Term Limits

[barfbag]

With term limits for the federal government, politicians are less likely to develop the connections within congress to have the pull for earmarks which would be good for the national debt. I'm not against all spending for example if infrastructure is needed, but often infrastructure is used as a replacement word for bribe or pay off in one's home district. In 2008 we heard Obama promise to end earmarks, but the first thing he did was team up with the Democrats to form a "stimulus" bill but was nothing more than earmarks for every Obama district in the country. This isn't a new problem though. Basically, I'm saying term limits prevents a monopoly on our government in terms of influence and spending and allows more citizens to become involved with the legislature. Campaigns are less likely to cost as much money too.

Ban all earmarks.
Constitutional Amendment requiring the federal government to have a balanced budget every year.
Two six year terms for U.S. Senators.
Six two year terms for U.S. Representatives.
Keep two four year terms for the President.
Cut president's salary to $250,000.

And while we're at it, let's bring up campaign finance reform again. I was disappointed it didn't get much attention when I posted this topic last week.

Limit all federal candidates to $200,000,000.
Keep limits of $2,500 for individual contributions.
Ban soft money donations from unions and corporations.
Federal candidates may not opt out of campaign finance reform.

[Redalgo]

Personally, I think all elected positions should be limited to one term, and the length of such terms increased somewhat. Judges on the Supreme Court should not be above those kinds of limits, either. When it comes to compensation, meanwhile, I reckon the President and congresspersons ought to receive salaries equal to four and two times the average American adult's total, annual income, respectively.

Antonio made a great post in the other thread concerning campaign finance reform, by the way. I am fully in favor of public financing and, although there are some variations on his proposal I'd be willing to seriously consider, elections seem too important for private property rights to enjoy primacy over them.

[Lief 🗽]

Term limits are a horrible idea. They dramatically increase the influence of special interests and lobbyists.

[Del Tachi]

Term limits are a horrible idea. They dramatically increase the influence of special interests and lobbyists.

This.

There is nothing that a lobbyist loves to do more than prey on the naivety of a freshman Congresscritter. 

Also:  Earmarks are necessary to grease the wheels of legislative compromise, the current ban placed on them in the Congress is a direct and primary cause of the perpetual state of legislative gridlock this country is currently experiencing. 

The costs of earmarks is minuscule compared to other budget areas, and their benefits often outweigh these costs because earmarks can actually be used to grow the economy unlike entitlements.

Additonally, the Congress' ban on earmarks is entirely self-imposed which means that it has not restricted the executive branch from appropriating "earmarks" as they see fit.  Often, this is done in the form of contracts with private corporations.  However, unlike Congressional earmarks there is no direct accountability established between bureaucrats and voters.     

[barfbag]

Federal court judges should be limited to four year terms, but not have term limits. The decisions of the federal courts should be overruled with a 2/3 congressional majority.

[Redalgo]

Term limits are a horrible idea. They dramatically increase the influence of special interests and lobbyists.

How so? I realize there would be interest group influence, yet don't multiple terms give these factions greater opportunities to establish gift relationships with politicians, wining and dining them at social functions and giving generously to their campaigns - establishing some rapport, trust, and maybe even a sense of obligation to reciprocate their good treatment when issues come up over which stronger influences are not in play?

This reveals a flaw in combining pluralism with representative democracy regardless.

Voters tend to support the reelection of their congresspersons even when those representatives have developed conflicts of interest, preferential attitudes toward certain interest groups, etc. While the benefits of the system outweigh the costs, in my opinion, the People have shown themselves not to be much good at holding well-established leaders accountable for their moral transgressions and forays in turning to corrupt practices when addressing policy-related matters.

Also:  Earmarks are necessary to grease the wheels of legislative compromise, the current ban placed on them in the Congress is a direct and primary cause of the perpetual state of legislative gridlock this country is currently experiencing.  

The costs of earmarks is minuscule compared to other budget areas, and their benefits often outweigh these costs because earmarks can actually be used to grow the economy unlike entitlements.

This may merely be a difference in priorities but I consider gridlock a healthy outcome when the People are themselves deeply divided over an issue without a strong majority being in support of either side. The risk of representative democracy becoming perverted into ochlocracy seems much greater to me when a slim plurality (or majority, for that matter) of leaders is able to have its way in the policy-making process over the rest.

And while I agree that the costs of earmarks is quite small, their use implies an emphasis on short-term desire for quality results rather than long-term concern for quality of process. Provisions should have to survive direct, up-or-down votes without in the process taking other pieces of legislation hostage. Turning any bill into a "Christmas tree" is reprehensible.

I would also contend the point of entitlements is to enhance the individual's economic liberty - not grow the economy. Expansion of the economy should not be the prime concern of the government when it comes time to make decisions.

[barfbag]

Actually the ability to develop relationships within Congress and across the world is more of a plus to me than a negative.

Too many naiive freshmen won't be willing to compromise and every year will be like the debt ceiling crisis in 2011. My now former-Senator Dick Lugar was a deeply principled conservative Republican, but was respected for his ability to strike compromises within the Senate and across the world(like fighting to keep former Soviet nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists).


The only way I'd support term-limits would be if they were set at some very high number, like 30 years, but there wouldn't be much point in that, would there?

You make good points, but I see another side where their hands won't be on pork and more earmarks.

[politicallefty]

I don't believe there should be term limits for any elected office. Ultimately, the people should be free to choose whomever they like to represent them. I'd also go further and set the eligibility for any elected office as being an eligible voter.

The impetus for term limits would be gone if we had electoral reform (especially including nonpartisan redistricting) and campaign finance reform.

[barfbag]

I don't believe there should be term limits for any elected office. Ultimately, the people should be free to choose whomever they like to represent them. I'd also go further and set the eligibility for any elected office as being an eligible voter.

The impetus for term limits would be gone if we had electoral reform (especially including nonpartisan redistricting) and campaign finance reform.

I agree with you on campaign finance reform.