Dear Editor,
Columnist Tom Elias (Dec. 5) writes:
”
… Suddenly there’s the possibility that term limits (for
political officeholders) could change.
”
Mr. Elias cites the past election when, in Los Angeles, Measure
R
”
…a vote that got little notice outside Los Angeles … passed
by a whopping 59-41 percent margin.
”
Measure R overthrew the 1990 voter voter-decreed mandatory
two-term limit and, in its place, gave city council members
”
… a new maximum of three four year terms …
”
Dear Editor,
Columnist Tom Elias (Dec. 5) writes: “… Suddenly there’s the possibility that term limits (for political officeholders) could change.” Mr. Elias cites the past election when, in Los Angeles, Measure R “…a vote that got little notice outside Los Angeles … passed by a whopping 59-41 percent margin.” Measure R overthrew the 1990 voter voter-decreed mandatory two-term limit and, in its place, gave city council members “… a new maximum of three four year terms …”
Elias thinks this has meaning “… For politicians in Sacramento … it allows them hope that opposition to changing term limits may be softening … term limits for the past 15 years have been about the most popular concept possible among California voters.”
He should remember the well-known adage; “you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cant fool all of the people all of the time.” Local officeholders can weasel word a ballot measure for their personal benefit that may succeed, but statewide, term limits will continue to work.
Several years ago, the four Democratic members of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (Republican Don Gage abstained) came up with, and placed on the ballot, Measure M. It was Measure R’s role model for it also said: “Shall Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors members be limited to three terms?” As in Los Angeles where, says Elias, “… There was a lot of deceptive campaigning …”, Measure M passed because of “a lot deceptive campaigning.”
Now one of those Democrats, Jim Beall, newly elected to the California State Assembly, is running his Measure M shuck-and-jive against legislative term limits [three two-year terms for state Assembly; two four-year terms for state Senate]. “It’s kind of obvious,” he says (San Jose Mercury News Dec.4), “If you look at a $100 billion budget and all the complicated issues we have, one would assume it takes more than a year or two to figure it all out. It’s a barrier to solving problems, just the lack of experience of everyone, including myself.”
If it takes that long to “figure it all out”, perhaps Mr. Beall should resign and fill his time with more simplistic activities rather than bemoaning his self-admitted need for on-the-job training at taxpayer expense ($112,000 yearly salary; $120 per diem daily when the legislature is in session – some $20,000-plus more; capitol/district offices/staff; discounted cost of a current-model state car; gasoline credit; air travel costs and dozens of additional freebies).
It’s not difficult to expect one of Beall’s first legislative efforts will read: “… a proposition – shall members of the state legislature be limited to six terms (assembly) and four terms (senate)?” Or, as Elias predicts: “Expect to see a proposition on the 2008 primary election ballot-or in a special election before then … to give lawmakers more time …”
Jim Beall doesn’t need on-the-job training to support that idea. The sad reality is: He will!
James Brescoll, Gilroy
