Term Limits. Yay or Nay?

[Knightskye]

I just read the CFL article attacking term limits:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=30613

If we don't have term limits, we get career politicians who game the system with their seniority.

But if we do, somehow politicians "lose their accountability to the voter" as the article tried to argue -- which, by the way, I'm still not sure how.

Ron Paul is an exception. He's been in office for about 20 years, on and off, but he always votes along with the Constitution.

So, unless someone can give me an actual reason to be against term limits, I'm in favor of them.

[South Park Fan]

Walter Block makes a rebuttal to the argument in favor of term limits:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block17.html

[MR2Fast2Catch]

I used to believe that the term limits were bad because they allowed more politicians to be unaccountable by the voters in their last terms.

But seriously, when are politicians EVER held accountable for their actions? Almost never, unless something huge happens the same year as their election. So that argument is almost irrelevant, IMO.

I'm mostly in favor of term limits, but am not entirely sure. There are some good reason for them, but apparently our founders didn't think so. Either that, or it just didn't occur to them.

[Knightskye]

Walter Block makes a rebuttal to the argument in favor of term limits:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block17.html

So, it's better that they pillage over a longer period of time, instead of a shorter one?

I'm still confused.

[Pauls' Revere]

Personally, I'm all for them but not quite sure if it's constitutional. I mean just look at Strom Thurman and Ted Kennedy as examples of why we should have them.

[South Park Fan]

So, it's better that they pillage over a longer period of time, instead of a shorter one?

I'm still confused.

The argument goes that a politician that is in office for longer has greater incentive to not kill the goose that lays the golden egg than a politician that knows he'll be out of office in a few years. I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but that's how it goes.

[phill4paul]

Ron Paul is an exception. He's been in office for about 20 years, on and off, but he always votes along with the Constitution.

If other Americans choose to elect politicians for indefinite periods what is it to you. It is not about term limits it is about politicians that matter. If the majority of a district believe someone represents them for XXX number of years who are you to say that the voters beliefs should be nullified?

You seem to think that if it is Ron Paul then it is OK. Anyone else then you would like to apply your principles to.

Refer to the Constitution. Get the required number of votes in the house or get 2/3 states and change it.

It is not about term limits it is about the caliber of the elected officials.

[BlackTerrel]

If other Americans choose to elect politicians for indefinite periods what is it to you. It is not about term limits it is about politicians that matter. If the majority of a district believe someone represents them for XXX number of years who are you to say that the voters beliefs should be nullified?

You seem to think that if it is Ron Paul then it is OK. Anyone else then you would like to apply your principles to.

Refer to the Constitution. Get the required number of votes in the house or get 2/3 states and change it.

It is not about term limits it is about the caliber of the elected officials.

I agree. Well stated.

[Knightskye]

You seem to think that if it is Ron Paul then it is OK. Anyone else then you would like to apply your principles to.

I was stating a fact. I wasn't saying that Ron Paul should be exempted from a term limits law.

[nobody's_hero]

Well, I think one of CFL's critical arguments was that with term limits, politicians know that there's no chance of winning again, so during their final term, they'll sell out to whomever or whatever cause nets them the best retirement package.

How many of the healthcare bill supporting Congress-critters do you think care that they'll likely be booted next election? Big Pharma has them set for life. They'll never want for anything again.

[rp08orbust]

Personally, I'm all for them but not quite sure if it's constitutional. I mean just look at Strom Thurman and Ted Kennedy as examples of why we should have them.

Just look at Ron Paul for an example of why we shouldn't have them. ;)

[Stop Making Cents]

If term limits are good enough for the Presidency then they are good enough for Congress.

But it will require a Constitutional Amendment unfortunately.

[Stop Making Cents]

Just look at Ron Paul for an example of why we shouldn't have them. ;)

Nothing about term limits says Ron couldnt' run for Senate or governor or whatever when his term limits expire in the House.

[pahs1994]

Put term limits on them and they should make 40k a year also

[Malachi]

Yay!

[TCE]

Well, I think one of CFL's critical arguments was that with term limits, politicians know that there's no chance of winning again, so during their final term, they'll sell out to whomever or whatever cause nets them the best retirement package.

