Posted on 01/14/2008 8:58:33 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Just say No to 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 and 97
Sniff, sniff... somethin’ smells funny!
... the governor was endorsing the ballot measure “so the people of California see more productivity out of Sacramento and less screaming.”
—
drivel.. if we saw any more productivity out of Sacramento, we could change its name to EUropia
The Governator is simply Gray Davis with dyed hair. Just as big a spender. Just as big an idiot. No principles whatsoever.
How about we lay off everyone who works in Sacramento for two years and see if the quality of life in the state drastically improves. The budget sure would.
Thank you Gov. Sitzpinkler.
Limits on Legislators’ Terms in Office. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2008/93_02_2008.aspx
Summary
Under this measure, an individual could serve a total of 12 years in the Legislature (compared to 14 years currently). Unlike the current system, these years could be served without regard to whether they were in the Assembly or Senate. In other words, an individual could serve six two-year terms in the Assembly, three four-year terms in the Senate, or some combination of terms in both houses. (As under current law, an individual could serve additional time by finishing out less than one-half of another person’s term.)
Existing Members of the Legislature could serve up to a total of 12 years in their current legislative house (regardless of how many years were already served in the other house). This could result in some current Members serving longer than 14 years in the Legislature.
You will enjoy living under the golden gate bridge once spring arrives.
Hey Norm....I just heard on the radio this special election will cost US, you, me ... all of us, $80,000,000.
I thought we were tight on money????
I thought we were tight on money????
—
It just seems like a lot of money. :-}
Ahhhhhhhhh........I SEE!
*slaps self on forehead*
:)
He should change his name to Binrolled
In general term limits are bad for conservatism. All institutions slowly move to the left over time until they eventually go bankrupt. The speed of this shift is related to the speed of leadership turnover. For new leaders to be elected they must give away part of the store or pander to special interests. Long term leadership promotes stability and tradition which are conservative values. The only reason the socialists are against term limits in California is because they currently control the state. I understand the urge to throw the communist bums out, but terms limits aren’t the way to do it.
The sad part is that a lot of voters didn’t put conservative leaders in place for those long term leadership positions.
between voters blessing themselves with billions in services and mandates and leaders only to eager to pile on for their own donors, term limits can only do so much.
this is not a step ahead, imo. I don’t know if the electorate is smart enough to tell that tho.
To date, nothing said historically has been proved untrue except: "the governor is a conservative and his administration will get California going in the right direction".
Here his Arnie’s op-ed, as referenced in the article. He goes on and on about needing more seasoned legislators and the need to groom policy experts, but the initiative overall *reduces* the combined number of years they can serve in both houses. Oxymoron. This transparent effort to keep his buddy Nunez and Perata in office is almost criminal. I hope everyone sees through it and those two are on the street looking for a new job (until Perata’s relocation to prison, of course).
I'd be opposed to that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.