.

Proposition 28: Our Party Urges a "NO" Vote on This Deceptive Initiative

Why the California Republican Party urges a "NO" vote on Proposition 28.

Our Party stands with CA voters who approved term limits in 1990 and have voted twice since then, in 2002 and 2008, to keep them. Proposition 28 is a deceptive proposition that doubles the time an Assembly member can be in office to 12 years and grows by 50% the time a state senator can be in office to 12 years. It actually weakens the current term limits.

We know that incumbent office holders are re-elected 80 percent of the time, which means that most state legislators will serve a full decade in office without having to deal with a competitive election. That’s more time for cozy relationships to develop between state legislators and special interests such as labor unions, which often pay for their elections. Limiting service to 6 years in the Assembly and 8 years in the state Senate, as the current term limits do, ensures that these elected officials do not forget that voters put them in office. CA needs a more effective and responsible legislature, but Proposition 28 would hardly guarantee that outcome.

When you look at who is behind Proposition 28 you see a sweetheart deal between the current CA legislature, big real estate developers and labor unions. It is no secret that the big donor support for this initiative are developers who won an exemption from environmental regulations from the state legislature to build a stadium in The City of Industry, and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO.

The big money donations began pouring in two months after the developers were granted the exemption and were a payback to the legislators to support Proposition 28, which they want. ‘YES’ on Prop 28 has raised ten times the money support that the ‘NO’ on Prop 28 has, and the executive secretary- treasurer of the L.A. County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO is leading the ballot proposition effort.

Labor wants a predictable long-term relationship with legislators whose elections they fund. The same people who urged voters to reject term limits in the first place are now urging voters to pass this initiative.

Voters have approved two other reforms that are just now being enacted and we need time to see how these new reforms impact our elections. I’m referring to the new redistricting process and new district boundaries for Congress, state Senate and Assembly. The other reform is the Open Primary, which takes control away from political parties. We should wait and see how these reforms change the legislative election "playing field."  There is no motivating reason right now to increase the terms of our legislators.

A good website to review all aspects of ballot initiatives is the non-partisan BallotPedia.org. Follow the link below to take you to their website page about CA Proposition 28.       

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_28,_Change_in_Term_Limits_(June_2012)

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Albert Rubio June 11, 2012 at 04:31 AM
Austrian Economics is more alive today than ever by orders of magnitude. Proven a failure? I know you think so. By whom? I asked so many times for a book, an author a link and nothing. So I give up asking. Honest people can judge between us. I was never trying to convince you. Government spending was dramatically reduced after the WWII. You can look it up. regarding the 1990's - One cannot prove or disprove economic theorems by historical events. They are proven or dis-proven by the strength of logic they are constructed with. History is then interpreted by the strongest theories. This is done in other science as well. FALSE: Governments DO NOT make money. Think about it. The bonds are debt. The interest and principle are paid for by tax receipts in the future. Asset price increases is not making money. The sale of such assets almost never amount to the original costs with taxpayer money. PLEASE find me one economist of your choosing ANYWHERE that shares your opinion about Government making money and explains how it's true.... just one. But I see you don't want to answer anymore. Fine. Whatever. I will let the FAIR reader determine who has more sense between us. You've offered NOTHING (not an author, a link, an article, a quote) to convince or refute me. On what basis should I take your word against the understandable explanations of people much smarter and qualified than yourself? You are not stupid, but you have been ridiculous!
Albert Rubio June 11, 2012 at 04:41 AM
TG, Last word from me to you. >When you've realized the Austrians were wrong and are willing to think for yourself and debate actual economic policy and theory, feel free. Even the greatest Original thinkers acknowledge the contributions of others to their thought. It is the educated way. how much more should the rest of us do the same. There is no point in discussing theory with you. You have not even named your theory. You discredit yourself by putting yourself above having to be intellectually honest.
Albert Rubio June 11, 2012 at 05:04 AM
This to assist the casual reader and is not aimed at TG though I quote him. >Austerity in Europe won't fix their problem and it wouldn't fix the problem here in the US "There Are Solid Reasons to Support "Fiscal Austerity" ...the Depression of 1920–21 provides a textbook example of the Fed engaging in "tight-money" policies while the federal government engaged in (what are now almost) inconceivably aggressive budget cuts. The result was a short, painful, deflationary depression, followed by a decade of immense prosperity.[1] There are other, more recent examples of debt-ridden governments slowing or even cutting spending in order to eliminate budget deficits and improve economic growth. In one sense, the analogy between households and the government is flawed: Households (generally) earn their income through voluntary transactions in which they provide goods and services to others. In contrast, the government raises the revenue with which to provide its "services" ultimately through the threat of imprisonment. Even so, the deficit-hawk politicians are right when they say the government should be sharing in the belt-tightening along with everyone else. Slashing spending at the federal level would return much-needed resources to the private sector, where they would do the most good. [1] Keynesian sympathizer Daniel Kuehn has argued that Woods and I are wrong to think the 1920–21 episode bears much relevance for today."
Albert Rubio June 12, 2012 at 06:57 AM
Mark Murphy, I'm sorry you had to endure Philistine responses for what is actually a good question. >explain how a law designed to circumvent the will of the people is trumpeted as the will of the people. I think the answer here is that there is no real will of the people because the people can never all have the same will. Also there can be no such thing as an "unpopular" vote since a measure passes only by the majority. > Putting up an arbitrary limit doesn't seem like much of a solution to me. To me it sounds like, "The people can't be trusted to vote for the right candidate so we're going to take the choice away from them." The Classical liberal philosophy had reasons for this. It's concern was born from bitter historical experience that power must be limited to protect the people from the excesses of the State. It is still needed today. Washington freely let go the reigns of power after two terms and every president respected this tradition until FDR. You know the rest. We do have freedom of choice for all things PERSONAL, but in politics the crucial difference is that virtually every vote either grants greater power to the state (diminishing liberty) or appoints someone to that power. "Government is essentially the negation of Liberty" and so since voting is not neutral or always good, and the voters are not infallible it is prudence to not permit anyone too much access to power.
Albert Rubio June 21, 2012 at 04:49 AM
As John Stuart Mill emphasized 150 years ago, “the exercise of any political function, either as an elector or as a representative, is power over others."

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »