To the editor: Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both California Democrats, are an argument against term limits. In addition to how capable they are, longevity in either house of Congress gives representatives the committee assignments where they can most benefit their constituents. ("Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein shouldn't run again, majority of voters say," Nov. 8)
California is the largest source of tax revenue in the country, and the senators' seniority places them in a position to bring more of that revenue back home. Seniority brings familiarity with government, which enables Boxer and Feinstein to accomplish more.
In Sacramento, term limits have resulted in inaction over budgets, representatives lacking familiarity with how to move legislation, and more of a focus on running for another office than serving voters. Some recent changes in the voting laws and redistricting have helped, but the state was better run and better governed before term limits.
Michael Solomon, Canoga Park
To the editor: I hope some of the poll respondents who don't want California's U.S. senators to run for reelection will reconsider about Boxer, based on her record as one of the few senators smart and courageous enough to have voted against giving George W. Bush authority to attack Iraq. That war of choice and aggression based on misinformation is still wreaking havoc in the world.
If anyone running against Boxer can show a record of standing against such folly, let him or her campaign to unseat her. But for poll respondents to favor her leaving office
just because she has gained plenty of experience strikes me as just seeking novelty.
Guy Webster, Pasadena