Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Republicans Should Oppose Term Limits
Today, Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) introduced a bill that would impose a six-year term limit on members of the House, while Senators would be held to 12 years in office. This is a magnificently stupid idea.
I worked on Capitol Hill for eight years back in the ’90s and early 2000s. I came into the job right before the 1994 elections and saw the incoming Republican majority as an opportunity for me and my ilk to do our part to re-make a Constitutional government. Like most Republican staffers on the Hill, I was bright, but young and laughingly inexperienced. As a result, I got my rear kicked day after day by my Democrat counterparts.
You see, Republican staffers on Capitol Hill see the job as a stepping stone to bigger and more lucrative careers, whether it be as a lobbyist or, more often, somewhere else in the private sector. They serve in the office for a few years and then head off for greener pastures. But a Democrat staffer sees the job as the culmination of their mission in life. They love cultivating the government leviathan of their wildest dreams, and you’d have to pry their jobs from their cold, dead hands. When it comes to negotiating bills or working a bill through the system, experienced Democrat staffers know all the tricks and look at unproven Republican staff as raw meat to be chewed up and spit out.
Why does this matter? Look to my home state of California for the answer. It’s a horribly run state and the blame falls squarely on term limits. Voters passed a proposition that limits members’ services to a total of 12 years in either house, or a combination of the two. As a result, members of our Senate and especially the Assembly are often green and rely too heavily on their staff for guidance and advice. These professional staffers are glad to fill the knowledge void left when more experienced members are forced to retire. In that case, you can count on Democrat “lifer staff” to beat Republican “stepping stone” staff every time.
If you want the federal government to far further into dysfunction, go ahead, copy California. Leave the running of the country to wizened old Democrat staffers who know how to win the game every time. I know term limits seems like a great idea, but it just doesn’t work in practice.
Published in Politics
Do you not understand the problem? Career criminals.
Our public would vote en masse for term limits. Our country needs a giant enema not some mild fiber.
Our public has the opportunity to limit terms on a regular basis, every 2 years for representatives and every 6 for senators.
Good God this is pointless. I’m sure you believe in the system. I think you are delusional regarding it. I’m sure you think I’m nuts too about this.
Take care. Time to work.
Too much time in Washington provides too much time to be bought by lobbyists. And frankly, I want congressmen who are green and don’t get much accomplished. The less Washington does, the better If there are new faces every year, it will be hard to build coalitions behind closed doors and things will be more transparent. I’d even go as far as suggest a 1 term limit for senators and congressmen.
One of the benefits (perhaps the only benefit) of living on the left side of Washington State is that I most likely will never in my life vote for an incumbent. The drawback is that I will always be misrepresented by democrats.
Go Rangers!
This is where you lost me….
Because not having term limits has worked so well up to now. We have to do everything we can to eliminate the idea that politics can be a career. Term limits is just one step, but an important one.
Anyone but the Habs ;-)
California’s doom is because term limits? I will have to research that one.
Here’s a list I found on term limits. The results vary.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/chart-of-term-limits-states.aspx
Is Florida doomed? Or did it avoid California’s fate by getting it’s on category on FARk?
1) no such thing as good politicians.
2) don’t do term limits but do a years served limit on all government employees. X number of years working for the government and you are out. Let some of your fellow citizens suck from the governments teat.
Maybe. Still the Eric Holders and Lois Lerners of D.C. seem plenty dangerous enough to me.
How much have they achieved for the Left compared to some random Congress critter?
You assume that all government workers are useless scabs on society. As one of the minimally useful teat suckers (I operate cranes at a Navy facility) I can see a use for those who specialize in particular jobs and maintain a level of technical knowledge and proficiency over the long term. I see the difference between the sailors who are here for three years then move onto the next thing and the civilians who are here 20-30 years and keep the place from having to relearn every mistake annually. Of course, this is in defense, and service in illegitimate government functions will be different. I’m sure the desk jockeys at HUD and DHS feel the same way though.
Never said anybody was useless. Just after X years they need to move on.
Notice I did not define X. That is up to debate. But why should those in government get the largesse of feeding off their fellow citizens? Spread the wealth, spread the knowledge that you are discussing.
The politicians have gamed the system so they stay in office. The bureaucrats have consolidated power so they stay in office no matter who is elected. The system needs to be changed. If you just go after certain positions then the powers that be would just shuffle jobs around and keep themselves in the system. You have to clean house. This is one way to do it. The wood chipper is another.
