Views on Term Limits

[GreatLife]

I am in support of term limits.  Just curious how everyone else feels about this topic.

This text was taken from a web site (http://wichitaliberty.org/politics/arguments-term-limits/) but I think it puts forth both the good and bad points about term limits.  I have reformatted the text for readability.

Anyone care to discuss?

Arguments for term limits

• With term limits in place, Congress will be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves. They will have to live under the laws they have created while in office.
  
• 
  Members of Congress will have less time in office to develop financially beneficial commitments to lobbyists and other special interest groups, thereby undermining the threat of lobbyists being a primary influence on legislation.
  
• 
  Since the time of the Founding Fathers, a general consensus states that people, when given power, will eventually be corrupted by it. If Congress has term limits in place, their power will also be limited. Candidates will be more likely to run for the purpose of serving the people, and they would have to leave office before corruption dominates their decisions.
  
• 
  Congress is heavily entrenched in partisan politics, resulting in gridlock when trying to pass any legislation. If term limits were enacted, toeing the party line would be less important, as the need for re-election and holding onto party seats would no longer be the driving force behind most legislative decisions. Congress would have an easier time passing the legislation that would make a positive difference for the nation.
  
• 
  Money is a major factor in who will win an election. Incumbents have the benefit of the profits they made while in power â€" plus the backing of their party, contributing organizations and special interests â€" to get re-elected. However, these wealthy incumbents are often not the best person for the job, as they are so far-removed from the daily realities of the American people. A middle class person who better understands the problems facing the average citizen is highly unlikely to get elected over a wealthy incumbent. Term limits will help to eliminate the shady, profitable relationships between members of Congress and special interest groups, and therefore reduce the wealth gap between candidates. In turn, more qualified people will have a real opportunity to win elections.
  
• 
  Within Congress, most legislation is written by a committee that handles a specific duty or topic. Committee appointments can be very prized positions for the power, influence and financial backing that can be attained. These positions are often assigned based on political favors and a willingness to support causes or projects. Therefore, career politicians who have formed the most self-serving relationships can often be given the most power in Congress. Term limits would work to stop this cycle of political reward and power abuse. Committee assignments would be determined by merit and expertise, resulting in fair and informed decisions.
  

The arguments against term limits

• Career politicians should be valued for their experience. If we regularly fill a Congressional office with a newcomer, we will lose the valuable experience on-the-job that person can offer in government.
  
• 
  On occasion, there may be a member of Congress that has fought for his constituents and resisted the corrupt system of power abuse that is considered normal on Capitol Hill. The Founding Fathers discussed the need for a “rotation of office.” When one’s terms are up in one office, that politician can run for another office (such as a member of the House running for Senator, Governor, etc.) and put their experience to use in other helpful ways.
  
• 
  The notion that only one person â€" the incumbent â€" can do the job well is absurd. Problematically, we continue to elect the incumbent because of name recognition and party affiliation rather than a proven track record. Realistically, there is usually someone just as qualified to take over the incumbent’s office.
  
• 
  Term limits are not necessary because members of Congress must be regularly re-elected. If they are not doing a good job in office, we can simply vote for someone else. While this would happen in an ideal world, historically the incumbent is re-elected 90% of the time. The playing field is simply not level between incumbents and challenging candidates because of the ability to raise money. In 2010, the average incumbent in the House raised around $1.4 million, while the challengers averaged $166,000. In the same year, Senate incumbents averaged $9.4 million for each campaign, while challengers raised $519,000. With that incredible discrepancy, it is no surprise that the incumbent usually prevails. If a member of Congress is limited to one or two terms, the party itself and other major donors would not invest nearly as much in an incumbent, giving challengers a better chance of winning the race.
  
• 
  Term limits would give more power to bureaucrats and lobbyists.  This argument is based in the notion that incoming legislators will be entirely unqualified for their jobs and will be easily led astray by staff, bureaucrats, special interests, etc. The way the system works today suggests that the real problem is in longevity of office and the complacency that can come along with it. For instance, lobbyists invest heavily in long-term relationships with sitting legislators. Congress members currently shirk many responsibilities by delegating them to bureaucratic agencies.
  
