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
Institutional knowledge will reside somewhere. If you limit the terms of elected officials, it will reside in staff members. If you limit staffs, it will reside in the govt agencies. If you scrap the civil service system and limit bureaucrats time, private lobbying firms will hire those with such knowledge.
All you are doing is moving the knowledge further away from the voters and making those with it less accountable to them.
The one term limit I would really like to see is a single 20 year term for Supreme Court Justices. I’m tired of seeing these Justices hang around long after senile dementia has set in, and appointments of Justices shouldn’t be based on finding someone young enough to hang around for 50 years.
Very good point.
No all bureaucrats need term limits. There should be term limits besides the military on government service.
Yes, the legislative process has totally changed in Florida. Staffer make more money than their bosses and have more power because they work year around. There is a joke that Lobbyist and staffers run Tallahassee now. I had very conservative friends who were Florida House staffers for a few years. They both agree that term limits are a bad idea and how much legislators rely on Lobbyist expertise when making decisions.
I just don’t think people understand the details of the political process and institutional structures and how things actually get done. If they did they would see how destructive term limits are.
“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.”
Isn’t that exactly what you said at the outset is happening NOW?
“You see, Republican staffers on Capitol Hill see the job as a stepping stone to bigger and more lucrative careers…But a Democrat staffer sees the job as the culmination of their mission in life.”
That’s your portrayal of the status quo, and you’re arguing that term limits will create a system…identical to the status quo?
Sorry, but considering how terrible is the status quo, I’ll take my chances with a paradigm change.
I want to like it, but the DMV is already slow enough without every employee being a trainee.
;-)
So, uh, why not simply cut politicians’ office budgets?
Best yet, emulate the New Hampshire House of Representatives where each member represents an average of only about 3,300 constituents and receives a salary of $200 (plus travel expenses). If the US Congress was similarly comprised, there would be over 90,000 members of the House of Representatives, but they’d only cost taxpayers about $18 million per year (plus travel expenses) instead of the current $75.6 million (plus travel, plus staff & office expenses, etc.).
Here is a term limit idea. It’s not a fixed limit on number of terms, it limits members specifically on how much they raise the debt limit. Once a member has voted to raise the debt limit (in a vote that succeeds) by an amount greater than the amount the US federal gov’t spent during the preceding 12 months, that member is never eligible to hold federal office or be a paid lobbyist. Not only must the member leave Congress at the end of his term, he cannot be President, Vice-President, Supreme Court justice, US attorney. If there were a Secretary of Dog Catching, he could not be it.
For example, if over the course of 4 years, I vote to raise the debt limit by $4 trillion and the federal gov’t spends $4 trillion in the previous year, I am out.
What this would do is to convince Congress to borrow only moderately. They could still borrow. They could borrow a ton if war broke out. But quickly they would have to leave. If they borrow 5% of the budget per year, they could serve for over 20 years.
You make a good point – but right now the deck is stacked ridiculously in favor of the incumbent. If term limits aren’t the answer, i don’t what is. And I am tired of the Ruling Class in this country.
You make a good point – but right now the deck is stacked ridiculously in favor of the incumbent. If term limits aren’t the answer, i don’t what is. And I am tired of the Ruling Class in this country.
I’m not sure I agree with you regarding incumbents but putting that aside, we need to make sure the cure is not worse than the disease.
This form of argument, often seen on Ricochet, will never cease to blow my mind.
Yes. Yes, American history has worked out pretty darn well. An America without federal term limits created the finest constitution the world has ever known. She overcame slavery, created unbelievable amounts of prosperity (admittedly, not so much per capita as Australia, but more than just about anywhere else). She forged a continent spanning empire of liberty, freed the world from Nazism, and spread literacy from sea to shining sea.
With Federal term limits in place for the White House only, she won the Cold War, revolutionized agriculture, medicine, transportation and electronics in ways that mean that the entire planet now lives longer, more peaceful, and more informed lives than ever before. Americans live for longer, in bigger houses, with more stuff in and in front of their houses. We have unprecedented gun rights, speech rights, and other forms of liberty. We have more education, less conscription, fewer wage and price controls, less unionization, and less segregation. We are living in the finest country on Earth, in part because when Congress has made mistakes, Congress has later helped to fix those mistakes; welfare reform and spending cuts (we now spend less of our wealth on the Feds than we did in Reagan’s first term) have helped undo some of the mistakes of the past. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act helped turn the tide of the abortion debate and we now have more action there than ever before. Congress was able to fund and support the Surge, avoiding a repetition in Iraq of the horrors of Vietnam, when an unpopular war led to a total abandonment of the people.