The politicians have gamed the system so they stay in office.
How so, specifically?
You can start with gerrymandering, campaign finance laws, PACs, etc and move on from there. You can find plenty of research on this in the internet and elsewhere if you just look. Feel free to look.
You can start with gerrymandering, campaign finance laws, PACs, etc and move on from there. You can find plenty of research on this in the internet and elsewhere if you just look. Feel free to look.
Let’s take these one at a time. How can gerrymandering impact a Senate race?
I would also argue it is a means of increasing the chance a member of a specific party wins a seat not necessarily the incumbent.
DISLIKE x 1000
:-)
I’m for term limits. Our founding fathers never envisioned the possibility of career politicians.
But there is another method of getting rid of the career criminals, I mean, politicians: Take away their toys.
They get no pension other than what they contribute to. They get no driver or car. They pay for all their transportation. They get no bonuses. They get no pay raises. They can collect no speaking fees for five years after leaving office.
The work of serving in Congress should be a pain in the butt. It should be done out of genuine concern for the country. It’s a job that one should want to leave as soon as possible.
And it is NOT rocket science. Mostly it requires some common sense.
I’m for term limits. Our founding fathers never envisioned the possibility of career politicians.
Is this true? Madison was by any definition a career politician. As were Jay, Adams, Henry, Jefferson, etc…
Is that not gaming the system?
Is that not gaming the system?
Not so they stay in office.
Most of them do not have cars (other than their own) or drivers. Yes, pensions are out of control, as they are for all federal employees. Pay is often less than they got in their old jobs. Having everyone come kiss your ring every day is wonderful for their egos, I’m sure, but they catch plenty of flak too.
And, no, it’s not rocket science, but it requires much more than common sense. It’s like trying to build 10 rockets at the same time while also designing the space suits and flying the ship. As I’ve done before, I commend PJ O’Rourke’s chapter on Congress in Parliament of Whores (called “National Busybodies”). It gives a good sense of the millions of things they deal with on a daily basis. To do the job well requires brains, a great work ethic, and the ability to juggle 20 things in your head at one time. Now, I’m not saying they all do the job well, but far more try to than we give them credit for.
In 2004, Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress.
In 2006, Democrats took control of both chambers.
In 2010, Republicans took back control of the House.
In 2014, Republicans took back control of the Senate as well.
It seems like the public is doing OK imposing its own term limits.
I’m all for term limits.
I want to have ordinary citizens – smart, wise, intelligent – but not career politicians to write our laws. If the system has become so complex, so unwieldy that only career politicians can run it, then the system needs to be changed. Maybe minimizing staff is the place to start. Force our elected officials to write bills, to read bill, and to vote on bills based on the own conscious, not because they owe a K-Street suit a quid pro quo. . .
I’d put the limit at 12 years in the House, and return election of senators back to the state legislatures as was originally intended.
I’m in favor of term limits in concept, though I can see why they can have a negative effect.
Having said that, this issue, like so many others, falls on the shoulders of the electorate. Someone mentioned Harry Reid. Why exactly does an incumbent have such an advantage over a challenger? Is it because of money? Power? What is it? It’s the fact that so many voters cast their vote solely based on name recognition. They vote for Reid because that’s the name they know.
If the electorate were more informed (which is to say, if they kept themselves informed) then we wouldn’t need term limits, would we?
Also, if voters were more inclined to vote for universal liberty, as opposed to voting for their own liberty, and our oppression, things would be better.
Term limits are a solution to a symptom of the problem, not a solution to the problem itself.
Doc, as much as I want to agree with you, I don’t agree with you. Here in Illinois, our new governor is pushing for term limits, to the point where he’s threatening to put a halt to budget negotiations if he doesn’t get them (insert Illinois budget joke here). Even though I ran against an 8 term incumbent in 2014 for the General Assembly, with all the advantages that entails, there is much to be said for institutional knowledge. Allowing more influence in the hands of staff and lobbyists is not a good thing.
I’d be much more inclined to support drawing district boundaries along sensible political boundaries (county lines, township boundaries, etc.) and then recruit good candidates to run. The map below (the spaghetti bowl that is Cook County) pretty much tells the tale of why we have the type of representation we have in Springfield. Fix this before you limit the time someone can spend in office. I think the same would hold true at the Federal level.
What’s more likely Illini, term limits or your logical solution? Neither are likely but what is possible?