Mayor Bloomberg is fighting for a third term, and may want a fourth, too

From the Daily News NY Local

Mayor Bloomberg swore he wouldn't run for a third term - and then he did. He recently promised he wouldn't seek a fourth term, but Thursday wouldn't rule that out either.

Asked if he'd be interested in making it 16 years at City Hall, Bloomberg responded, "The law does not permit it."

That's true - but it's also true that the limit was two four-year terms before he made a massive push to get the City Council to change the rules, even though voters twice said two terms were all a mayor should get.

The Council approved the change in October, giving him the green light to run again after years of him saying term limits were a great way to keep government fresh.

"Let me point out that I had no intention of running for a [third] term up until near the end, as you know. City Council changed the law," Bloomberg said after the kickoff for a new public service program.

"It's up to the voters whether they want four more years.

"I'm going to work as hard as I can for this city for the next 150-odd days, and campaign as hard as I can for the next 96- or 97-odd days, and if the public wants me to keep working, they have a chance to express that on Nov. 3."

Later Thursday, Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser pointed out that the mayor in June said he won't seek a fourth term - "period."

Notably, it was Loeser who, back in January 2008, insisted: "The mayor is absolutely not seeking a third term."

It wasn't a point that went unnoticed by Bloomberg's Democratic opponent for the mayoralty, City Controller William Thompson.

"No one has less credibility than Mike Bloomberg when it comes to discussing to term limits," Thompson spokesman Mike Murphy said. "Remember, it was the mayor and his billionaire buddies that led the charge to overturn term limits and ignore the will of the people."

ckatz@nydailynews.com

Vote for term limits for politicians now

From the Hattiesburg American

U.S. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., has been a breath of fresh air. His approach at levity during hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor was as welcome as were his thought-provoking questions to Judge Sotomayor and his commentary to and about her.

When will the American voting public become sufficiently weary of many of the tired and old and intellectually and socially irresponsible, midget-minded senators who determine everything from what I eat and the price I pay for it to what I am able to view and listen to, to where my clothes will be produced, to whether I shall have to reluctantly support the killing of people in war and otherwise ... and finally who manage to discover fault with almost everyone except themselves?

Quite frankly, I am tired of Sens. Arlen Specter, Charles Schumer, Patrick Leahy, Jon Kyl, Charles Grassley, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Sessions and Orrin Hatch - all of whom appear possessed with positioning themselves for the next election and who appear unconcerned with discharging their duties as representatives of the people.

Vote term limits now!

Joseph R. Miller

Jackson

Term limits needed for elected offices

From the Hattiesburg American

In recent opinions, Mr. Ramsey and Mr. Upchurch are both right. We need to replace our current politicians who toe the party lines to the detriment of us all.

But unless we demand term limits for elected office, we will be right back here a few years down the road facing the same problem.

I would like to submit that the problems our country faces will never be resolved when our leaders from day one are far more concerned about being re-elected than doing anything we sent them there to do. That's our fault for not demanding that they leave after two terms.

We make that demand of our presidents but not our Congress who controls the purse strings of the nation. We have 535 people in Congress with unlimited credit cards who are answerable to no one!

The Founding Fathers never intended for professional politicians to run our country and dictate our choices to us. We must take back our country from the career politicians who are spending us into a black hole.

Why don't we do just that next year? Vote against every incumbent who has severed two or more terms and insist on a constitutional amendment to establish a limit of two terms for each office.

With term limits we'll get the government of the people, by the people, and for the people that the Founding Fathers envisioned and our nation desperately needs.

Donald Bradford

Petal

New York state reform agenda is gaining some momentum in Albany

By JOSEPH GRIFFO
Utica Observer-Dispatch

Back in the spring of 2007, when I was called a rookie, I introduced legislation that would put term limits on the top leadership posts in the Legislature. Some called it a “long-shot” idea; many long-time legislators and cynics snickered.

