CA: Cutting legislative bloat - Get rid of silly bills, do-nothing panels

Sac Bee ^ | 3/29/04 | Op/Ed

[NormsRevenge]

California's Legislature has a problem. Its members are preparing to gut vital programs in other parts of government. At the same time, the cost of its own operations continues to rise, modestly but steadily.

The Senate and Assembly combined budgets of $205 million this year increased by $7.5 million over last year, about 4 percent. Lawmakers propose to increase legislative allocations by another $10 million next year.

[NormsRevenge]

That's Our State Gub'mint!

Act Busy so you can collect the per diem.

[NormsRevenge]

They had a "session" over the weekend so they could collect their per diem.

Why they are considered an asset to the state anymore is beyond many here in this state.

[Kensei]

Since the Supreme Court eliminated the allocation of state senate seats by adopting a "one man-one vote" method of districting, why does California (or any other state) need two legislative houses. California could save a very tidy sum by amending its constitution to provide for a unicameral legislature and limiting legislative sessions (1 to adopt a budget and 1 to review state governmental performance in that fiscal year) to 90 days per year.

The government that governs best governs least.

[breakem]

now that's an initiative I would get behind

[appeal2]

Bad idea. Having to get a bill through two houses makes it much less likely. With a uni-cameral legislature, there is an endless potential for mischief.

[appeal2]

Bad idea. Having to get a bill through two houses makes it much less likely. With a uni-cameral legislature, there is an endless potential for mischief.

[goldstategop]

I disagree. With one house, the Governor can still veto bills and it makes accountability easier. There's no need for a useless second house if representation is based on the same principle in both. It would better to set up one house (let's call it the Senate) elected for four year terms, with half the house elected every two years. No Senator could serve more than three terms. That should be plenty of time to get business done. And think of the cost savings from the elimination of duplication committees and bloated staff. Plus, since its a unicameral legislature, there's no need for time-wasting conference committees to reconcile differences in legislation. If it works for Nebraska, it can work for California.

[breakem]

a part time legislature will reduce some of that mischief.

[goldstategop]

I second that also. Make our unicameral legislature part time and people won't notice we're missing a second chamber.

[SierraWasp]

Especially ASSemblyman Laird from Santa Cruz and Assemblyman Leslie who should know better than to submit bills to establish THE SIERRA-NEVADA CONSERVANCY at a time like this!!! (or ever, for that matter)

Has anyone that swooned over Schwarzenegger and voted for him actually spoken/written to him of the abject folly of this debacle??? Why isn't the media picking up on this??? It's insane!!!

[breakem]

I think Kentucky has a two year bidget cycle. We can pass the budget, give em 2 weeks to do whatever else they need and come back after a year off.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

This is a McClatchy editorial? The state must be in worse shape than even I think.

[Carry_Okie]

Since the Supreme Court eliminated the allocation of state senate seats by adopting a "one man-one vote" method of districting, why does California (or any other state) need two legislative houses.

I would prefer a revisit to Reynolds v. Sims. Earl Warren characteristically violated every Republican principle with that decision, and vastly reduced individual representation by rendering Counties virtually irrelevant. I would rather see an extension of the Republican principle enacted under the original US Constitution at the State level, with county boards of supervisors selecting State Senators in a manner similar to when State legislatures selected representatives to the US Senate. Such would actually improve local representation by having an elected representative closer to the people and more accountable to local interests.