Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Volsi Mimir who wrote (52187)	6/7/2001 6:03:50 PM
From: thestockrider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

OT >>We all know that when California's Legislature passed the ill-conceived energy deregulation bill in 1996, Why was it ill-conceived? IMO term-limits for legislators played a part in the poorly crafted legislation which got the state into this mess, and term-limits have concentrated political power during crises in the governor's office and powerful lobbies. Term-limits for elected representatives remove hard-won knowledge from the legislatures. First and second term legislators cannot recall battles, policy successes and failures, that occurred decades ago. Important policy changes don't happen every legislative session. Such experiences would caution seasoned politicians about accepting quick and easy, latest rage [free market, current b-school think, new-economy, whatever] proposals written by industry lobbyists. Term-limits means that representatives and their aides more frequently turn to lobbyists to write proposed legislation. Term-limits mean that no legislator has the stature to stand up to the governor during times of trouble and contribute forcefully to a fix. Legislators don't care about the future effects of the legislation beyond the next fundraising effort for higher office. The politicians who passed the faulty legislation like former governor Pete Wilson and a slew of legislators whose names are historical footnotes are long gone. Actually few of the wonders in the state legislature have ever had the courage to take a stand on divisive issues that would hurt a powerful special interest; difficult issues are punted to the general public in the form of ballot initiatives. But IMO complex bills and proposed amendments are better debated by seasoned legislators and top-quality aids, instead of giving the public Yes/No choices on 1-3 initiatives where most are educated by television ad campaigns. Concentrating power in the governor's hands works well when the governor is not an idiot, has good staff, and is willing to DELEGATE and not MICROMANAGE! The current idiot signed the state up for fixed rate power at a price equivalent to $8/unit natural gas for several years. Natural gas is now below $4/unit. The agreement may have violated state laws like the Brown Act and be unenforceable. The powerful lobbies include farmers, manufacturers, and power generators whose interests are not aligned with fixing the problem, but mitigitating the damage to themselves even if this means making resolution take longer and costs more. Taking the smaller rate hike proposed by PG&E early on would have been less costly than the current workarounds. Term-limits have some benefits I'll admit, but not in this situation.