• 
  When more Congressional races are won by challengers from outside the Beltway, this change is likely to bring new staffers with new ideas into Washington, rather than recycling the same old corrupt insiders.

Are there other pros and cons that you can think of in support of term limits? 

[josephpalazzo]

If we didn't have gerrymandering, then I would oppose such term limits as incumbents would be defeated if they just don't deliver to their constituency. However, gerrymandering is here to stay for a very long time - what's needed is to reshuffle SCOTUS with judges that will strike down gerrymandering, and who knows when that will happen - so in the present context, I would go for term limits as a second best solution.

[widdershins]

I'm torn on the issue.  On the one hand, I want to get these people out of office before they become good at manipulating the system and make the contacts they need to make their fortunes after office, providing they voted the "right way" on given issues.  On the other hand, if a particular person is what the people want then that person is what the people should have.

I am VERY MUCH for term limits for the Supreme Court.  People who can't be removed from office, especially appointed people, should be limited to AT MOST 20 years of service.

[aitm]

I'm torn on the issue.  On the one hand, I want to get these people out of office before they become good at manipulating the system and make the contacts they need to make their fortunes after office

too late, that ship left the dock 50 years ago.

Letting people have the rep they want is easily skewed when the opposition has 1 dollar against 10,000. When every politico in the local backs the incumbent, when the incumbent can have stories fabricated against some little guy because he has the contacts then what the people really want is not as cut and dried as it seems.

Yes to term limits. I don't mind multiple terms but a maximum of 2/3 terms, then out of office for a term and re-run.

[widdershins]

too late, that ship left the dock 50 years ago.

Letting people have the rep they want is easily skewed when the opposition has 1 dollar against 10,000. When every politico in the local backs the incumbent, when the incumbent can have stories fabricated against some little guy because he has the contacts then what the people really want is not as cut and dried as it seems.

Yes to term limits. I don't mind multiple terms but a maximum of 2/3 terms, then out of office for a term and re-run.

Don't forget when whack-jobs can contribute a win to being top of the list because most voters don't bother to check into who they're voting for.  Part of that is a problem with the political process, though.  It can be difficult to find a comprehensive list of who is going to be on a particular ballot and for which jobs for the average American.

[Mike Cl]

Absolutely for term limits for all govt. positions--including the Supreme Joke..................errrr, Court.

[stromboli]

Sorry but aitm is right; that ship has sailed. The system favors long term tenants not short term. Long term gets seniority and status and more importantly position. Term limits came up big time like in the 70s or 80s and went nowhere. You'll never see it happen.

Same thing with the IRS reformation. You could rewrite the laws and methods to do the IRS return on a post card or even have the taxes paid on a monthly basis automatically, but every effort at reformation that might favor people over corporations gets quashed by paid off congressmen. Another been there, done that situation.

[josephpalazzo]

too late, that ship left the dock 50 years ago.

Letting people have the rep they want is easily skewed when the opposition has 1 dollar against 10,000. When every politico in the local backs the incumbent, when the incumbent can have stories fabricated against some little guy because he has the contacts then what the people really want is not as cut and dried as it seems.

Yes to term limits. I don't mind multiple terms but a maximum of 2/3 terms, then out of office for a term and re-run.

But this is just a bandaid solution if gerrymandering is not dismantled: sure term limits will give a different guy, but with the district fixed to give you a Republican, the next guy will still be Republican. You've just changed a wolf for another wolf with a different skin, but it's still a wolf.

[GSOgymrat]

I'm frustrated by a system where the goal isn't to solve problems but to get elected and then re-elected. Consider the amount of time and resources dedicated to the current presidential election, which is still eight months away-- the waste is staggering. I think this is a huge flaw.

[trdsf]

I'm against term limits.  The best limit on politicians' careers is an educated electorate (I'm not saying we have an educated electorate, just that an educated electorate is better able to weigh the advantages of seniority versus the need for a change of direction).