But guess what? The state Senate now has a new rule that limits terms in office for powerful leadership positions to eight years. That is a major step at breaking the culture that had grown up around Albany where a few people held all the power. There is still power, but there are more people who get to share in it, and that’s good.

Last fall, Senate Democrats campaigned on the issue of reform, yet they failed to deliver it until Senate Republicans forced their hand to enact the reforms we proposed last month. They talked about “one New York.” Unfortunately, their “one New York” ended in the Bronx as they repeatedly ignored the needs of upstate.

When I co-sponsored a bill (S.5088) to equalize staffing for all members, regardless of party, I was chided for backing a going-nowhere bill. Now, we have a Senate where members have far more equality than in the old top-down days that made Albany a synonym for dysfunction.

However, what once was unthinkable is still not enough. The bill I proposed in 2007 that was re-introduced this year (S.3139) goes beyond a rules change and makes those limits the law for both chambers. Equality in staffing needs to be uniform and be put into law so that a fair system can grow instead of the hard-line partisan gridlock.

We can’t pass one bill to fully fix the Albany process because it is so fundamentally flawed. It is time to tear up this mess and start over. That’s why I introduced my bill (S.6093) to call for a state constitutional convention that can fix the structural flaws in the Legislature and in the rules that govern vacancies for elected positions so that there can be no more appointments to statewide offices and no more backroom dealing.

Reform is Job One. We cannot change the product of Albany’s work without changing the process. Spending and taxation will remain out of control as long as there is a way to take the people’s business into the back room. The rules changes that make it easier to bring bills to the floor is part of the solution. Instead of a process designed to bottle up ideas until there is a done deal, we may now have a more open, involved and exciting process where all of us, regardless of party affiliation, can work with one another to bring ideas to the floor.

I am not finished. Since 2007, I have advocated for reform, and I continue to urge my fellow legislators of both parties and in both houses, as well as the governor, to support my broad reform agenda from legislative and political issues to budget reforms:

• S.6060, to create a mechanism for recall that will remind Albany the people, not the politicians, are in charge.
• S.6067, which puts a process in place to fill the office of lieutenant governor and allows the Legislature, as the voice of the people, to be part of the process.
• S.2929 and S.2930, to create special elections for statewide offices of comptroller and attorney general when they become vacant.
• S. 3138, to enact term limits for the governor, attorney general and comptroller.
• S.8738 would place limitations on the amount of money that the governor may propose to spend in a given fiscal year.
• S.4618, to create an independent budget office to provide objective, nonpartisan analyses of state revenues, expenditures and management practices.
• S.8198 would establish a temporary commission to study reducing the number of public authorities in the state.
• S.6358-A, to require each state agency, covered authority and the Judiciary to make public an expenditure report itemizing all cash disbursements made during the appropriate reporting period.
• S.5899 would establish the resultsNY.gov Web site to provide information about specific indicators to help the public determine how individual government programs are performing regionally and nationally in critical areas, including the economy, education, public safety, energy, health, housing and the environment.

Changes are coming, but not far enough or fast enough. I hope that the recent changes are the start of even greater reforms. As a member of the Senate Temporary Commission on Rules Reform, I will continue to advocate and advance ideas for change. I urge the public, the media and all elected officials to focus our energies on fixing this system – and fixing it now.

Joseph Griffo is a Republican state senator representing the 47th District.

East Bay state senator reopens term-limit reform debate

An East Bay state senator is leading a bipartisan effort to revamp term limits for California legislators.

State Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, introduced a state constitutional amendment that would reduce the number of years one can serve in the Legislature from 14 years to 12 but extend the amount of time one can serve in each chamber — that is, the 12 years total could be three four-year state Senate terms, six two-year Assembly terms or any combination thereof.

Lawmakers currently can serve no more than two four-year terms in the state Senate and three two-year terms in the Assembly; all current and former lawmakers would still be bound by these limits set by Proposition 140 of 1990.

The new rules would take effect with those elected to office in November 2010.

That's a major difference between this and last year's Proposition 93, which would've made the same term-limit changes but would've "grandfathered" current lawmakers into extended terms.

