Author Topic: Legislature Term Limit Increase (Read 2664 times)

bk09 · « **on:** November 04, 2012, 10:54:39 PM »

Anybody want to inform me of the positives and negatives of this proposed amendment to Nebraska? Would this be beneficial to firearm owners by keeping helpers on board or would it be more detrimental by keeping hoplophobes around? I want to make informed decisions on Tuesday. A list of Douglas county pro gunners would be beneficial too. Thanks.

wallace11bravo · « **Reply #1 on:** November 04, 2012, 11:07:45 PM »

I would be interested in hearing both sides of this as well. I've long since been torn about term limits.

00BUCK · « **Reply #2 on:** November 04, 2012, 11:23:03 PM »

I really have no interests in 12 more years of Ernie Q Public. It sickens me that he can run now that he sat out a term.
Personally I think our term limits should be 2 terms PERIOD.
I'm not sure why I live in a state that can rarely do anything right.

Lorimor · « **Reply #3 on:** November 05, 2012, 07:04:17 AM »

I like term limits. Helps bust up the "old boys network."

bullit · « **Reply #4 on:** November 05, 2012, 07:09:59 AM »

Our Founding Fathers never intended to have "career politicians". George Washington (our first POTUS for those of you in Rio Linda) is our best example of an elected official who said it was time to go back to be a "CITIZEN" (emphasis mine)......
With regards to the increase in pay issue Amendment... I'm personally in favor of NO pay. Keeps'em honest (and likely discourages the life time careers).

AAllen · « **Reply #5 on:** November 05, 2012, 08:39:29 AM »

Term limits - The people supporting the increase say that we loose to much institutional knowledge, that it take a Senator 2 years just to learn how things work before they become effective. To a degree they are correct. They also talk about the fact that a good candidate can beat an incumbent that is failing to represent his district, an example is Scott Price who defeated an ineffective incumbent.

Those opposed point out the fact this was decided and put into effect by the people, and there has been no outcry from the people to make a change. The only people who have been asking for it are the Senators and many of the Lobbyists who work with them.

The NFOA-PAF has not taken a position on this issue because we see both sides to the argument and both are correct. It is to bad we are loosing a strong supporter like Tony Fulton (who only served 6 years but because of the way things are figured was a couple of days over half a term), but it does force the Senators to get up to speed quickly and helps get rid of some of those that keep getting reelected that are opposed to what the majority of the state supports.

AAllen · « **Reply #6 on:** November 05, 2012, 08:57:40 AM »

The question that has been raised about Senator Pay, The current pay of $12,000 per year was set back in the 1980's and though there have been several attempts to increase it over time those have all failed. This is me personally, I have not had a conversation with the other principals of the NFOA-PAF on this issue. It would be nice if we could have quality representatives who could work for free. But realistically that is not the truth. With the low pay level the only people who can afford to serve as State Senators are retirees (usually receiving a public pension), lawyers who's practice makes enough that they can be away from it for some time, or those that are employed by interests that pay people to be elected officials (talk about being in the pocket of a special intrest group, and we have several).

Even with the long and short sessions Senators end up working somewhere between 6-9 months of the year on legislative issues. Yes they are not in session all of that, but they are taking meetings with people like me who are trying to get them to introduce legislation. Helping apply pressure to State Agencies to do their work in accordance with the law, and just doing what needs to be done to assist their constituents with their issues.

I don't know about you but I could not take 6-9 months of the year away from my job and pay my mortgage and feed my family. So by having the pay at such a low level we are limiting ourselves on who we can elect because there are a lot of people that would make great Senators that do not run because their family's need their income. We have even had a couple recently step down for this issue, they were elected and after a couple of years they were in such financial trouble they needed to leave the legislature to get back to work earning an income for their family's.

This increase only moves they $12000 a year up to where it would be today if the Senators had been given cost of living increases each of the years since the $12000 a year wage was set. In other words the 12,000 they got in 1980 dollars are only equivalent to the $24000 this would bring them up to in todays dollars.

I would think that this is an issue that each of us needs to think about carefully, and vote your personal beliefs on. But take some time and think about it, it is a lot more complicated than it appears on it's face.

RobertH · « **Reply #7 on:** November 05, 2012, 09:14:46 AM »

this is how i am voting. i am voting for the pay increase, but voting no on the term limits (two is enough). i am also voting for Amendment 2, to adding the right to hunt, fish, trap, etc to the state constitution.

i don't care if you differ, but that my POV. also, DON'T FORGET TO VOTE TOMORROW!!!!!!

AAllen · « **Reply #8 on:** November 05, 2012, 09:30:15 AM »

Quote from: RobertH on November 05, 2012, 09:14:46 AM

i don't care if you differ, but that my POV. also, DON'T FORGET TO VOTE TOMORROW!!!!!!

Robert that is the most important thing, I don't care if you agree or disagree with me. But I do want you to make certain that your voice is heard.

For info on legislative candidates check out the NFOA-PAF at www.NFOAPAF.org we id not get into a lot on down ballot races this year, only so much time to put into figuring these things out.

unfy · « **Reply #9 on:** November 05, 2012, 01:56:19 PM »

Others have stated it much more eloquently, but I'll concur -> term limits are a good thing in my humble opinion. Career politicians, or getting too comfy in their position, or possibly the longer you're there the higher chance of corruption, etc....

