CA: Part-time politics

OC Register ^ | 4/9/04 | Op/Ed

[NormsRevenge]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has come up with the best reform proposal we've heard in years: return to a part-time Legislature. In 1966, the state switched to a full-time Legislature, supposedly because our state was so complex it needed the full-time attention of politicians.

[NormsRevenge]

Gee, I wonder where arnold came up with this idea. ;-)

[NormsRevenge]

.

[Defiant]

The legislature for the world's 7th biggest economy working part-time? That's not realistic. Even if they tried to implement it, the size of the budget and the number of people each state senator and assemblyman represents would dictate that they spend all their time on their legislative job. If they are out of town, influence would devolve to lobbyists and administrative hacks, working with whoever is governor.

A better solution to an out of control legislature is spending limits. If the feds would control the border, that would help, too.

[RKV]

I completely disagree. The US has been a country for over 200 years and California has been a state for over 150 years. How many more laws do we need - all the crimes that need outlawing have already been taken care of before? In fact we have way too many laws now, and could easily live with a 50% reduction. All the CA state legislature needs to do is to pass a budget and keep the executive and judicial branches honest. Those responsibilites can easily be done as a part time job.

[Blue Screen of Death]

Texas, which is almost the same size, has a part time legislature and they seem to be doing better than California. Perhaps the key is less governmental control and oversight.

[SierraWasp]

Jesse Unruh is spinning in his drunken grave!!! Haaaaaaa Ha Haaaaaaa Ha Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! Let 'em spin!

We don't knead no stinkin full-time, professional pollytishuns!!! And we need legitimate redistricting... NOW!!! (before it gets any more too late!!!)

Better yet... We need to re-visit the Warren Court's "Cows Don't Vote" dubious decision, immediately!!! That would eliminate the METRO-SEXUAL stranglehold in ALL state legislatures!!! Power to the "Red Zones!" Stop Rural Cleansing NOW!!!

I know... I'm dreamin, rantin and ravin, but SO WHAT??? It's my story and I'ma stickin to it!!!

[snopercod]

I like the Walter Williams solution:

Offer each congresscritter a million dollars to get out of Sacramento and stay out for the duration.

It would be much cheaper for the taxpayers.

[Defiant]

I'm sure the state would get along fine without any legislature for many years. All I'm saying is that making the legislature part time would be a useless gesture, there are billions involved in what the legislature does, and to think that they would not be running campaigns and doing legislative work full time is to be naive.

[RKV]

Other states do it and we can too (like Texas for instance). Do your homework before you spout off. Google is your friend. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/about/partfulllegis.

[backtothestreets]

Here's another suggestion.

Since the courts threw out the basis for the California State Senate in the 1980's, and ordered both state legislative chambers be be elected by identical means, why bother with two separate chambers? Cut the duplicity. Have a single legislative chamber like Nebraska, cut the cost of operating government, speed up the legislation process, and send half the current legislators packing due to the judges they helped appoint that made the ruling in the first place. In fact, toss out the state assembly. The state senate is more conservative.

[AuntB]

I'm with ya,Waspman. Heck, keep 'em home all the time as far as I'm concerned. I bet they are WAY overpaid...no matter what they're getting.

[Defiant]

I know all about Texas. Isn't that the state where the legislature spends 1/2 its time in New Mexico? I like their state government much better than California's, but it doesn't change the underlying basis of my view.

I guess I'll have to remember to do my homework, i.e., a google search of the topic at hand, before I ever deign to post an opinion where you are in the vicinity. However, you are still wrong, your link notwithstanding. We can pass a law to make the legislature part time, but it won't change squat, so long as they are responsible for passing a budget of several hundred billion, and so long as they have the right to draft laws. They, and the lobbyists that they carry water for, will work full time on the "issues" whether you want them to or not.

While we're sending each other links, here's one for you. I think I've run across your type before. Have a nice weekend.

[goldstategop]

Actually that was in the 1960s. Moving to a unicameral legislature makes a lot of sense. Since both chambers are elected on the basis, there's no point to two houses. Canada's provinces do fine with a one house legislature as does Nebraska.