That proposition was derided as a power grab by then-incumbents such as state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles; 53.6 percent of voters defeated that measure.

State Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, and state Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, have signed on as the Hancock amendment's co-authors. It'll require two-thirds votes of both Legislative chambers to be placed on the ballot for voter approval.

"If anything has demonstrated the need to revise the term-limits law, it is certainly the disastrous budget process we have been going through," Hancock said in her news release.

"Increasingly, inexperienced legislators are dealing with increasingly complex challenges and a dysfunctional governance system," she said. "The existing term limits don't allow legislators the time and stability to develop the expertise and hands-on legislative experience to forge positive solutions for the very big challenges facing California."

Hancock said the amendment follows the recommendations of the 1996 California Constitution Revision Commission.

Martha Montelongo, who helped lead the opposition to Proposition 93, said it's amazing to her that lawmakers would suggest this given the public's overwhelming lack of confidence in them.

Amid a fiscal crisis, she said, asking for more time in office is "not very inspiring."

Weekend News

Citizens who changed the face of Knox County government by successfully suing to enforce term limits and sunshine laws were recently hit with a combined $33,000 in unexpected court costs.

"Almost everyone thinks if you win a case, then the loser pays for it," said Bee DeSelm, one of 18 plaintiffs who were recently assessed court costs. "We eventually did win and got charged for all of the cases we had going up to the Supreme Court. We think it is wrong and something needs to be done."

When Obama was campaigning, he promised to cut taxes for those making less than $250,000 annually. Some have had a tax cut but not everyone he promised. He said he would raise rich people's taxes, large corporations and oil companies' taxes. When corporations are taxed, who pays these taxes -- the ones who use their products. People pay about 50 percent of their income for taxes now. Mostly through hidden taxes.

Senator Joseph A. Griffo (R-I-C, Rome) today voiced pleasure with Senate action to implement rules reforms he introduced in 2007.

Griffo believes that the major push for rules reforms began as a member of the bi-partisan Temporary Senate Committee on Rules Reforms who made many recommendations that were included in the adopted changes. “ My Republican colleagues and I took up the fight for significant reform when it became clear that the other side was looking to avoid changes and were only for modest reforms.” said Griffo.

The federal government has been spending more than it takes in for years. On occasion, we’ve run a surplus. We have been taught and brainwashed over the years that as long as it stays within limits, it’s OK. To date the total deficit spending is approximately $11.5 trillion before what’s currently being talked about, the $787 billion stimulus, a $1+ plus trillion annual deficit, $1.6 plus trillion in health and another $2 trillion in cap and trade.

Charles Mann, who made an unsuccessful run for City Council in 2008, is proposing term limits for San Clemente’s elected officials. At the July 7 City Council meeting, Mann said limiting the terms of elected officials to eight years would be in the best interest of residents.

Term limits would put legislators' focus on the people

From The Eagle Tribune

It is time for term limits — not just on the presidency, but on elective offices at every level.

Past time, actually. I know it's an idea that has been floated — in some cases adopted — over the decades. I know that in California, one of the few states where it exists, it is not held in universally high regard.

I know its chances in Massachusetts are slim and none, since it is almost always promoted by those who are seeking office, not those holding it.

It was, after all, the Merrimack Valley's own Martin Meehan who famously said he'd limit himself to eight years as a congressman, and then move either up or out. But that was before he got elected. Once he cleared that hurdle, he "grew," "evolved" and had an epiphany: He would be cheating his constituents of his experience, expertise and influence if he kept his promise.

Ironically, he didn't seem all that worried a few years later about cheating his constituents when he got the chance for the big bucks with no heavy lifting, as president of UMass Lowell.

But at least term limits is once again a gleam in somebody's eye — even that of an elected official.

The Massachusetts Republican Party is considering an initiative petition calling for it, and a sitting legislator — Rep. Karyn Polito, R-Shrewsbury — has filed a bill to amend the state constitution to set a limit of 12 years for a given office.