Yes, a third term does possibly allow for knowing a bit more about what you're getting with an incumbent, but ... that doesn't seem to matter to anyone hehehe

DaveB · « **Reply #10 on:** November 05, 2012, 04:28:18 PM »

I am voting no on the pay raise. It was designed in the beginning to be an honor to serve in the government, not a job. They have taken it to a new level thinking they are worth more than they are getting. Don't forget the paid expenses and other bennies they get after they serve their two terms. They are overpaid for what they do for us, what little they find the time to do, that is.

I am also voting to not extend term limits, they can't get anything done in two terms, why should we suffer through a third one. It is time to get people in government that are going to work for us, and not for their own securities. Our government is broken, and letting these losers stay in office is proof that they are the ones responsible for it.

You would be hard pressed to remember the name of the last senator that actually did something to help the people, they are that hard to remember.

00BUCK · « **Reply #11 on:** November 05, 2012, 05:44:59 PM »

Quote from: DaveB on November 05, 2012, 04:28:18 PM

You would be hard pressed to remember the name of the last senator that actually did something to help the people, they are that hard to remember.

Oh I dunno .... Tony Fulton SHOULD be remembered for a long time. I'd love to see him residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave one day.

pfinn · « **Reply #12 on:** November 05, 2012, 08:07:31 PM »

Term limits drive me nuts, they only exist to remove some one ELSE's representative from power. They taken discretion out of the hands of the voters when it comes to retaining good representatives.

If people are passionate that a change needs to be made, people should be more active in making that change happen.

00BUCK · « **Reply #13 on:** November 05, 2012, 08:45:37 PM »

Quote from: pfinn on November 05, 2012, 08:07:31 PM

Term limits drive me nuts, they only exist to remove some one ELSE's representative from power. They taken discretion out of the hands of the voters when it comes to retaining good representatives.

If people are passionate that a change needs to be made, people should be more active in making that change happen.

That would work if we got to vote for every senator. What doesn't work is Ernie Chambers or any other nutjob having a never ending job in Lincoln and becoming WAY too powerful. The only thing that stops that is term limits.

David Hineline · « **Reply #14 on:** November 05, 2012, 10:29:57 PM »

Term limits are a pointless futility, we have term limits every time we vote. For the life of me I do not know why they work but they do.

NENick · « **Reply #15 on:** November 05, 2012, 10:50:03 PM »

Quote from: pfinn on November 05, 2012, 08:07:31 PM

Term limits drive me nuts, they only exist to remove some one ELSE's representative from power. They taken discretion out of the hands of the voters when it comes to retaining good representatives.

If people are passionate that a change needs to be made, people should be more active in making that change happen.

Thank God we were able to get rid of Ernie for four years.

Waltherfan · « **Reply #16 on:** November 06, 2012, 09:44:42 AM »

IMHO term limits were passed to get rid of the one senator we couldn't vote out. Problem is we didn't add that they can't come back.

If the system is so complicated that it's difficult to learn in only two terms, then they should make it less complex. Simplify the system, make it more efficient (which it isn't) and then two terms will be plenty.

bullit · « **Reply #17 on:** November 06, 2012, 10:00:22 AM »

I'm in agreement with Waltherfan. There is this concept that elected office requires some sort of mysterious higher brain power. It ain't rocket science. Sadly, the American public has been duped time and again that the longer you serve the better more "intelligent" you are at deciding what is best for the masses. Again, our Founding Fathers left the oligarchy in England, and until FDR, career politicians were almost non-existent.

wallace11bravo · « **Reply #18 on:** November 06, 2012, 12:37:15 PM »

Quote from: bullit on November 05, 2012, 07:09:59 AM

Our Founding Fathers never intended to have "career politicians". George Washington (our first POTUS for those of you in Rio Linda) is our best example of an elected official who said it was time to go back to be a "CITIZEN" (emphasis mine)......
With regards to the increase in pay issue Amendment... I'm personally in favor of NO pay. Keeps'em honest (and likely discourages the life time careers).

Excellent point, and I do agree. Politics should be no one's career.

Quote from: David Hineline on November 05, 2012, 10:29:57 PM

Term limits are a pointless futility, we have term limits every time we vote. For the life of me I do not know why they work but they do.

Also a good point, and by enforcing term limits are we not limiting voter's options?

Still torn $:-\$

Sandhillian · « **Reply #19 on:** November 06, 2012, 02:11:35 PM »

I'm torn on the term limits issue. I think a great compromise here would have been to extend the limit to 3 terms, and add a prohibition to running again after having served 3 terms. Once you hit 3 terms there's no coming back, you can't sit out one election and then get a fresh set of 3.

On the pay increase for legislators, I would have to say that it's much needed and warranted. As Andy said, the low pay really limits who is able to serve as a legislator. There are several people that are unintentionally excluded from serving as a state senator based on finances. You shouldn't have to be retired or independently wealthy to run for and serve in the legislature. That also limits the institutional knowledge, culture, diversity, etc.