Hope is not a plan

Proposition 93: Limits On Legislator's Terms In Office. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. - recommend No

I am of two minds about term limits. On one hand, citizens should be able to vote for the individual they want to vote for, for as many terms as they want, as long as they feel that the individual is representing them. That said, in practice, a career in politics, and the concept of a career politician who can keep winning over and over again and stay in office indefinitely (like Strum Thurmond, who was more or less a puppet of his staff toward the end) is problematic. If you can stay in office forever, what would you do to do so?

Currently in California, we allow a maximum of two Senate terms (4 years each) and two Assembly terms (3 years each) per person. Prop 93 would revise the state constitution to do away with that limit, and replace it with an aggregate limit of 12 years of service in the state legislature in either house (so, for example, you could do Assembly-Assembly-Assembly-Assembly, or Assembly-Assembly-Senate, or Senate-Senate-Senate, or other, quirkier options like Senate-Assembly-Senate).

There are two key caveats to the new rule. The first is that you can't run for an office that would take you over the 12-year limit. The second, and the one that has the "against" came crying foul, is that a person who is already in office when this limit passes is allowed to serve the full 12 years in that office (assuming they win reelection). The upshot of this rule is that if someone served two terms in the Assembly, and is now in their first term in the Senate, they could do another 8 years in the Senate for a total of 18 years.

That's why this might seem like a hack to keep current state legislators in office for as long as possible.

As always, it's good to look at the money, especially with millions spent on both sides.

On the "pro" side, we have an aggregation of interest groups. The three in the half-million dollar club are the California Teachers Association PAC, the California State Council of Service Employees, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Walking down the list, we get a tour of various other groups, ranging from the California Dental Association through PG&E, Blue Cross, SoCal Edison....and a bunch of groups supporting Assembly members who are up for re-election.

In short, these are, indeed, people who feel that one or more people in office represents their interests well, and want to keep them there.

On the "against," side, almost all the money -- a couple million -- comes from U.S. Term Limits, a nonprofit group that tries to get term limits enacted at all levels nationwide. As the rebuttal to their argument indicates, one of their members was recently indicted for election-related fraud in Oklahoma. Their other major appearance on the national scene was in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. vs. Thornton in 1995, when the Supreme Court ruled that states can't impose requirements for service in the U.S. Congress that are stricter than those set in the U.S. Constitution.

So, in short, this is a fight between a host of people who want their chosen representative(s) to stay in office longer and a nonprofit group that is dedicated to the cause of term limits across the board.

In this particular fight, I'm going to have to come down on the side of maintaining our current term limits. Although I may not be fond of anyone from out of state putting money into our state, I'm similarly not fond at all of laws being enacted on the back of donations from power companies and law firms within our state. For the moment, for lack of a better way to dissuade politicians from the path of rabid careerism, I'll opt to stay with our current limits.

Of course, even within term limits, people an be awfully destructive in their rabid desire to hit that golden second term. We're still in search of a good solution.

You can look at the financial backing for and against Prop 93 by clicking here.

You can read the full text of Prop 93 here.

You can read my reviews and recommendations for the other propositions by clicking here.

Proposition 94: Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact - recommend "No"
Proposition 95: Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact - recommend "No"
Proposition 96: Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact - recommend "No"
Proposition 97: Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact - recommend "No"

In 2006, the Governor negotiated new gambling agreements with several Southern California tribes. This new agreement allowed each of the tribes to expand its stock of "Nevade-style" slot machines several fold, bumped construction projects out from under the aegis of the California Environmental Quality Act (instead requiring a different form of environmental certification), and altered the flow of money from the tribes to the State such that instead of going to the Special Distribution Fund, money would go to the General Fund. This last, I'm sure, was a strong attraction to the Governor in a time of fiscal problems.

The placement of a referendum on the ballot stalled each of these four agreements. Each one has, in effect, put into our hands the decision to accept the governor's agreement with that tribe, or not. As the changes are the same for each tribe, and the groups fighting for and against each Proposition are the same across all four, I've batched them into this one entry. For the record, here's the lineup:

Proposition 94 is a referendum on a new agreement with the Pechanga Indians in Riverside county.
Proposition 95 is a referendum on a new agreement with the Morongo Indians, also in Riverside county.
Proposition 96 is a referendum on a new agreement with the Sycuan Indians in my home county, San Diego.
Proposition 97 is a referendum on a new agreement with the Agua Caliente Indians, also in Riverside county.

I shortened all the Indian Bands' names for clarity.

On this kind of issue, we know who's going to be spending money for it (and the four groups sure did spend their money, in the multiple millions). Despite the public face of fire departments and other nice public figures being presented as the against argument, however, the money tells us that this is a pure financial battle. The opposition to Props 94-97 is funded mostly by other Indian groups not included in the 2006 agreement, as well as contributions from non-Indian gambling facilities -- mostly places like Hollywood Park and Bay Meadows.

This is, in other words, a business fight. So who do we believe?

