Proposition 93: Rejiggering Legislative Term Limits – YES

>Most telling, the Assembly leadership is essentially a
>bunch of unseasoned sophomores. Speaker Fabian Nunez
>ascended to his position after just four years in the
>Legislature, as did Speaker Pro Tempore Sally Lieber.
>The Majority and Minority Leaders assumed their posts
>after just two years in the Legislature.

HEY PETE!

Nunez became Speaker after less than TWO years in the Assembly! He was elected in November 2002, and became Speaker in Feburary 2004.

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a46/press04/a462004004.htm

That made Fabian an unseasoned FRESHMAN... not a Sophomore.

-Jack

It's so dangerous to have these people in office?
B.S. they are doing just fine. Terms shuld be shortened. The longer they stay in office the bigger crooks they become.

Prop 93 is just an other lie to have the bums stay in longer. I was one who voted term limits the first time. Don't be fooled
Vote NO!

In this article there are some good points here to consider. In fact some VERY good points. However this particular initiative is tainted by:

-Speaker Fabian Nunez has a senior staffer as the lead of the campaign here

-Nunez asked each DEMOCRATIC legislator to chip in $50K each to support this "initiative" If it is such a great initiative, why didn't he ask republicans to chip in too?)

-Why wasn't this initiative applicable to all SUBSEQUENT elected officials? Nunez, Perata and numerous other legislators, mostly democrats (go figure)will be exempt from the existing voter approved term limit law if this passes.

If the concept of term limits is a good one, then why do Nunez, Perata, others get term EXTENSIONS here via Proposition 93? Where is the logic and common sense here if this is not merely self serving?

-What about past legislators who were already termed out by existing law? Will they get another round in office? Don't you think their rolodex's still have those special interest phone numbers in them?

Do we need to keep this crowd around longer and "reward them" with additional time in office so they can take a whole legislative year to craft a budget with a $14 billion dollar deficit?

Nunez got over $3 million in campaign contributions last election cycle when he was unchallenged by anyone! (Hence only a negligible campaign was mounted-why bother spending campaign contributions when you are a sure winner?) Who paid him $3 million and what legislation did they buy? (Special Interests maybe?)

Can Nunez spend the rest of his "campaign money" on himself like he already has done in trips to Europe, expensive clothes, foreign (non-Californian) wines to represent the "poor" of his LA district while he is OUT OF OFFICE?

Vote the bums out. Vote NO-NO on this proposition, NO on Proposition 93.

Bring it back next year when it will apply to SUBSEQUENT legislators, not those like this bunch who want to hang around...

NO NO ON 93

I don't have a problem with shortening overall terms to twelve years and allowing the twelve years to be in one house or a combination of the two. So overall this is a good propisition. BUT... here is the knife in our back... allowing the existing "politicians" to stay where they are for the next twelve years and not count how many prior years is wrong and self-serving. Proponents for extending term limits say "The politicians don't have enough time in office to accomplish anything because they can't aquire the knowledge and experience they need." This is the whole basis of why term limits were overwhelming voted in by the PEOPLE. Because the people are tired of the politicians overcomplicating everything and trying to figure out every angle to twist and add-on to a good bill or law that the end results are are terrible and serve their special interests. Maybe if they don't have so much time in office, then they would try to keep the legislative process simplier so that they could get something accomplished in a reasonable time. I think the PEOPLE should also submit a change to the ways that laws and bills are written that prohibit all of "add-ons", riders and attachments to a law or bill that have nothing to do with that legislation.
It seams that the only really good legislation are ones that the PEOPLE VOTE on, like term limits. That says a lot about the problems the politicians create by passing law that the PEOPLE don't have a direct say in by voting on it. Maybe the PEOPLE need to pull more power away from the politicians and judges. Require the more important changes to existing law and additions of law have to be ratified by a direct vote of the people. Then keep the judges out of the law process, especially laws or changes voted directly on by the PEOPLE. If the PEOPLE want a law changed or put in, then the only thing a judge should be doing is figuring out how to apply that law, not say it is illegal. How can it be illegal if the PEOPLE voted it in?
While we are talking about term limits, maybe they should also be applied to the supreme court judges too.
While I am on my soap box, we should eliminate the electoriate collage method of voting for a president. We have the technology now that allows all legal voters to vote directly for their choice of president. Another good change would be to allow EVERYONE to have one vote in each party group of the presidential primaries regardles of which party you belong to. The idea that we can't choose who we think is the best candidate, regardles of your party affiliation was obsolete with the invention modern media and technology. This would also give independant candidates a real chance. The american people are tired of the fighting between the "parties". We want real and responsible leadership that will get something done in a reasonable period of time and without serving the politicians special interests. We now have the technology to make the current method obsolete.
signed: Dan in Sacramento,
a LEGAL US citizen that has paid for and earned more rights then any illegal allien. Why is it the other way around?

I am against voting to extend the terms of office for both Nunez and Perata. However, the way the explanation for Prop 93 is defined in the Absent Balloting material, it's very confusing. Just tell me - do I vote No or Yes if I want to throw the bums out.

Yes, 93 goes down in flames! Good job CA voters not getting fooled.

Post a comment