State propositions are typically tangled

Community college, term limits should be rejected; yes on gaming measures

Like all California elections, Feb. 4 means once again sweeping up the political dust bunnies left behind by the politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists.

That's another way of saying we have seven statewide propositions to figure out in a couple of weeks.

Before we proceed, we'll issue our usual lament: Typical busy voters shouldn't be asked to deal with this much complexity. Propositions have too often become the favored tool of special interests who hope weary voters will listen to their superficial spin instead of digging through the volumes needed to figures this all out.

With that proviso, we move onward.

Proposition 91 reminds us of Gilda Radner's old shtick on Saturday Night Live in which her character would work herself into furious indignation about one political issue or another and then realize she was completely mistaken about it. She would then conclude with nasaly indignation: "Well — never mind then."

The proponents of Prop. 91 were out to put a collar on Sacramento's penchant to divert transportation money for other uses. Before the election rolled around, a compromise was worked out that pleased them better. Now they oppose their own measure.

Since we can't vote "never mind," they recommend a No vote on Prop 91. We concur.

Proposition 92 was written by the community college lobby trying to do what lobbies always do: grab a bigger piece of the pie and tell taxpayers: Don't worry, be happy.

The proposal simultaneously caps community college tuition and earmarks a bigger piece of the state budget for community college budgets. In another election, Californians unwisely donned a different budget straightjacket to help education. This new one leaves us worried and unhappy. We're voting No on Prop. 92.

The authors and principal backers of Proposition 93 are lawmakers themselves. As such, them seem to be leering at us like carnival hucksters telling voters: "Trust us."

In completely contradictory fashion, they argue that term limits don't allow them enough time to in office and then they point out that Prop. 93 shortens term limits — in the long run. But in the short run, 41 of them could get another 12 years in office.

There is some merit hidden in all of this, but Prop. 93 doesn't come close to fixing any discernible problem with term limits. What we like in the proposal is allowing an office-holder to spend his or her entire term in one house. This would allow the election of an experienced Speaker of the Assembly instead of someone like Fabian Nuñez, who became speaker his second year in office.

If someone wanted to propose a 16-year term limit instead of 14 years and allow it to be served all in one house, we'd probably support it. But not this. We're voting No on Prop. 93.

Propositions 94 through 97 are constitutional amendments that rewrite gambling agreements with four California Indian tribes.

They are a bread and butter rewriting of expired agreements worked out between the tribes, the legislature and the governor. Here, the politicians weren't feathering their own nests. Rather they were doing the job we pay them to do: balance the interests of the tribes and the taxpayers.

We recommend trusting them on this one. We're voting Yes on the Indian gaming pacts, Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97.

Lodi News-Sentinel

Reader Feedback

Comments on this story are now closed.

Archives

Story Tools

Indexes

State propositions are typically tangled

Reader Feedback

Special Sections

Photo Reprints

Find Ads

Weather

Services

Contact Us

Office

Newsroom

Subscriptions

Advertising

Classifieds