Term Limits Is A Republican Issue – We Should Support Them For County Supes

Guest Column Guest Column 10 Comments

Share

San Diego Rostra Guest Column by Jon Fleischman

If some local public employee unions were to place on the ballot a decrease in the county sales tax, first and foremost I would be stunned.  But then I would sign on board and work (apparently in a bipartisan fashion) to reduce the size of government, and increase liberty and freedom for taxpaying San Diegans.

It is with that thought in mind that I question why there are some Republicans out there who seem to be concerned or upset that some unions have coughed up some cash to place a term limits measure on the ballot for San Diego County Supervisors.  To this I say, “THANK YOU!”

For a long time now, it has been Democrats who have opposed term limits, because Democrats believe in elected offices being life-long careers with lucrative pay and lavish pension benefits.  Republicans have long said that people elected to public office should return back to the private sector, where they can lives under the laws that they have created.

Being on the “right side” of term limits, in addition to being correct public policy, has been good politics for Republicans.  It was our party that opposed Proposition 93, the naked attempt by Sacramento politicians to weaken the state’s legislative term limits law.

We should not let unions, or Democrats, co-opt “our” issue in San Diego.  Sure, it may be union dollars that have placed this measure on the ballot.  But the Republican Party should embrace the measure and make it our own.  Opportunities to work with Democrats in a bi-partisan fashion are few and far between – and I seldom advocate it.  But when “they” come 100% around to our position on an issue – then we should claim victory.

I am aware of the fact that San Diego County has a Republican Board of Supervisors, with a lot of talented members.  But San Diego County has a large pool of talented Republicans waiting in the wings to one-day become Supervisors.  And like I said above, these incumbents should, after a reasonable period of time, leave office and go back to the private sector, to live under the laws they have created.

###

Jon Fleischman is the elected Vice Chairman, South, of the California Republican Party, representing San Diego, Orange, Riverside and Imperial Counties.  He is also the publisher of the FlashReport.org website on California politics.

Share

Comments 10

  1. The issue I have with SEIU funding this is apparently they don’t believe in term limits for their own elected officials. Before they start trying to impose their demands on US, why not let them impose them on themselves?? I believe, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

  2. How can Regor equate a private organization to a government legislative body? That’s a joke.

    The State Legislator has term limits. The governor has term limits. The president of the United States has term limits. But the San Diego supervisors should be different? I don’t think so. What’s good for the public goose is good for the gander.

  3. I have no problem with term limits for all (I’d like to see it for Congress and Senate). My issue is SEIU trying to impose term limits on the BOS when they don’t have term limits for their own. As a person that is forced to suffer under this Union’s oppression, would you like a list of what is wrong with this Union?

  4. Regor:

    I’m interested in your opinion about the union, and plenty
    of other readers will be as well. Please give us chapter
    and verse.

  5. Jon has a great column here. I support term limits although many of my conservative friends do not. They claim that we have the opportunity to limit the terms of elective official each time there is an election. In theory, they are correct. In actuality, there is very little turnover. I wish candidates/politicians were more like Joe Scarborough and that we would not have to try and force them out.

    Jon’s hits the nail on the head when he writes “these incumbents should, after a reasonable period of time, leave office and go back to the private sector, to live under the laws they have created.” When has Robert Byrd had to deal with the policies he has enacted? Anyone remember State Senator Dills? Do Bill, Pam, Greg, Ron, or Diane ever have to deal with the results of their policies?

    I wish we did not have to enact term limits. I wish politicians would leave on their own after a reasonable amount of time. But I also wish that my wife will buy me a Ferrari for Christmas. I am not holding my breath for any of these.

  6. Dwight, I share many of your views. Term limits seem like a viable option given the situation with the current Supervisors. But all we have to do is look at the extreme dysfunction of the California State Legislature to realize that term limits are not the answer.

    When legislators come and go quickly without gaining experience or building working relationships beyond their own party machine and their donors, all of the power shifts to their staff members who end up being the real brokers and players, along with the organizations and lobbyists with enough money to buy influence. Lord knows if you aren’t around all that long, you haven’t built up your campaign treasury and have to rely on union money. We are about to get a rookie Assemblyman as our next state speaker. How in the world is he considered qualified after mere days in office? What the hell is happening here? It makes you wish for the days of Big Daddy Unruh and Wilie Brown. (Look it up if you aren’t old enough to remember or have a weak grasp on California history).

    It’s no surprise the Democratic unions want to see term limits for our County Supervisors. Then they’ll get to be in charge here in San Diego County just like they are in charge in Sacramento.

    In effect, you will have elected SEIU and the Deputy Sheriff’s Association as your Supervisors. Good luck with that.

  7. Term limits are not the problem at the state level. Gerrymandering is the problem — in CA at both the state and federal (Congressional) level.

    In the last three election cycles, 462 elections were held in CA for “district” legislative offices — State Senate, State Assembly and Congress. As I recall, of those 462 elections, not a SINGLE race outcome resulted in a change from Democrat to Republican, or vice versa. That’s gerrymandering in action.

    Congress doesn’t have term limits. CA voters passed it, but the federal courts overturned it. The court (wrongly) ruled that states cannot set rules about Congressional elections (in spite of what the Constitution says).

    Consider how no Congressional term limits is working out for us.

    I support term limits for County Supes. I don’t much care who pays to put it on the ballot. And the present county supes are guaranteed another 8-10 years in office under the plan, which means that they will all have died or retired by the time this term limits measure takes effect.

  8. San Diego County is still a relatively Republican jurisdiction. And the two Republican supes holding seats in Democrat areas are pretty much RINO’s as it is now.

    The unions may hold sway in city elections, but not countywide elections. At worst, three of the five seats will remain Republican — hopefully REAL Republicans.

    As it is, our county is run by and for the supes, who have huge salaries for part-time jobs — and pensions to die for. They borrowed a billion dollars at taxpayer expense using pension obligation bonds without a public vote — legal but wrong nevertheless.

    And then there is their annual $2 million per sup annual slush fund — a naked attempt to buy votes from favored constituencies.

    It’s time for county term limits.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.