California Propositions (Sacramento, Commerce: insurance, income, income tax)

[Prince of Lombards]

Vote NO on Prop 93. It seems like a good idea, but in the details it will allow incumbents to serve more time. There are 42 members of the CA legislature that will term-out WITHOUT 93, where as voting YES will allow them to EXTEND THEIR TIME IN OFFICE. Do not be fooled by the shills on televison, including Schwarzenegger.

On the other hand, the Indian gaming props seem okay. I'm voting yes on 94-7 unless I find a good reason not to. Opinion anybody?

[dbaMommy]

Originally Posted by Prince of Lombards

Vote NO on Prop 93. It seems like a good idea, but in the details it will allow incumbents to serve more time. There are 42 members of the CA legislature that will term-out WITHOUT 93, where as voting YES will allow them to EXTEND THEIR TIME IN OFFICE. Do not be fooled by the shills on televison, including Schwarzenegger.

On the other hand, the Indian gaming props seem okay. I'm voting yes on 94-7 unless I find a good reason not to. Opinion anybody?

It certainly is an interesting proposition (93). It seems in reading through the information online that the main opponents to the proposition are largely republican (though propositions are not always voted along party lines), as well as the CA Insurance Commissioner and the CA Chamber of Commerce.

What I find most interesting about 93 is that the person who co-wrote the measure opposes it's passage---the CA Insurance Commissioner.

Term limits are part of our democracy for a reason. It seems to me that 93 doesn't serve the people so much as the politicians.

[Niners fan]

I think it is funny how the same politicians that got us into a $14 billion dollar deficit are the ones saying how experience is so important to have in the legislature. These clowns need less time in Sacramento, not more! I don't see how a new crop of legislators could do any worse.

Definitely NO on 93.

[Kingsnkali]

California voters have to stop voting for these endless propositions that sound great at the time. Over the years, the billions and billions keep adding up.

This state gets plenty of money from us through sales, property and income taxes.

It's the spending that is out of control. And I am tired of it.

[UB50]

One reason for keeping the incumbents: You pay for fewer retirement pensions that way. If someone is really good in office, they can stay for years and years and only get one retirement pension at the end of all those years. If someone is really cwappy, well, we can vote them out.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by UB50

One reason for keeping the incumbents: You pay for fewer retirement pensions that way. If someone is really good in office, they can stay for years and years and only get one retirement pension at the end of all those years. If someone is really cwappy, well, we can vote them out.

The system is so stacked in favor of incumbents that they rarely lose and they cost us billions with their wild spending of taxpayer dollars. I'd rather pay their retirement than leave them in charge of the state's checkbook.

[Prince of Lombards]

Then there's the drawing of the districts, which is practically done by the legislators themselves, hence guaranteeing their re-elections. If I'm not mistaken there were zero seat changes in the last election.

Regardless, Prop 93 extends time to people who are terming out by our current laws. Seems to me we should simply uphold what's already on the books, because the people in office have been there long enough and they don't seem to be doing anything that can't be done better by somebody new.

[Niners fan]

Originally Posted by UB50

One reason for keeping the incumbents: You pay for fewer retirement pensions that way. If someone is really good in office, they can stay for years and years and only get one retirement pension at the end of all those years. If someone is really cwappy, well, we can vote them out.

Good point but this is a reason to change the retirement structure, not to keep the same tax and spend legislators.

If I had my way we would limit a person's time in all elected offices to a few years. Then let them serve it at the city, state, or federal level but it would count toward the same limit. After that they can go in the private sector and deal with the real world red tape and challenges like the rest of us!