How many of the healthcare bill supporting Congress-critters do you think care that they'll likely be booted next election? Big Pharma has them set for life. They'll never want for anything again.

Most Congressmen know when they're going to retire. So, during that time, they vote in pretty erratic ways anyway. With term limits, it's the exact same thing except with a forced retirement vs. choosing retirement.

Look at all of the Senators who know they won't be Senators in 2011, they're doing what is best for them and telling their constituents that they don't matter, 'cause in reality, they don't anymore.

[Morgan Brykein]

No. Term limits will not solve the problems with Congress. The better solution is to increase the size of the House, and eliminate gerrymandering.

[nobody's_hero]

I'd also add that by the time you get 51% of Congress filled with people who would actually support a bill calling for limits on their terms, you won't need term limits. ;)

[Morgan Brykein]

What exactly ensures that when a Congressperson is term-limited, his or her successor is any less corrupt or any more representative of the people? Most people in Congress have had prior experience in local or state politics. And in many cases, the incumbent will simply hand the baton over to his or her partisan successor, because most districts are gerrymandered to benefit one party or the other.

I think that term limits only cure the symptoms, not the disease. Currently, each Congressperson represents around 700,000 people, and that number will only increase as time goes on. To me, one representative for every 700,000 people doesn't seem very representative. Especially since that apportionment only exists because incumbents in 1929 didn't want to lose their seats with the coming reapportionment.

At the very least, we should cut apportionment in half. Ideally, there would be one representative for every fifty thousand to a hundred thousand people. That way, Congress will better represent everybody, and it will be harder for incumbents to nest on their Congressional seats. It will also make it easier for more diverse views to be expressed in the U.S. Capitol, and it will be harder to gerrymander such tiny districts.

Term limits won't create "citizen legislators" who bravely represent the interests of the people and then go home.

[Knightskye]

I don't know. It just seems like we would have an elected dynasty.

[low preference guy]

Put term limits on them and they should make 40k a year also

What about $100 a year, like New Hampshire state legislators?

[Icymudpuppy]

I think congressional pay should be equivalent to the average income of the voters in their district.

thus, the $167,000/year made by each representative would be done away with, and The reps for Manhattan and Beverly Hills would actually get a raise of about $3000 or so each year, meanwhile, the Rep for Detroit would be making about $17,000/year.

Perhaps then being a congressman wouldn't be such a sought after position that they'd want to keep doing it year after year.

The founders envisioned being a public servant to be a sacrifice. Time away from family, friends, and getting little in return except the gratitude of your constituents.

[TCE]

Mathematically, double the amount of representatives and cut everyone's pay in half.

[Knightskye]

Mathematically, double the amount of representatives and cut everyone's pay in half.

And repeal the17th amendment.

[Knightskye]

Here's Rand Paul's issues page on Term Limits:

More than 95% of incumbent politicians win re-election to the US Congress. Incumbents win re-election at a higher rate than they did in the Soviet Politburo.
With each successive term, politicians grow more and more distant from the people. It is hard to understand the plight of ordinary citizens when Congressman make over $170,000 per year, have health care benefits worth another $15,000 and become fully vested in a lucrative pension plan within a few years.

Some pundits like to remark that we already have term limits they’re called “elections.” This glib response ignores the fact that incumbent US Senators start each election cycle with an average of $8 million dollars in the bank. The average US Representative starts with over $1 million in the bank.

Most of this incumbent cash comes in the form of $5000 checks from special interest groups that want federal contracts or federal favors.
The challenger must raise his or her contributions largely from individuals, typically averaging under $100 per check.

Is it any wonder that incumbents win almost every election?

Long term incumbency leads to politicians who seem to care more about what is best for their career than what is best for their country.

After the vast enlargement of government under FDR, the country reacted fairly quickly to limit the terms of the President. Over 80% of the public, both Democrats and Republicans, favor term limits. What will it take to force a vote on Congressional Term Limits?

Today we are drowning in a sea of debt, teetering on financial ruin if we don’t get our house in order. Will this crisis be the one that finally convinces us as a nation to bring these politicians home, to replace them?
http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/q-z/term-limits/

So maybe term limits aren't the complete answer. I like Jesse Benton's idea of paying Congress a minimum wage and putting in a bunch of under-achievers in there. :D