A Congress without term limits has achieved wonderful things and preserved more wonderful things. We should all wake each day and thank God that he made us an American. We ought not to spit in the face of providence by responding with scorn for America’s achievements.
Thank you for the pep talk, James. Grin.
What difference has the Amendment made? The first President to be bound by it was Ike. Ike would never have sought a third term anyway. JFK was limited to less than a term, as was Ford, without the Amendment. LBJ, Nixon, Carter, and Bush 41 were limited in pre-existing manners, too. Clinton and Bush 43 were both highly unpopular by the end of their offices, and could not have made it onward. Obama doesn’t look particularly messianic now, either; Clinton could take him, and the Republican nominee if she failed.
The only impact I can see of the Amendment so far is that Reagan didn’t have a third term. I think that was probably a good thing; Welfare Reform, the Gulf War, deficit reduction, NAFTA, and Justice Thomas all seem like things that Bush did better, and Reagan’s health was failing toward the end of that term. Reagan had mostly achieved the things that Reagan was uniquely good at achieving in his eight wonderful years.
Still, while I don’t share Reagan’s opposition to the Amendment, and I do like the symbolism of a “no more FDRs” Amendment, it doesn’t appear to me to have made a huge improvement to American life.
I’m sad to hear that we disagree about 18 year term limits for the SCOTUS.
California voted roughly 60% for Obama. Twice. I think that speaks to our problems more than term limits.
All presidents, term-limited or not, will come to their last term, at which time the harms that you worry about will emerge. But a term-limited president will not pose the extreme harms that I worry about.
During his first term Obama pushed through the stimulus and Obamacare on strict party line votes, even though he knew he faced reelection. How do you explain that?
Meanwhile, the real harm that takes place in Congress continues unabated, as incumbents do the will of the interests that get them reelected, time and time again.
What hasn’t been mentioned yet in this debate is that term limits change the type of person who is interested in running for Congress. If one can’t make a career out of politics, but must go back into the private sector, one is less likely to run for office because the job is a sinecure.
All presidents, term-limited or not, will come to their last term, at which time the harms that you worry about will emerge. But a term-limited president will not pose the extreme harms that I worry about.
Not necessarily, some would lose their attempt at reelection.
During his first term Obama pushed through the stimulus and Obamacare on strict party line votes, even though he knew he faced reelection. How do you explain that?
He thought they would be politically popular in the first instance and if you recall, he delayed Obamacare implementation until after his re-election.
Meanwhile, the real harm that takes place in Congress continues unabated, as incumbents do the will of the interests that get them reelected, time and time again.
I call those interests, ‘voters.’
What hasn’t been mentioned yet in this debate is that term limits change the type of person who is interested in running for Congress. If one can’t make a career out of politics, but must go back into the private sector, one is less likely to run for office because the job is a sinecure.
More likely, it would attract those who care little about the concerns of their constituents and simply want to leverage a bit of time in office toward a lobbying or media career.
You’re missing the point of the Stimulus. It was sold as bridges and such; shovel ready work. In fact it was payment to the unions and campaign groups that would then proceed to win him reelection.
America’s achievements are indeed worth celebrating. But that is so far off the point.
Your argument, if it were valid, could be raised against any change in American law. “We achieved wonderful things without women having the vote, without anti-discrimination law, without the GI bill, without integrated schools, without Social Security.” But the argument doesn’t strike me as valid at all.
A Congress with term limits could have achieved all the wonderful things you listed and more, for all we know. What we do know is that the absence of term limits creates a lot of space for mischief.
By the way, we forget that most states term limit their governors, and most countries in the world term limit their chief executives.
But that is my point. He did it to gain reelection. If he were limited to one term his incentives would have been different.
But as they run for office they promise the moon to special interests.
If he were term limited he wouldn’t have been able to do that. His incentives would likely be more aligned with the national interest, and less with what gets him reelected.
Do you call the agricultural lobby, the teachers’ unions, etc., “voters” full stop? Do they get only the same attention and favors that other voters get?
Unlike the saints who make up our Congress today? No businessmen, doctors, professors, farmers, and others who are willing to serve a short time for their government and then return to private life? Just lobbyists and media types. I don’t see any reason to think that would be true.
But as they run for office they promise the moon to special interests.
They make promises to voters, those who they believe will support them.
If he were term limited he wouldn’t have been able to do that. His incentives would likely be more aligned with the national interest, and less with what gets him reelected.
He is term limited and he did it. What makes you think his interests would be more aligned to the national interest? He is right now ineligible for re-election, are his motives today pure? I’m beginning to believe the real issue in your eyes is representative self governance.
