It seems politicians do not like term limits, many politicians think the idea of citizen legislator is a strange idea because they get accustomed to the perks of their position and get withdrawn from the concerns of the common people that elected them there.
Although there are flaws in the term limits system, Proposition 28 is not the solution.
Our “not as impartial” Attorney General Kamala Harris failed to tell the voters that this ballot measure does not reduce the terms for existing legislators. Existing legislators will be allowed extra time to serve.
Proposition 28 is a scam like Proposition 25. Proposition 28 is going to expand terms for 80% of current legislators. So Norma Torres will end up having 3 more Assembly terms and Gloria Negrette Mcleod would be allowed to have 1 more term in the State Senate if she wanted to. Proposition 28 may sound good, but it will have unintended consequences.
The goal is to encourage more citizen legislators while allowing institutional experience. The goal should be is to have rules that would force politicians to go back to the private industry or a non political job for a given term and come back to teach new legislators as well.
Serve three terms in the State Assembly or two terms in the state senate, be forced to take a 7 year ban from being in any elected office in the state. After you take your seven year hiatus you can come back to Sacramento.
It seems Proposition 28 is just another effort by major political players such as Bob Huff’s best friend Ed Roski to buy influence of legislators that would easily support his plans in developing a sports stadium in the city of Industry right near Diamond Bar. Grease Roski’s palms with getting his special exemptions and he will allow you to continue the perks of being a state legislator by subsidizing their lifestyle such as getting wined and dined by AT&T and spending time on the golf links with them.
My endorsement is to vote NO on 28.
Recently State Assemblywoman Norma Torres of Pomona introduced a bill AB 2552 that inflamed many people in her district, the state and the nation as a whole. Norma thought it would be a good idea to give people who have ingested marijuana in their system even if they are sober a DUI because she thought that it would make our streets safer. Due to outcry she tabled her bill to refine it.
Then, Assemblyman Richard Pan of Citrus Heights introduced a bill AB 2109 that would require parents to be aware of the benefits of vaccinations before getting a waiver. However parents are worried that doctors will refuse to sign the waiver, thus denying the parental rights and doctors would likely fire their patients if they wanted the waiver. Parents who want these waivers recognize that there are some inherent risks of being vaccinated and some of the vaccines actually are prescribed too early or not tested well such as hepatitis b vaccine for newborns and the complications of Gardasil for teenagers.
Pan’s legislation sounds like a good idea, but opponents do say that it is going to add a costly mandate for parents. I would recommend that nurse practitioners should also be allowed to provide the guidance at a slightly lower cost. I would also suggest that doctors and medical aides should be required to provide these waivers and they should be waived from ALL lawsuits for allowing their children not to be vaccinated. If doctors fire their patient after providing the waiver, then the office fee would be refunded immediately. AB 2109 passed the appropriations committee, but it does need to be amended or pulled.
Personally I even thought of playing SIM Statist where I thought it would be a good idea to seize the homes and vehicles of hoarders of animals to help cover the costs of impounding the animals and giving them the health care they needed. However we should ask, “How much government is enough government?”.
I know we all would like to solve the world’s problems, but we should think about the implications of our ideas.
To my state legislators,
I implore you to support legislation written by Governor Brown’s staff to strip pensions from felons whose crimes are job related. It is only right to support this portion of the public pension reform bill that will likely be in the budget committee.
If you embezzle money from a government agency, molest children or run a motorcycle gang dealing drugs while being a university professor then it should be justified to eliminate the benefits.
To be fair, the benefits should be removed ONLY when the individual is convicted in a court of law.
California has a massive budget crisis and since our state is in a state of gridlock where Democrats refuse to concede cuts to their pet causes and Republicans failing to fund the expansive state budget, our Governor is trying to find so many small items to cut to help to provide substantive fiscal relief. The issue that has gotten thousands of animal welfare advocates mobilized is the movement to repeal the Hayden Law for shelter animals that was passed in 1998 and signed by Governor Wilson. Hayden’s legislation was intended to help reunite pets with their owners in the instance they may have become lost and also to encourage animal shelters to focus on working on adoptions instead of putting animals down.
In an effort to trim costs, the governor’s budgetary staff has stricken out particular parts of the law in their trailer bill that will likely be part of the next state budget. First, animal shelters will not be mandated to provide necessary and prompt care when an animal needs medical assistance so if an animal is in needed for treatment it will either suffer in pain or be the first one to be put down. Second, animals that are not traditionally dog or cat will not be guaranteed the new 72 hour hold period, if the shelter is in danger of running out of space they will likely be put down. Third, regulations that require accountability in our animal shelters will be repealed so we will not find out the status of any animal medically treated or impounded. Four, there will not be a six business day holding period if your animal runs out of your home. If you are on vacation and your pet is impounded on a weekend expect your animal to not see Monday. The new rule will be 72 hours from the date of impoundment including days animal control may be closed to the public.
The Hayden Law is still needed, and repealing the Hayden Law is very drastic when we can suspend relevant clauses until our state is in better fiscal health. Even so, shelters in various parts of our state have violated the Hayden Law for shelter animals and without the law expect it to happen across the state. We should be able to provide dignity and respect for the companion animals that many of us value. We should keep the law on the books to further the cause of adoption and reduce the instance of putting animals down. We need to clamp down on animal shelters that deny volunteers, refuse the acceptance of blankets to help keep animals comfortable in concrete or outdoor kennels and refuse to cooperate with rescue organizations that want to save animals from being put down due to crowded kennels.
Budget analysis’s claim that these changes will save 46 million dollars, but there are much bigger fish to fry for the state of California to have meaningful budget reform such as dealing with the looming public employee pension crisis or curtailing the spiraling costs of high speed rail. However the thousands of shelter animals do not have a lobby as viable as the SEIU or the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Organization. That is why people like you and me who live in our state are encouraged to lobby their state legislators and our governor to reject this misguided proposal. First, look up your state legislator and find out if they are a member of the state budget committee for the assembly or senate. If they are then it’s strongly encouraged to lobby them because they are able to kill the proposal before it gets to a full vote. Even if your legislator is not on the budget committee, if the misguided proposal passes, we need them to defeat it at the full floor vote.
Crossposted from Orange Juice blog.
Bob Dutton is termed out, redistricting created new maps. Musical chairs led to Mike Morrell wanting to run for the new Assembly District 40. Mike Morrell is placed in a new Democratic Party friendly district and he wanted to run in more friendlier climate.
Bob released a poll stating that high and medium propensity voters, prefer Bob to Mike.
Bob wins due to more name ID and more cash on hand to give him the advantage.
Dutton: 28% (4/4) and 33% (3/4)
Morrell: 20% (4/4) and 17% (3/4)
The district that Mike Morrell is originally from, district 41 is not a good climate for a Republican, due to the social policies of Assemblyman Morrell, it would be hard for him to win. Voting against bills such as AB 9 to make schools safe for all students from harassment and intimidation would not make him quality material. I am hoping that someone like Terry Hamilton runs against Chris Holden in Assembly District 41. Heck, David Drier would be a good fit for that district.
Even though Bob Dutton is basically identical to Mike Morrell, I am siding with Bob Dutton.