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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (222767)	1/28/2002 10:25:42 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Another day, another atrocity from California politicians: WSJ Today - REVIEW & OUTLOOK Term Limit Trick In California the state budget is $12 billion in the hole, an electricity crisis still casts shadows, and the schools are in a shambles. So what's a top priority of state legislators these days? Pushing a ballot initiative that would partially roll back term limits. Worse, they don't have the honesty to tell voters that's what they're doing. Proposition 45 would loosen California's strict term limit laws, under which state Senators are limited to two four-year terms and Assembly members to three two-year terms. Yet when voters read their ballot pamphlets on the March 5 primary many will conclude that Prop 45 ratifies the term limits approved by voters back in 1990. "Yes on 45! Protect term limits and Restore Decision Making to Local Voters," is how the argument written by supporters of the initiative begins. Prop 45 "empowers the people to choose their own representatives -- TO THROW OUT THE SCOUNDRELS or return -- for a maximum of 4 years -- a single lawmaker whose ability and effectiveness benefits the people of that district." Prop 45 actually says something very different. It would allow an incumbent to gather the signatures of 20% of voters in his district and then run for office beyond the original term limits of six or eight years. Naturally, many incumbents will find it easy to raise funds to obtain the signatures. The effort to gut term limits is financed by money from the special interests that miss the old careerist legislature that voters rose up in revolt against in 1990. Backers have already taken in close to $3 million, with major checks coming from teacher unions, trial lawyer committees, tobacco companies and insurance interests. Richard Riordan, the former Los Angeles Mayor now running in the GOP primary for Governor, says "special interest lobbyists are trying to pull a fast one" with Prop 45. Mr. Riordan knows something about the endless ways incumbents undermine limits on their power. An original sponsor of term limits on Los Angeles officials, he had barely left office last year before the City Council tried to overturn term limits. To its surprise, the move was vetoed by Democratic Mayor James Hahn. The pols promise to try again. Democratic Governor Gray Davis hasn't taken a firm stand on Prop 45 and its bait-and-switch approach. The other Republicans pursuing his job -- businessman Bill Simon and Secretary of State Bill Jones -- both oppose Prop 45. We recognize that some California officeholders sincerely believe the current limits of six or eight years on state legislators are too short. But if voters want modifications, they should push for the change themselves with an initiative that's written in plain English. For now, we hope Californians will wake up to the con job that's being foisted on them over term limits. If elected officials were half as imaginative at solving California's problems as they are at perpetuating themselves in office, government would have a much better reputation. Updated January 28, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST

To: goldworldnet who wrote (222767)	1/28/2002 10:56:16 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Dear goldie: Me too!! Only disadvantage is that it gives an even better advantage to those in office who can get their message out over those trying to get into office. Surely some way could be devised around that. maybe to get a license media would have to DONATE a certain amount of time. Frankly, wouldnt bother me a bit to severly limit the political ads anyhow, most of them are so much BS. Course I own no stock in any media company outside of AOL which perhaps can be considered such. JDN

To: goldworldnet who wrote (222767)	1/28/2002 2:39:17 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

gold, I am for campaign finance reform. Simplicity is best. Considering the current bribery and kickback laws that define dishonest exchanges of money for special treatment. Anyone can do anything they wish with their money. A politician can make public or not all those who contribute and/or how much they contribute. All contributions from non US citizens or companies with more than 25% foreign ownership must be made public within 48 hours or 10 million dollar fine to the politician. Any foreign national or company 25% foreign that violates the law will be fined 1 billion dollars and receive a 25 year jail terms for all individual who should have known better. Crooked politician will hide all and honest ones will be transparent. Trying to do campaign finance reform with 50 paragraphs about kinds of money and folks is a stupid way of making it easy for the dishonest people and politicians. Keep it simple stupid is the only way. tom watson tosiwmee