I'm especially against term limits on the presidency, since an opposition Congress can run out the clock on a second term president whom they know is going to go away and can't do anything for or to them anymore.

While we're at it, the terms of Representatives should be four years rather than two, and staggered like the Senate.  The current system has 435 congresscritters having to immediately launch their re-election campaigns as soon as they're sworn in.

And D.C. should have a full voting representative and two Senators.

[widdershins]

I think one of the most ridiculous things in our current political system is how much time they actually take off from performing the duties they are elected to perform in order to raise money and campaign for the next election.  They are technically not even required to be there to do their jobs, and those same senators who were bitching about teachers making too much for only working 9 months out of the year make a shitload more and work a shitload fewer days, and that is NOT counting the days they choose not to show up because campaign finances are more important.  Nor is it counting the REAL amount the average teacher works, many doing work over the summer, most doing massive amounts of work both before and after the school day and on weekends and the fact that they often have to personally buy many of the supplies for their classrooms if they don't want the kids to suffer for the politics involved, which many of them don't even consider not doing.

[GreatLife]

If we didn't have gerrymandering, then I would oppose such term limits as incumbents would be defeated if they just don't deliver to their constituency. However, gerrymandering is here to stay for a very long time - what's needed is to reshuffle SCOTUS with judges that will strike down gerrymandering, and who knows when that will happen - so in the present context, I would go for term limits as a second best solution.

The supreme court did restrict the right to gerrymander by the political parties - but it takes an act of will by the people to make it effective in each state. 

A partial victory.

Here is a link:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/29/supreme-court-arizona-congress-maps/27400015/

[GreatLife]

I'm against term limits.  The best limit on politicians' careers is an educated electorate (I'm not saying we have an educated electorate, just that an educated electorate is better able to weigh the advantages of seniority versus the need for a change of direction).

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiments.  I would prefer an educated electorate - which technically we have.  The problem seems to be willful ignorance due to some echo chamber effect.

I'm especially against term limits on the presidency, since an opposition Congress can run out the clock on a second term president whom they know is going to go away and can't do anything for or to them anymore.

Nope - term limits for everyone.  A strong president won't have the problem you state, IMO.  Our current president courted this type of divisiveness as much as anyone.  Bill Clinton had a far worse relationship with congress and still got things done, for example.

While we're at it, the terms of Representatives should be four years rather than two, and staggered like the Senate.  The current system has 435 congresscritters having to immediately launch their re-election campaigns as soon as they're sworn in.

Totally agree with you on this point.  And I would be willing to let the president be elected to two six year terms.  Seems like a better system to me to help minimize the influence of money.  It would also help to eliminate the lame duck effect that you objected to.

And D.C. should have a full voting representative and two Senators.

But then you have to consider all the other "territories" of the US.  Guam, Puerto Rico for starters - what happens to them?  I don't have a problem with DC getting representation - but it would become the second smallest state.  People complain about Wyoming only having 500,000 people and 3 electoral college representatives.  You would be adding to the problem with a new state.  We have enough issues with a bloated government without adding a new state composed of (nearly) all government employees.  Just doesn't sound right to me.

I would prefer to simply add them into an existing state as a city.  Gets rid of federal control and they can then be adequately represented as a major city in an actual state.

[GreatLife]

Absolutely for term limits for all govt. positions--including the Supreme Joke..................errrr, Court.

Until recently I would have disagreed.  But honestly, I can't come up with a good argument against this anymore.

But I think it needs to be a long time to keep the partisan gaming down.  Maybe one term of 20 to 25 years.  I know that presidents try and stack the deck by electing young people now-a-days so that they can stay on forever... Thus my hand IS being tilted towards term limits on these guys too.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

If you really want to talk about the theatre of the absurd think about states rights. You can drive from Maine to California and go from being a perfectly good law abiding citizen to a felon and back many times in a few days and never even know about it. Just think kratom, a product I've discussed on this forum. Where I live it's perfectly legal, but if I were to travel to Florida with it I could be arrested and locked up and have a felony drug record..