the sellout speaker of the CA House, Doris Allen, and to cut Willie Brown’s puppet strings. I see that the bulk of Californians still act as though they are blitzed on “Medicinal Marijuana”.

    PCD (c378fd)

  13. the issue of redistricting

    Yep, voting is a joke in that the winners have already been pre-determined by local party hacks. There is no competition inter nor intra parties, and therefore no competition of ideas.

    tired (6ae407)

  14. aphrael #11, I should have been clearer – no, they can’t run for the same position but there are plenty of elected positions which need filling, be it on a city, county or state level. My understanding is Prop 93 (a no) does not prohibit them across the board excepting the legislature/assembly switch. No?

    Dana (b4a26c)

  15. #14 Dana, that’s correct. Currently, if you’re termed out in the Senate (max 8 years) or Assembly (max 6 years), you can still run for the other house, or any other office. If you’ve served the 14 year maximum in both the Assembly and the Senate, you’re only left with other offices.

    Proposition 93 would increase the amount of time a person could serve in either house to 12 years, but max the person out then for both houses.

    As matters stand currently, a member of the California state assembly can serve three two-year terms (six years) and then run for California state senate, where he or she can serve up to two four-year terms (eight years), for a maximum total of fourteen (14) years in the California State Legislature. Since there are 80 Assembly seats and only 40 Senate seats, a lot of people in the Assembly just serve 6 years and then go onto something other than the Senate.

    Under Prop 93, a member of the California state assembly could serve 6 two-year terms, but then would be prohibited from running for the Senate. Prop 93 also would be flexible though, allowing someone in the Assembly to serve 4 two-year terms, and then run for the Senate but be limited to one four-year term there, since the overall max would be 12 years (and variations on this theme).

    I think it’s most likely effect, however, would be to increase the length of time people served in the Assembly from 6 to 12 years, and in the Senate from 8-12 years, and reduce the incidence of people serving in both houses.

    JayHub (0a6237)

  16. And Jay, as it stands, it would reset the counter where they currently are.

    SO a guy that’s done 8 years in the Senate and is now just about to end his run in the Assembly can do 12 MORE years in the assembly…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  17. NO on all Props!!!
    They are a bunch of corrupted people.

    Neils (95dc13)

  18. I voted no on 93

    krazy kagu (0c7fb2)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3546 secs.