By Douglas V. Gibbs
Promising national implications, Measures C, D, and E in Murrieta, California passed overwhelmingly on November 2nd. Measure C imposes Term Limits upon the elected officials in the city, while D and E limit monetary compensation to members of the city council, and administrative officials, respectively. The opposition has called the new ordinances a danger to the safety of the city, and special interest driven. However, the opposition to the measures was funded and supported by unions, and backed by all of the members of the City Council, and the City Manager.
In a debate one of the city council members went so far as to call the initiatives "socialist." Reality dictates that socialism is control by the government, while the three measures were an attempt by the voters to gain control of the government.
When determining the importance of initiatives like Measures C, D, and E, it is imperative that we understand what the Founding Fathers thought about term limits, and how much compensation they felt was reasonable for our public officials.
The United States Constitution serves as one of our windows into recognizing the wisdom of the ages that the founders of this nation had tapped into. One of the tendencies in the U.S. Constitution is to list things in order of level of power, or in order of importance. With that in mind, it is interesting that Article II, which establishes the Executive Branch, begins with term limits.
Britain's King had no term limit. He ruled until death. The Founding Fathers, knowing that a failure to limit the time in office of our public officials could lead to a power hungry tyrant that has no concerns regarding the people's will, established the Presidency with limits on time in office. The President, according to the U.S. Constitution, is limited to a four year term. However, the Founders were not overly concerned with reelections because the electoral process would serve to limit the terms of the President. During that time period the public officials also differed from those of today. The statesmen did not endeavor to become career politicians. Their honor, and their lives outside political office, also served as a kind of term limit against a continuous string of back to back to back terms in office. However, as the scope and power of the federal government changed, after Franklin Delano Roosevelt (and student of socialist fascism) served well into a fourth term, the 22nd Amendment was proposed and ratified, which placed an additional term limit on the presidency, limiting the executive office to being held by the same person to no more than two terms, or ten years.
Those that challenge the wisdom of term limits must consider that at the federal level there is now a move towards also imposing term limits upon congressional and judicial positions. In Washington, lifelong politicians are currently allowed to represent lobbyists based in Washington DC more than voters back home because of no limits to their power to stay in Washington DC. Term limits for legislators would also allow a greater variety in the House and Senate, rather than a lifelong office just for the political elitists who see themselves more as rulers, than as servants to the people. Reading the writings of the Founding Fathers it becomes apparent that what the Founders had in mind was for average American citizens, not aristocrats, to serve for a few short years, then return home to live under the legislation they were a part of initiating and passing into law. When it comes to the judiciary, and what seems to be an emerging judicial oligarchy, the alarming facts are that since 1970, the average Supreme Court Justice tenure has risen from approximately 15 years to over 25 years, and until 2006, no new Justice had joined the Supreme Court in over ten years.
The key to imposing term limits on the professional politicians is to begin at the local level, where the incumbency has become a tool for staying in office, and dominating city politics. Measure C in Murrieta allows elected officials to serve only two consecutive terms. After two terms, the individual may, after taking a break, run in the next election - but the key is they will not be able to use the incumbency as a tool to be elected, and their absence allows for new candidates to be elected to council.
When it comes to monetary compensation to our elected officials, the opinion of the Founding Fathers rings most clear in Benjamin Franklin's words between the time of the Virginia and New Jersey Plans. Benjamin Franklin had prepared a speech, which his colleague James Wilson delivered, in support of a motion providing that the nation would pay for the presidents' expenses but that they "shall receive no salary, stipend fee or reward whatsoever for their services." The belief of the Founding Fathers is that though there should be some kind of compensation for an individual's services to the nation, the compensation should not be so great that it becomes the motivation for office. This truth is especially important at the local level where the prevailing belief is that it takes high salaries to lure the better candidates. However, such compensations also lures corruption, as it did in the City of Bell in California, where the compensation for serving was increased continuously to the point of what was considered by many as being criminal levels.
When this issue arises, the question often is, "Shouldn't these people be serving for the purpose of what they believe is best for their local government, not necessarily what is best for their pocketbook?" When one considers the benefit packages that are often available, it becomes apparent that the part time position of city council member provides more than a little pocket change. In the case of a City Manager, which the Murrieta City Council calls the CEO of the city, the compensation, prior to the passage of Measure E, pays more to the city manager of that city of 100,000 people than does the pay for the general in charge of the wars against Islamic terror, more than the governor of California, and even more than the Vice President of the United States.
Does the City Manager truly deserve that kind of pay?
As for the argument that reducing the pay for the City Manager will decrease the pay for other city personnel, placing safety at risk, one must realize that in the face of these initiatives, the Murrieta Police Chief, though not required by Measure E to do so, has agreed to a 5% pay reduction.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
MURRIETA: Police chief agrees to pay reduction: PROPOSAL WOULD SAVE CITY MORE THAN $7,000 - North County Times/Californian
Private Citizen Gets Intimidated by Labor Unions & His Local Newspaper - Rick Amato Show
No comments:
Post a Comment