Arnold comes out FOR Prop 93

I’m not a big an of term limits, because we have something called “elections” to get rid of ineffective or crooked politicians.

That said, the Governor has come out for Prop 93, the revised term limits bill on the Ballot next Month. Here’s the editorial from the LA Times:

From the op-ed: “It takes time to learn how to govern effectively. Under the current system, our elected officials are not given the time they need to reach their full potential as public servants. Just as they get seasoned in one house, they know their time is beginning to run out, and they must start positioning themselves to run for a new office.

Imagine what would happen if we told a big-city police chief or a sheriff that he could stay in the job just long enough to start mastering it and then had to move on. Or if we told teachers they had to switch careers just as they started to accumulate enough experience and wisdom to really connect with their students.”

Now, I’m not sure where my state rep, Chuck DeVore, is on Prop 93, but I do remember sitting in his office a few years ago with other members of the IUSD Legislatve Action committee where he made the governor’s very argument; by the time you master this job, you’re termed out (Wendy Bokota will back me up on this Chuck).

  7 comments for “Arnold comes out FOR Prop 93

  1. Chuck DeVore
    January 14, 2008 at 11:21 pm

    All true, but Gov. Schwarzenegger promised to link his backing of term limit changes with fair redistricting. Like many of his other pledges to Republicans, he abandoned it.

    I view it as his reward for his and the legislature’s serial incompetence in creating a $14.5 billion deficit – or, perhaps a lifeline to his great friend in the legislature, Speaker Nunez, for whom this term limit change would allow another six years in office.

    Instead of Prop. 93, which I oppose, I prefer a plan that would add four years in each house combined with true redistricting reform that would make at least 30-35 percent of the seats competitive in the November election. As it stands now, were Prop. 93 to pass, most politicians in the legislature would have one competitive election their entire career – their first primary. I don’t think that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind with representative democracy.

    As historical evidence, in the last three election cycles (excluding special elections) we have had 459 partisan contests in the legislature and in Congress with only one partisan turnover. The Cuban or Chinese politburos have more turnover than this for goodness sakes!

    All the best,

    Chuck DeVore
    State Assemblyman, 70th District

  2. Andrew Davey
    January 15, 2008 at 7:06 am

    Assm. Devore-

    I always shock myself when I say this, but I actually agree with you on Prop 93. As you know, I’m a progressive Democrat… And I’m voting NO on 93. Despite the “good intentions” of trying to fix the system, Prop 93 does NOTHING to fix the problem.

    Right now, the proponents of 93 say that the problem in Sacramento is politicians who are more responsive to lobbyists than to the people. So what can we do about that? First, enact tougher anti-corruption laws. Second, draw fairer districts so that no legislator feels “too safe” to ignore his/her constituents. And finally, GET RID OF TERM LIMITS ALTOGETHER so that we the voters really decide who we want to send to Sacramento, and so we can put an end to this silly merry-go-round once and for all.

    There, so now everyone knows why I’m agreeing with Chuck Devore on this one issue and voting NO on Prop 93.

  3. Dan Chmielewski
    January 15, 2008 at 9:13 am

    “Like many of his other pledges to Republicans…”

    Ah, it was pledges to voters, not Republicans. Republicans are still a minority party in this state.

    So, if you’re against Prop 93, will you pledge to not run again after this next election? I have to believe you stand to benefit from the passage of Prop 93, so while Republicans will complain of Nunez and Perrata, does this mean another term of DeVore and Spitzer?

  4. RHackett
    January 15, 2008 at 11:27 am

    Repubs were licking each other’s private parts when they recalled Davis. If they were intellectually honest they would have backed a known commodity in Tom McClintock instead of Arnold. Now that Arnold is governing for all Californians and not just the agenda of the CRP they cry foul.

    They brought him to the dance. So live with the consequences of not vetting the candidate. Arnold would have never survived a primary.

  5. cook
    January 15, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    Why not scrap term limits all together and let the votes decide?

    Or if term limits are so important to provide fresh blood, then how about a one year limit and one office limit for life. The population is large enough to supply a never ending supply of fresh meat.

  6. RHackett
    January 15, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    I sort of agree with “cook.” As an individual who believes in personal responsibility (as opposed to conservatives like Mike Carona or Rush Limbaugh), I find term limits offensive. I have the power of term limits every time I go to the ballot box. GOP’s only pushed through term limits because they couldn’t get rid of Willie Brown any other way.

  7. Anonymous
    January 15, 2008 at 6:18 pm

    I listened to ken and John have aneurisms over Arnold this afternoon. God I love it when reps eat their own.

Comments are closed.