Like I said, its chances are slim and none.

But it ought to be a layup. Not because term limits will magically fix everything that is wrong with government. But government is really, truly broken. And curbing the entrenched political career is one substantive step toward bringing back representative government.

Right now, elected officials rarely represent the people. They represent their people, which is to say, government employees.

And because of that symbiotic relationship, the powers of incumbency are virtually insurmountable. Elected officials roll over for the public employee unions — the recent focus on unconscionable perks for those in the public sector is proof of that — and the unions in turn make sure those officials stay in office.

Public employees are the ones, after all, who have enough time off to knock on doors, hold signs on street corners, lobby at the Statehouse and get the loyalist troops to the polls.

The rest of us are too busy trying to make a living so we can pay for all this.

This has turned the "career in public service" into a career of being served by the public. The "servant" has become the master.

Things are upside down, broken by any logical measure.

If elected officials knew there was a limit on their time in office, there is at least a chance that they would think more about what is best for the entire state, because they would know they would be rejoining the private sector at some point.

Of course, there are arguments against term limits. I've heard them all, and they are persuasive only to those who want a broken system to stay broken.

One is Meehan's theory, that it would be foolish to throw out all the experience and expertise.

The reality is that it doesn't take long for a new legislator to get up to speed. What is more significant is that most newly elected officials storm into office vowing to change the system, and then the system changes them.

Longevity rarely makes legislators better. It just makes them more entrenched. Regular turnover would counter that a bit.

The majority of the private sector recognizes this. It is rare, except in cases where a business is family owned, for the same CEO to remain for life, or even for a decade. Change is good — new blood means new, fresh thinking — and nobody thinks a new person coming in is going to need four years to be able to do the job effectively.

Look at the most powerful elective office in the country. In the view of President Barack Obama's adoring supporters, he's done a brilliant job just in his first six months. No need for the continued experience and expertise of George W. Bush.

Then there's the argument that it would be undemocratic to block citizens from electing their rep or senator as many times as they want.

No, it wouldn't. Not if the people vote for term limits. That's perfectly democratic.

If term limits are so bad, why do we have them on the president? If lifetime legislators are so good for us, why not a lifetime president? We can elect somebody different anytime we want, right?

Fortunately, that delusion was exposed by the tenure of FDR. It would lead to an imperial presidency. At the lower levels, it has delivered a "political class" that is both more powerful and wealthier than its servants in the private sector.

At the least, term limits would give us more diversity in government. And all we hear from our legislators is how much they favor diversity, right?

When it comes to them, not so much, I'm afraid.

Taylor Armerding is associate editorial page editor of The Eagle-Tribune. He may be reached at 978-946-2213 or at tarmerding@eagletribune.com. Read him daily at The Soapbox, the Eagle-Tribune blog at blogs.eagletribune.com/soapbox

Two from GOP take on Baird

From The News Tribune

Two Republicans have jumped into an uphill race for Washington’s 3rd Congressional District against six-term Democratic Rep. Brian Baird in 2010.

Jon Russell, a Washougal city councilman who previously lobbied at the state Capitol against gay rights, and David Castillo, a former federal employee and state House Republican Caucus staff director, say they disagree with Baird on a range of issues including the federal economic stimulus and a cap-and-trade bill that is aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions linked to global warming.

Both say they are getting in early – far earlier than other recent Baird challengers – in a bid to win name familiarity and raise the money they will need to overcome Baird’s considerable financial edge. Baird had almost $579,000 in cash on hand as of March 31, and he says he’ll raise more if he needs it.

Both challengers and the National Republican Congressional Committee question Baird’s decision in 2008 to lead a House committee’s fact-finding trip at taxpayer expense to the Galapagos Islands, off Ecuador.

The trip cost $22,000 for Baird, four other lawmakers and their family members, according to a recent Wall Street Journal story that said congressional junkets were almost 10 times more expensive since 1995 and 50 percent higher since Democrats took control of Congress two years ago.