Do you call the agricultural lobby, the teachers’ unions, etc., “voters” full stop? Do they get only the same attention and favors other voters get?
Yes, just like I consider the NRA voters and National Right to Life to be voters. The agriculture lobby is made up of voters who happen to be in the agriculture business. Do you think representatives favor specific agriculture policies because the ag-lobby gives them money or do they favor those policies because a large percentage of their constitute support them and the ag-lobby gives money to those whose interests align with theirs?
Unlike the saints who make up our Congress today? No businessmen, doctors, professors, farmers, and others who are willing to serve a short time for their government and then return to private life? Just lobbyists and media types. I don’t see any reason to think that would be true.
There are plenty of businessmen, doctors, etc… serving in Congress. John Boehner was a very successful businessman before he entered Congress, as were my two senators, Johnny Isakson and David Purdue.
Saints serving in Congress is not an option. You seem to be operating under the impression smart people are lured to Congress by the opportunity to make a whopping $175k/year. A large portion of the members left jobs making much more for the opportunity to serve.
This report from the Congressional Research Service may be of interest to some. It profiles the members of the 113th Congress And includes information such as prior profession and the average time served in Congress.
https://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL%2BR%5CC%3F
So you think politicians do bigger favors for teachers’ unions and the sugar lobby because they want the votes those interests represent? That’s a good one.
My point was that if he were limited to one term he would have had incentives other than being reelected, which you claim was his motive for what he did in his first term.
Do politicians do huge favors for corporations whose employees and shareholders make up a tiny fraction of voters, but who make large contributions? Why?
Sure, most did something else. But few go back to that something else. My point is that term-limited candidates would be less likely to become lobbyists when they leave Congress. They would be more likely to have their original careers to return to than someone who spent 30 years in Congress.
I think he’d do the same thing now, if he could. He’s spending an awful lot of time supporting Organizing For America. Indeed, I suspect that supporting the Democratic electoral machine will be a core part of his post-Presidency.
I was responding to a suggestion that Congress had been a bad legislature in the past, such that not much was being risked. In fact, governments, with and without term limits, have done far worse, across the planet. The structure put in place by our founders has done an amazing job.
You’re right that that doesn’t mean that no change would be beneficial. I wasn’t saying “we shouldn’t have term limits because the current Constitution is perfect”, although I do actually think that we shouldn’t have term limits, in part because I think the Constitution is very good and should receive a degree of deference.
Rather, I was saying that we should recognize the value of what we have. Changing it is fine; maybe the next system will be better. But, as Chesterton’s fence reminds us, changing it on the basis of a failure to appreciate the value of what we have is deeply problematic.
So you think politicians do bigger favors for teachers’ unions and the sugar lobby because they want the votes those interests represent? That’s a good one.
Take a look at who received sugar lobby money and then look at a map of states where sugar cane or sugar beets are grown. The only outlier I see is Chuck Schumer.
My point was that if he were limited to one term he would have had incentives other than being reelected, which you claim was his motive for what he did in his first term.
I ask again, as he is term limited now, are his motivations more or less pure now than in his first term. I want politicians to do what they believe their constituents want, don’t you?
Do politicians do huge favors for corporations whose employees and shareholders make up a tiny fraction of voters, but who make large contributions? Why?
For example?
Sure, most did something else. But few go back to that something else. My point is that term-limited candidates would be less likely to become lobbyists when they leave Congress. They would be more likely to have their original careers to return to than someone who spent 30 years in Congress.
Why would they be more likely to return to their previous careers? Seems to me, the door to lobbying firms would be just as enticing to anyone who served in Congress regardless of how much time they spent there. The only way to limit the influence of lobbyists is to shrink the role government plays in people’s lives, shrinking the time members can serve in Congress would do nothing toward that end.
In 2007-08 this country was led into the worst financial crisis in generations by the most experienced and seasoned group of Senators and Representatives in the history of the Republic. Count me among the unimpressed.
I am genuinely underwhelmed by our class of political leadership. Given the kinds of incumbent protections provided by our campaign finance system, it seems reasonable to set structural limits on their ability to establish themselves into comfortable sinecures. I don’t think we are ill served by bringing in new blood.
Maybe six years is too short for a representative. Perhaps five consecutive terms is more fair. If some of these people are as essential for the survival of the Republic as they think they are, having a Representative sit out two years before returning to the House should be no big deal.
As it happens, I just completed defending my MA thesis on why term limits are a bad idea. I delve into both what the Framers said about term limits as well as the unintended consequences in the 15 states that have adopted them. I’ll be glad to send you my thesis, if you’re interested.