[RKV]

Sore loser is what you remind me of. Your @ss got whupped and now you whine. Do your homework or go away.

[SierraWasp]

I like your tagline, but I think it should probably say "pist off illegal aliens!" (grin)

[backtothestreets]

60's, 80's, doesn't matter. The damage was done. Stripping the rural areas of representation based on area assured the major metropolitan areas controlled the state.

I think about this every year when budget time roles around. Every year the news services say basically the same thing. The Assembly has passed a state budget. Now it goes to a joint committee with the Senate to iron out the differences in the two versions before a final budget is submitted to the governor for signing. That's where the budget deadlocks every year. At least a single legislative chamber would cut some of the BS.

BTW, since you're also located in California, do you recall all the discussions about splitting the state into two states? One was to be Northern California and the other Southern California. I'd like to see that discussion opened again, with one big change. Next time proponents need to propose splitting the state so that the greater metropolitan areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco are cast off. That would split the state into two very politically diverse states. It would also add two very conservative Senators to Congress.

[Defiant]

You clearly won the argument--in your own mind. I'm glad you defeated the voices. Now, get back on the meds, quick.

[RKV]

Ad hominem attacks are no subsitute for logic. You made a number of unsupported assertions and tried to pass that off as an argument. You don't agree with me, fine, next time come back with some information and a rationale which actually supports your position and you might convince somebody around here. Didn't happen this time.

[Defiant]

You don't have the slightest idea what logic is, or what the elements of an argument are. You don't even understand the difference between a statement of fact a statement of an opinion, and a conclusion, and how they relate to one another in forming an opinion. Instead, you turn a simple discussion regarding whether a part time legislature could work in California, about which reasonable minds (i.e., not yours) could differ, into some kind of personal affront to your manhood.

You are the one who responded to a post about which research was not relevant, as it involved opinion based upon certain indisputable facts, with a snide comment that indicated two things: 1. The only correct opinion was yours; and 2. All that was necessary to reach your correct opinion was to do a google search about part time legislatures. I think your words were, "do your research before you go spouting off."

Typical newbie knowitall crap. I've seen it many times in the 8 or so years I've been posting here. Usually, the type has some kind of insecurity about their intellectual capacity. Coupled with a new-found attachment to this wondrous thing we call a search engine, it can make a net denizen think they know something, when in fact they are still clueless, they are just clueless with a modem.

As an aside, I wrote an article about search engines for a San Diego daily about 1996 or so, back when I had a weekly column devoted to technology. I learned about Google at its launch, I think around 1999, and tried it early on, but back then, it didn't turn up as many good hits as Yahoo and Lycos. My how times change.

That said, here are the facts, organized in logical progression so you can try to understand them:

1. California has the largest population of any state in the US;
2. The state administers a budget that runs 12 or more digits (that's in the hundreds of billions to you, RKV). In fact, the deficit that we just voted on is greater than the entire budget of all but maybe a couple of states, and greater than the entire budget of many countries;
3. There are innumerable special interests that enjoy a slice of that huge pie, the smaller of which only get millions of dollars;
4. Those that dole out that money are of great interest to those who receive it. Enough so that those who receive it will want to spend as much of their time as possible with those who dole it out, whether in office meetings, cocktail parties or in fancy restaurants.

Now, here's some conjecture based upon experience:

5. Even if a legislator wanted to work in a law firm or on his family farm, it would be difficult for him to be anything but a legislator, given the number of demands on his time and his attention. He could pretend to be a lawyer, but in reality he'd sit in his office all day and deal with lobbyists, and maybe get some clients for the firm due to his influence, but he wouldn't be trying any cases or writing any research memos.

Now, an opinion, based upon facts and reasonable conjecture:

THEREFORE, to institute a part time legislature in a state as large as California would not generate the benefits that it is meant to, would not create a legislature that is less engaged in liberal mischief and bad laws, but would only foster a comfortable fiction, of a citizen legislature that only met part time and which had other, "real" jobs. Such a fiction might even be useful to liberal propagandists.

Your opinion may differ. But you are not correct because you say so, or because you googled something, and your methodology in discussion makes it less likely that your arguments would or should carry any weight.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.