“There are a lot of us that worry about our jobs. We worry about paying for our mortgages, and here we see our political leaders out living the good life on our dime,” Russell said in an interview last week, equating the trips overseas with a “culture of debt” he thinks is entrenched in Washington, D.C.

“If I’m elected, I’m only going to serve three terms and then I am out. I believe in term limits, and I will self-impose term limits on myself,” Russell said. He drew a contrast between that pledge and Baird’s June 2008 trip, which Baird said was relevant to his committee work on ocean acidification and global warming.

Castillo, who works as a financial adviser and is from East Olympia, also questioned Baird’s trip but was surprised to see the story about it revived a year after it first drew criticism.

“We’re in tough economic times. Just the visuals of that look bad. Especially as a West Coast member of Congress, the taxpayers spend a lot of money flying him back and forth to Washington, D.C. I don’t know if it makes sense to fly him to the Galapagos … I don’t know if it had to do with global warming or not,’’ Castillo said, adding that “Whether it’s fair to hammer Brian for this, that can be debated.”

Baird declined to comment to the Journal for its article, but a year ago, Baird told The Olympian the trip was purposeful. He said he served as the chairman of a subcommittee that deals with energy and environmental issues, including ocean-acidification problems that have links to climate change.

Baird said those issues also are of concern to oyster growers in the 3rd District, and that he also has traveled to an atmospheric and ocean lab in Florida, to the Interuniversity Institute for Marine Studies at Eilat, Israel, and to the Great Barrier Reef. “I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about issues in our country and world that are not getting enough attention. Ocean health is one of them,” he said at the time.

Last week, Baird added that the trip was organized by the chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology, who could not go and turned to Baird to lead the trip as chairman of the subcommittee on energy and the environment. He said the $22,000 covered the five committee members’ costs and that his wife’s expenses were paid by his family, except for travel on a military plane that was on a “space-available” basis.

Castillo is winning backing of big names such as state Attorney General Rob McKenna. He also is endorsed by South Sound Republicans such as Sen. Dan Swecker and Reps. Gary Alexander and Richard DeBolt.

Russell, 33, is just getting his campaign under way. He is the former executive director of the evangelical Faith & Freedom Network, and he served as a key lobbyist against adding legal rights for same-sex couples earlier this decade. He quit that job a couple of years ago to run a health-care clinic.

Although he stands by his social-issues stances, Russell said they are not a big part of this campaign, which he thinks is more about changing the culture of the Congress and controlling spending. Russell said he wants to see a balanced-budget amendment to limit congressional outlays.

Russell also questions the effectiveness of the federal economic-stimulus package, and he wants health-care reform that encourages experimentation by local nonprofit and charity groups. Russell opposes the cap-and-trade bill, calling it a tax increase, and he said he doesn’t think humans are causing global warming.

Castillo, 41, is running based on the economy and what he considers an “assault on the American taxpayer that is occurring right now” under President Barack Obama. He called the $787 billion economic stimulus a “monstrosity that hasn’t stimulated anything except government,” and he ripped ongoing efforts to expand national health-care coverage with a public-sector option as a form of “socialized medicine.’’

Castillo said the cap-and-trade legislation, which would cap carbon-fuel emissions and establish a permit system for polluters, actually is a tax that hits small business and will limit manufacturing growth in the 3rd district. He said the U.S. should not restrict carbon dioxide emissions, adding that India and China won’t restrict their emissions, and he questions whether the planet is warming or cooling.

Castillo, a Lewis County native, tells on his Web site how he was raised by a single mother and encouraged to get an education. He has a background in the federal government, having served as a deputy assistant secretary of the Veterans Administration and with Homeland Security, as well as the chief of staff for the state House Republican Caucus.

Baird, 53, said he is not yet worried by the challenge but takes every election and challenger seriously. He said his focus is to work for the district and noted successes such as winning a sales-tax deduction for Washington residents on their federal tax returns.

