Posted on 01/23/2008 9:51:10 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Sacramento --
California voters launched a national movement nearly 20 years ago when they approved a ballot measure to limit state legislators' time in office to 14 years, split between the state Senate and Assembly.
The Legislature's current leadership, spearheaded by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, is asking voters to mark their ballots for the Feb. 5 primary in favor of another term limits measure, Proposition 93, which would trim lawmakers' terms by two years but allow all of that time to be spent in the same chamber.
Proponents of the measure, including Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, say it strikes a reasonable balance between the need to elect new people with fresh ideas and the need to keep experienced lawmakers on the job.
But opponents, led by Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, say the measure is a trick and a power grab. They point out that Prop. 93 provides a transition period that would give current office holders a windfall term extension of up to 12 years in their current legislative house.
While the two sides battle, voter surveys show that most Californians are happy with the 1990 term-limit measure that restricted legislators to six years in the Assembly (three two-year terms) and eight years in the Senate (two four-year terms).
And voters have shown little interest in changing things.
--snip--
"Just about anyone will tell you that we need a Legislature with experience - but today, 12 of the 34 committee chairs in the state Assembly are freshmen," said Steve Westly, a former state controller and Democratic candidate for governor in 2006.
"That's not good."
Other supporters of Prop. 93 include the California Business Roundtable, the California Teachers Association and the Sierra Club.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The entire purpose of Prop 93 is to keep Núñez and peRATa in office for another term.
That's all we need to know.
I think this measure is a good idea. Right now, politicians are constantly running between the Assembly and Senate, with a lot of ensuing special elections as they attempt to dodge limits in their respective houses.
This would also give another term to McClintock.
Actually, I’d like to see term limits go away entirely. They have been of no benefit in CA. If anything, we have drifted further to the left since Willie Brown left the scene. He may have been a SF liberal, but he was also a wheeler and dealer so he wasn’t completely detached from reality like some of the loopie liberals running the show right now.
Keep in mind though, as Senator Battin has pointed out. Sure Perata and Nunez are bad, but experience has shown that just about anyone they put in will be just as bad until we change the balance of power up here. There are some really batty socialists that could just as easily fill their shoes.
The problem with term limits right now is in the Assembly. It’s gotten to the point where a freshmen Assemblyman is so obscure, unknown and irrelevant that (as one lobbyist told me) many Senate STAFF are in effect more influential than the Freshmen Assemblyman still wandering around looking for the bathroom.
... and I am not expressing an opinion on 93 either way.
No problem, , I hear what you are saying.
This is a Prop that may well be a step in the right direction.. or not.
Some times to get rids of the rats , ya got to sink the ship. To bag Fabian and Perata for good , it’s almost to good a thing to say anything other than No to.
I will miss some of the good guys who will also be affected if this prop should fail. Collateral damage happens.
Bottom line Vote NO on this.
I'm also VERY unhappy with the ad running that says that the CA GOP, Schwartzenspitzer and Tom McClintock endorse those Indian gaming propositions. I just re-registered Republican, but I'll be danged if I'm gonna let the lame-assed "leadership" or even Tom McClintock tell me to vote for these shows of favoritism to some tribes over other tribes on an activity I don't personally approve of anyway... well they can just forgedaboutit!!!
Actually I didn't say I was neutral. I said I wasn't expressing an opinion on it.
Except for one thing - this was initially to go hand in hand with the redrawing of districts that would no longer be gerrymandered. The two big-wigs DROPPED the redistricting idea when the primary moved up to February 5 and gave them a chance to get this on the ballot prior to our other “primary” in June, when they would have no chance of running for office, as the term limit proposal would have been on the ballot then.
I agree that it would be nice to give another term to McClintock, but not at the expense of letting these two jerks hold on to their power.
Well, I just received my GOP mailer (an 8 page glossy color thingie). While all of the prominent Republicans espouse the increased revenues to solve the state budget problem (even though it amounts to peanuts and won't add up to a hill of beans), NONE even mention the increase in slots (to threefold what they are today). The dishonesty really irks me. And most give little note of what I think is a major driver behind these compacts. Page 7 is dedicated to "an important message" from McClintock urging a Yes vote on Props 94-97. It includes a long quote (with lots of ...'s in between). The last paragraph of the quote is this:
"... The union bosses... want to force casino employees into one of the most radical unions in California by denying them the right to a secret ballot -- a sacred right in a free society that the agreements protect and the union bosses fear and abhor. If they succeed... they will have taken a giant step towards destroying this fight -- first for casino employees and soon for the rest of us."On further research, I find that of the nine compacts Schwarzenfeckless signed in 2004, 5 included terms for union organizing favorable to the unions--the other 4 tribes (subjects of Prop 94-97) did not. From the SacBee:
The labor provisions, which allow unions to organize workers without holding secret ballot elections, were included in 2004 gambling agreements that Schwarzenegger signed with five tribes.
The tribes that accepted the labor organizing rules -- called "card-check neutrality" -- include the United Auburn and Rumsey Indian bands, operators of the Thunder Valley and Cache Creek casinos near Sacramento.
Schwarzenegger didn't include similar language in pending agreements signed with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the Sycuan Band of Kumeyaay Nation.
The favoratism is rampant. These compacts also allow the 4 tribes to avoid CEQA (while every other enterprise is left with this monster). Not only do these four tribes get a better deal than other tribes, but they get a better deal than any other business operating outside of tribal lands. I'm not just talkin' about gambling (horseracing, etc) but hotels, restaurants, etc. Will they be opening grocery stores and clothing outlets in the future? Instead of fighting the unions and enviro-nazis head-on and addressing the destructive regulations currently placed on businesses, they are allowing tribes, and only certain tribes, to avoid all of the restrictions that every other business has to deal with. Combine that with the lack of auditing and enforcement due to their sovereignty, and just wait to see how many businesses will start operating on "tribal land," (ie. run by big money interests with an Indian front-man) Circumventing these leftists might be good for the few, but it seems to me it is just raising the white flag to the dang unions in all other places and in the long term just screws things up more!
Do California a favor - vote no on this.
I think you're saying that all secret ballots aren't secret?
I just checked. The compacts Davis signed in 1999 required secret ballots. They were replaced by the 9 compacts signed by Schwarzie in 2004--including the 5 compacts that included the favorable union organizing terms. So, Schwarzenegger gave away the store to the Unions with respect to the 5 tribes--and unless these props pass he'll give up the store for the other 4 tribes, too?
This whole thing is so upside down!
That's what I plan on doing. But in viewing this GOP voter pamphlet, I am dismayed at all of those folks urging me to vote YES. I expect that crap out of Zaremberg... but expected more from some of the others (e.g. Bill Leonard). In terms of solving the budget "crisis," these props won't do squat!
Lifeline please... or can I buy a vowel?
Are you talking about the Prop 210, “The Right To Vote On Taxes” initiative?
Leonard even put out an ad during my first campaign under an "Independent Expendature Committee" without my campaign's knowledge or my knowledge either and my opponentent's opposition research adversary's discovered a contribution to Bill Leonard's mailer which made it looked like it was all my idea!!!
The were more than happy to use Bill to play dirty pool!!!
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.