Just over a week ago, I penned a commentary that included some analysis of FR friend Jim Brulte’s endorsement of Proposition 93, authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, which if passed would loosen California’s current term-limit restrictions for state legislators. Today I am pleased to offer this perspective from Senator Brulte about his support for 93.
Thanks for noting my support for Prop 93. Or rather Prop 93’s endorsement of a concept I have supported for over a decade.
People try to personalize initiatives rather than looking at the whole picture. I am not supporting the initiative simply to keep Fabian Nunez or Don Perata in power anymore than my fellow conservatives are opposing it to keep Senator McClintock from serving any longer.
Term limits are a good idea. But six years in the Assembly are not enough for people to learn the job, fully comprehend the nuances of complex policy issues, and develop the ability to stand up to their core constituencies when they believe those constituencies are wrong.
**There is more – click the link**
December 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I just googled the Senator’s firm, California Strategies, and up popped a newspaper article all about one of their cleints. Hardly “under the radar”…
http://www.contracostatimes.com/traffic/ci_7682249?nclick_check=1
I feel bad for Brulte. Steve Maviglio probably wrote this for him. But, it’s okay. Brulte’s done a lot of great things for the GOP.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
With the greatest respect for Jim, Sarah is correct. Google reveals contracts with SCAQMD, CAA (California Ambulence Association), and others. Chris Micheli and three others are registered lobbyists for the company’s advocacy department, and their disclosure report details over 40 clients.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Sarah, I’m 51 years old. I was writing commentaries like today’s long before Steve Maviglio ever left New Hampshire to join the Gray Davis administration.
And to make sure that you and Douglas get the complete picture, I am a partner in California Strategies. I am not a partner in California Strategies Advocacy (the lobbying company). I have no ownership interest in it and I am not a registered lobbyist.
The “over 40” clients you reference are probably clients of the lobbying firm. They are not my clients.
As I wrote today, most of the legislature are unaware of my clients because I give them strategic advice….I do not advocate for them in front of the legislature.
PS. Those who actually followed my legislative career are aware that I was a long-time critic of the SCAQMD. I do not, nor have I ever worked for them.
But you both make my point…rather than deal with the merits or objections to the initiative, you personalize your remarks.
I believe that initiatives should be debated on the merits, unfortunately, your comments fall a little short of that goal.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
The debate over the merits of Proposition 93 should be squarely on the need to reform the “People’s Legislature” the men and women that serve in the State Assembly and State Senate at the pleasure of the people.
Thankfully we have elections and rightfully so, we the voters have the power to retain, remove or even recall a legislator.
I appreciate the honest and straight forward commentary from Jim Brulte, who I have the highest respect for his views on policy matters.
I am keeping an open mind about Proposition 93, because I care deeply about how our state government functions to serve the best interests of the people in this beloved Golden State of California.
Frankly, What has been said about Fabian Nunez and his wrath of power is the reflection of the person himself.
The voters of the 46th Assembly District and Assembly Democrats bears some responsibility for allowing Assemblyman Nunez to go unchecked and unchallenged.
Bottom line about those holding public office: Use the bully pulpit of your office with wisdom, because your job can be temporary. Remember, you serve at the PLEASURE OF THE PEOPLE.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jim,
You know I respect you and I agree that my post was not discussing the merits of Prop 93. But it was not an effort to “personalize” the issue, rather just following up on the debate between you and Jon.
That debate regarded the pressure that any person or entity with significant issues or business in Sacramento faces on this issue, because the Speaker has made this such a key focus.
I think it’s too bad the Speaker hasn’t shown similar interest in redistricting reform – putting that on the ballot would likely have earned him the term limits extensions.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
This is my favorite part:
“But six years in the Assembly are not enough for people to learn the job”
Two thoughts:
1) Why are these guys such slow learners? But on the other hand may be Jim has a point… these guys have never learned to do what every family and successful business must do, that is balance the budget. However, I am willing to bet even if you give these guys 20 years they will never learn to balance a budget. One thing they learn real fast is how to spend other people’s money.
2) My garbage man gives me the same excuse… it takes years to learn his job, you know, how the truck works, the route, yada, yada… That line gives my garbage man his inflated self- importance. The bottom line is if you need to learn it, you learn it. People are not as stupid as politicians think they are, they don’t buy this line. And by the way, I did not mean to slight my garbage man by equating him to a politician.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Anyone who can’t learn the job in 6 years didn’t deserve to be elected in the first place!
They should say what they mean, 6 years is not enough time to build a fiefdom of power that will allow them to corrupt absolutely. They need the extra years to allow them to climb to the top of the dog pile!
December 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Thanks Ken. I loved your post……and by the way, I actually served with a few legislators who are probably not as qualified as your garbage man.
Hope you have a great holiday season.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Senator Brulte was one of the engineers of the current district plan in California. He spent a good amount of time at a CRP convention justifying the plan, stating that it had to be done because it created safe seats in Congress to protect the Republican majority.
That went well.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Senator Brulte:
Bucking the party line in this polarized atmosphere requires a great stregnth of mind or a great lacking of inteligence. Based on the argument you presented, I believe you to have the former and not the latter. I believe you have made some valid points in your defense of prop 93 which many see as a blantent grab of power by Nunez and Perata.
The voters would benefit from more seasoned legislators, however absent of redistricting reform which was part of the innitial proposal. The votes will be unable to vote out the bad politicians. Right now the people hold politicians in the same regard as used car salesmen. And since districts have been drawn more to the benefit of legislators rather than constituents, there is a disenfrancisment towards politics as usual. If you support redistricting reform, then my point is mute.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Since people still continue to believe that a nonpartisan commission is the panacea that will solve all of the controversy surrounding reapportionment, I would like to let people know that there is a court case pending (again) in Arizona which uses a commission to create a plan. The original court ruling which is being appealed overturned the commission plan basically on the grounds that the commission ignored legal guidelines to give a political advantage to Republicans. Some people on this site may like that idea, but it is one more example of the truism that there is no such thing as a nonpartisan political group that can be trusted with real power, even on a subject as arcane as redistricting.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Chris, I do support redistricting reform. It is a blatant conflict of interest for legislators to draw their own districts.
Having said that, republican disunity has doomed almost every redistricting effort in the last 20 years. (And just watch…well meaning Republicans will oppose the CRA-Schwarzenegger-Common Cause redistricting effort this time too)
We need a number of reforms to make our state government more effective and redistricting reform and a spending cap are right at the top of the list.
And Leslie, the Republicans in Washington managed to lose our majority in spite of our current redistricting in California…not because of it.
In a recent post on the FlashReport, a former congressman and leading conservative activist bemoaned the fact that without a redistricting reform California could lose 4-6 congressional seats because Democrats will control the governorship and the legislature in 2011.
While I may disagree that they will control the governorship, his comments do raise an interesting question…If the dems control the entire process in 2011 and that could lead to the loss of 4-6 congressional seats, then why did we not lose those seats in the 2001 redistricting when democrats were in total control.
It is because the Republican leadership in the legislature and the congress made decisions that were in the best interest of the party.