I opt for "neither." Instead, it's probably best to do a pragmatic, financial breakdown of the 2006 agreement and how it compares with similar agreements in other states. Peter Dreier of Occidental College has done just that, as cited here. The basic numbers suggest that we could do better. Other states have secured portions of gambling revenue that are from two to four times as large as ours (in percentage terms -- the 2006 agreement would net us 12.6% of gambling revenues from the Agua Caliente group, for example, and comparisons with other states suggest we could be getting 25-50% instead). Dr. Dreier makes a convincing argument that they can afford to hand over a larger profit share, too. I'm going to completely ignore all of Dreier's other arguments, because, fundamentally, if the business arrangement is poor, then nothing else needs to be discussed.

Since it sounds like we can, convincingly, do better, I believe we should. The last decade especially has seen governments at all levels failing to adequately use their massive leverage to negotiate good deals for us, the citizens. Although this opportunity to check another bad deal was doubtless brought about by a conflict between interested business parties, it's still a good chance to send the Governor back for a second, and better, try.

You can check out all the financial backers on both sides here. Although I've linked to the one for Prop 94, the exact same groups are pushing on all four propositions, so you don't need to look farther than the first one.

You can read the full texts of each of the propositions here. Note that as each one is a referendum, the text simply refers to ratifying the prior agreement, with no additional details about that agreement. In this case, the Legislative Analyst's report is required reading if you really want to understand what's going on.

You can read my reviews and recommendations for other propositions by clicking here.

This February, you'll be voting on seven propositions. Three represent the normal fare, with attempts to constrain our use of transportation funding, to reorganize community colleges, and to alter, yet again, term limits in the state legislature. The final four are actually referenda on gaming agreements negotiated by the Governor in 2006 between the state and a handful of Indian tribes.

Below, you'll find links to each of my proposition reviews, along with my recommended vote on the proposition and a concise explanation of why I'm making that recommendation. As always, click on through for the full review, a complete explanation of my recommendation, and helpful links to the text of the proposed law and lists of financial backers for and against the proposition.

91: Transportation Funding Protection, again - Recommend "No" because it is redundant, since Prop 1A passed in the last election
92: Community Colleges Funding and Governance - Recommend "No" because it would wreak financial havoc at the state and community college district levels
93: State Legislator Term Limits - Recommend "No" because it is clearly an effort to keep current legislators in office, rather than an actual attempt at reform
94: Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact - Recommend "No" because we should renegotiate for a better financial deal
95: Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact - Recommend "No" because we should renegotiate for a better financial deal
96: Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact - Recommend "No" because we should renegotiate for a better financial deal
97: Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact - Recommend "No" because we should renegotiate for a better financial deal

An independent panel led by former Liberal minister John Manley has suggested that Canadian troops should remain in Afghanistan "indefinitely," if several key conditions are met. Specifically, he recommends that the Canadian contribution to ISAF should be removed at the end of the current Canadian mandate (that ends in February, 2009) unless:

• NATO sends 1,000 additional troops to support Canadian forces in southern Afghanistan
• More military equipment and training are provided for the Afghan army

This report, assembled under the leadership of a Liberal party loyalist for the current Conservative government is expected to carry a lot of weight, especially as the Liberal party is directly opposed to the war effort. Whether the rest of NATO will be willing to pony up the additional troops and supplies is, however, uncertain. As we have seen, George Bush has historically been unwilling to send troops to Afghanistan even when his own officers are begging for more reinforcements, and the Marine Corps has suggested that they could do a lot of good there.

Canada has been an important participant in the war against the Taliban and their associates in Afghanistan, and they've taken concomitant losses as a result - 77, which is on par with UK casualties in that theatre (for reference, the war in Afghanistan has led to 87 UK deaths and 480 US deaths).

BBC article

Casualty counts from the Operation Enduring Freedom Fatalities Page at icasualties.org.

One must feel for the plight of Vladimir Putin and his allies. After all their effort spent peackeeping in Georgia, resolving the conflict in Kosovo, and solving crimes, now they have to deal with their major political rival being, of all things, disqualified from competing in the upcoming election.

In a surprise move, Russia's Election Commission has barred Kremlin critic Mikhail Kasyanov from running in the upcoming March presidential election, ruling that thousands of his nominating signatures were fraudulent.

On the plus side, Mr. Kasyanov has not suddenly developed any kind of radiation sickness. Perhaps that only happens when Russians foolishly become naturalized citizens of the United Kingdom?

We can all look forward to a healthy turnout and an abundantly healthy percentage of the March vote going to Kremlin favorite Dmitri Medvedev. Such an exciting time for Russia. Imperial, even.

Voice of America article

Perhaps there's an inverse correlation between article size and article significance?

Go to the extended to see what the BBC and al Jazeera were running at the same time.

Director Mueller was in scenic Phnom Penh today to mark the opening of the FBI's first field office in Cambodia. After icy diplomatic relations for just short of forever (well, over three decades), we're now flooding Cambodia with prominent American officials.

I'm happy to see an FBI presence in Cambodia, as in addition to any boost it gives our anti-terrorist efforts, I'm hopeful that our agents can contribute in the struggle against exploitation of Cambodian children. That would be a good fight for Americans to be a part of, in Cambodia as everywhere else.

BBC article