He defended his vote for a cap-and-trade bill that would cap carbon-fuel emissions, likely raising costs for those fuels. Baird said he “led the effort” in Congress to take out language from the cap-and-trade bill that would have prohibited the counting of byproducts from pulp and paper or from wood from diseased forest from being counted as alternative, biomass fuels.

The congressman said his opponents’ skepticism about global warming puts them “at odds with the vast majority of scientific opinion in the world, and (they) are either not informed or not concerned by the ocean acidification.”

Baird had misgivings about the cap-and-trade bill and said he thinks a straight tax on the carbon content in fuels is a better way to deal with global warming and reduce foreign-oil dependence. He said he would use funds raised from a carbon tax to reduce federal deficits; he also would cap federal spending without a budget amendment.

Baird supported the stimulus package and asked how his opponents could question money put into increased unemployment benefits, health-care help to those who lost jobs, foreclosure help, aid to help employ displaced workers and money for food banks. He said debt is real, but most of it was added in the eight years of the Bush administration.

About health care, Baird said he supports efforts to expand coverage for all Americans but that he wants to be sure any public or nonprofit insurance option is not unfairly subsidized.

Lawmakers’ eyes widen at term limit vacancies

From The Las Vegas Sun

CARSON CITY — Nevada voters who passed term limits in the 1990s might have imagined it would bring a clean sweep of veteran politicians from office. What they’re likely to get will instead look more like musical chairs.

Nearly a dozen Assembly members are considering running for seats in the state Senate that will be vacated by incumbents in 2010 because of term limits. At least one senator forced out by term limits is seriously considering running for a seat in the Assembly.

Lawmakers moving from the lower house to the upper might prevent sweeping change from descending on the state in 2011, when the Legislature next meets, but it also could soften the impact of lost institutional knowledge.

The moves will create a host of open Assembly seats, as lawmakers abandon the safe perch of incumbency in the hope of moving to the state’s upper house.

The primary election isn’t until June 2010. But candidates are now laying the groundwork, approaching potential supporters and donors and trying to figure out the field.

National term limit advocates say politicians changing offices is to be expected. “It’s very common for lower house members to run for the upper house,” said Philip Blumel, president of the national advocacy group U.S. Term Limits.

Most of the 15 states with term limits have an eight-year limit per legislative body — Nevada’s is 12 — and the goal is to prevent incumbents from being entrenched, Blumel said. Even if office holders are swapping places, it’s likely to give voters a choice, he said.

“Term limits are successful when there are open, competitive elections,” Blumel said.

Sig Rogich, a Republican political consultant who helped pass term limits in the 1990s, said he wasn’t bothered by the rush of Assembly members eyeing seats in the state Senate.

“You’re not going to see that many of them,” he said. “And some of them are going to lose.”

Indeed, some races could pit multiple Assembly members against one another, while other races have also drawn the interest of local elected officials who would be competitive candidates.

Voters approved the term limit amendment in 1994 and a second time, as required by the state constitution, in 1996. It limits members of the Assembly to six two-year terms and state senators to three four-year terms.

The 2010 election will be the first in which term limits will prevent state legislators from seeking reelection.

The stakes are high for both Republicans and Democrats. In 2008 Democrats wrested control of the Senate from Republicans and won a veto-proof, two-thirds majority in the Assembly.

Moderate Republicans, led by veteran state Sen. Bill Raggio, used as leverage the two Republican votes Democrats needed in the Senate to pass a tax increase. Raggio demanded that Democrats set a ceiling on new revenue, have most of the added taxes sunset in 2011 and make changes to public employee pensions, benefits and collective bargaining.

Democrats were frustrated that because of their reliance on Republican support in the Senate they could only work around the margins instead of bringing structural change to the state’s tax system. To avoid a repeat, the party has made picking up two more Senate seats a priority.

In the Assembly, the 14 Republicans were largely irrelevant because Democrats didn’t need their votes.

Assembly Minority Leader Heidi Gansert conceded that Republicans must come up with plenty of candidates. “We are going to work very hard to get to 15,” she said.

