Front Page  »  

Term limits plan moves forward

March 20, 2012

An initiative changing term limits for members of the California Legislature will go before voters in November.

If the measure meets with voter approval, a politician would be allowed to serve only 12 years instead of 14, and only in one house of the Legislature. It would reduce the overall time for lawmakers to serve, and, in theory at least, prevent the current practice of a lawmaker hopping from one elected post to another.

Today, an elected person can spend eight years in the Senate and six years in the lower house. Current and former members of the lawmaking body would not be not affected.

The bill is supported by labor unions, PG&E, and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce under the label of  “Californians for a Fresh Start.” It is opposed by the Republican Party.


Loading...
Subjects:                 
Related:


13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

We have always had term limits… it is called voting.


0

We deserve what we vote for; a bunch of selfish, egotistical, loser politicians that pass stupid legislation. They empower the political money machine and screw working producers of this state. Term limits are great but this is the kind of political play that these slimy people get away with; this initiative actually does the opposite of what it says. It actually extends their prostituting career, it doesn’t reduce it.


The press doesn’t point that out. Do you see any explanation of that in this story by Cal Coast News? They just regurgitate what the political hacks release to them and all the brain stems don’t understand what’s happening to them. Part time legislation is a good start to ending these pathetic governmental careers. Banning stupid people from the polls is the finish.


0

DON’T BE DUPED. Proposition 28 INCREASES term limits under the sugar-coated guise of a reduction.


– Prop 28 DOUBLES (from six to twelve) the number of years legislators can spend in the House.

– Prop 28 INCREASES (from eight to twelve) the number of years legislators can spend in the Senate.


Prop 28 “press releases” hold out the carrot of reducing the total number of years from fourteen to twelve, but it’s actual purpose is to INCREASE term limits so that incumbents can stay in their position longer. VERY FEW incumbents are ever voted out, and these increases help special interests hold on to “their guy” longer.


Further, Prop 28 DOES NOT EVEN APPLY to current office-holders! Proponents of Prop 28 are putting forth a scam and telling half-truths in their press releases.


http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_28,_Change_in_Term_Limits_%28June_2012%29


0

You’ve got that right on the mark. While the “Official” description of the proposition describes it as a reduction, that’s just plain flat-out wrong. This proposition increases the current term limits previously set, under the guise of “reducing’ the total time that any elected offical can stay in office between the two legislative houses. Current office holders can still serve a TOTAL of 14 years between the two houses, but future elected officials will ONLY be able to serve a total of 12 years in either house (versus current limits of 6-8 years respectively). That change explains why major lobbyists….Unions, PG&E etc.. are in total support of this purported reduction.It will save Lobbyists plenty, but sadly, most voters are likely going to vote based upon the official suggestion that this is somehow a term limit reduction, so the slight of hand official description will work! Until people wake up to the fact that the ultimate problem is that they are making mistakes in the ballot box…..we’re in for more of the same. Let’s leave our current leaders in place, set up future elected officials for holding their offices longer , make sure the people who have the most to contribute to election campaigns control things……and then when the financial wheels finally fall off the cart, we can all sit back and wonder what happened….GREAT CONCEPT!!. If the “dislikes” continue to outnumber the “likes” we’re all in real trouble here.


0

I say change the Federal government now along with the state. Senators change every 6 years, Representative 4 years. Nothing has changed over the years. We get the same bull crap from all of them. Raises every year lifetime retirement and medical. We have to work 30 or more years for the benefits. Then a lot of the time the companies get rid of us before we get retirement.


0

We are ruled by an elite. It’s always been like that. Tinkering with terms won’t do any good. We need something rather more drastic.


0

Unfortunately, term limits are not helpful. Term limits give lobbyists more power and influence. They also encourage dishonest politicians to start piling up ill-gotten gains quicker so that they get just as rich as if they served for decades.


Term limits like these are a bad idea. They are undemocratic. They limit the public’s right to choose their politicians. Bad idea.


There is no evidence of term limits being productive in any way.


0

Choose our politicians? Sad to say the party usually decides for us and gives us (most of the time not great) our choices, to pick from if we like it or not.


I see it as a damned if you do damned if you don’t. We keep them in and they gather a lot of power with time and really don’t listen to their constituants anymore. If you do the short timer route you have the possibility of what you say.


Look at what the article says. What we have now is politicians on both sides of the aisle chasing from one side of the house to the other. Do you think they are more interested in you and I or chasing the next office or worrying about the next election? I go with the later.


So I don’t see how term limits could be any worse than what we have had in place.


0

Sad but true, nothing will really help until we get the money out of politics, but the people who would be responsible to pass laws prohibiting PAC’s are the ones benefiting from them so we have little hope of this happening, at least with the way things are set up now.


We also need to put an end to lawmakers who leave office then are appointed to a office, committee or such.


Term limits and removing the money will help if done in the right way and together.


0

I disagree. I think term limits are essential to a healthy government. Ill-gotten gains are piled in a short time as they would be in the long term. If they are that kind of politician, time is irrelevant. I think it is a good idea and support this fully.


0

I feel we need a combination of both term limits and getting the money out.


0

I like the idea of term limits but this one sounded good till I got to the bottom line of supporters. Unions and PG&E. Neither one of these groups do ANYTHING without some kind of self interest. In this case it makes me wonder what the self interest is???


0

Of course those groups like this proposal. It means they can reduce the amount they pay to purchase legislators, instead of having to pay more each year for an unlimited time, every 12 years they get to start buying politicians at a lower level because they will be newbies. Kind of like firing long time employees because they make too much and hiring new ones that start at lower salaries


0