In the Assembly, 10 of 42 seats will be open. In the Senate, seven of 21 seats will be open because of term limits, and another will lose its incumbent because Sen. Warren Hardy, R-Las Vegas, resigned after the session.

Term-limited senators aren’t as interested in moving to the Assembly, something Blumel sees nationally. “The seats aren’t as prestigious; you have to run for office more often,” he said.

Sen. Maggie Carlton, who said she’s “pretty much decided” to run to replace term-limited Democratic Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, is the exception. She said she sees little difference between the two houses of the Legislature.

“There’s still a lot more work I want to do,” she said.

The Senate races that Assembly members are eyeing include:

• Clark County No. 2: held by Sen. Maggie Carlton, D-Las Vegas. Assemblyman Mo Denis, D-Las Vegas, said he is considering a run for the seat.
   
• Clark County No. 7: held by state Sen. Terry Care. Assemblywoman Kathy McClain and Assemblyman Mark Manendo, both Las Vegas Democrats, are considering running for the seat.
   
• Clark County No. 10: held by Sen. Bob Coffin. Las Vegas Democratic Assemblymen Ruben Kihuen and Tick Segerblom both said they are considering the seat, but Segerblom would have to move into the district.
• Washoe County No. 1: held by Sen. Bernice Matthews, D-Reno. Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, is considering running for the seat.
   
• Washoe County No. 2: held by Sen. Maurice Washington, R-Sparks. Assemblymen Don Gustavson, R-Reno, and Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks, are considering running for the seat.
   
• Washoe County No. 4: held by Sen. Randolph Townsend, R-Reno. Assemblyman Ty Cobb is considering running for the seat, but would have to move into the district.
   
• Capital District: held by Sen. Mark Amodei. Assemblyman James Settelmeyer, R-Gardnerville, is considering a run for the seat.

Commentary: Don't extend term limits
Michigan's 'citizen Legislature' works just fine
Rep. Tom McMillin

From The Detroit News 

There is yet another attempt afoot by politicians in Lansing to undermine the will of Michigan voters by changing -- and extending -- term limits.

The arguments of these politicians are usually centered on this notion that "institutional knowledge" is lost when state representatives can "only" stay six years or state senators "only" eight years. Many claim that by the time they figure out how Lansing works, they are term-limited.

Let's analyze this. If you are fortunate enough to get a new job in this economy, could you in good faith turn to your boss and say, "You know, it may take me a few years to figure out how to do my job?" I don't think very many would take that risk. But those who do would likely be out of a job pretty quickly.

I can tell you as a freshman state representative that, with a little effort and some God-given knowledge, figuring out "how Lansing works" doesn't take very long. We need legislators who aren't looking for excuses to be able to do their job. They just need to make the tough decisions necessary to rightsize our burdensome government. Besides, the "institutional knowledge" excuse makes it appear that legislators are being run by the "institution" known as Lansing bureaucrats. The fact is that the men and women we send to Lansing, our representatives, should tell the bureaucrats how things are going to be done to best serve our citizens, not the other way around. Yes, this takes leadership. Surely that's not too much to ask of our elected leaders.

Thanks to term limits, the purpose of democracy is preserved. All citizens are assured that a spirited primary and/or general election will regularly give them good alternatives.

Because of term-limits, the days where a few long-serving legislators are powerful kings and princes are gone. Gone are the days when long-serving politicians always get 95 percent of PAC and lobbyist campaign money and get re-elected 99 percent of the time. Very few current legislators would be serving in Lansing if it weren't for the current term-limits law.

Term limits have helped our state to bring in fresh blood, keep government honest and allow for the free flow of new ideas. It would be a shame to change that now, when new ideas are needed most. Term limits keep Lansing a "citizen's Legislature," and I firmly believe that we need to keep our current term-limits law in place.

State Rep. Tom McMillin, R- Rochester Hills, is in his first term representing Michigan's 45th Legislative district.