TexasCHLforum.com

Term limits is one of those topics that seems like a slam dunk at first glance, and then the longer I think about potential unintended consequences of such a move, I think I've talked myself out of supporting them.

The rallying cry is generally to prevent career politicians who become insiders who only look out for their own hide, take care of the powerful lobbyists, vote benefits for themselves, and become insulated from the concerns of the citizens they represent.

However, imagine the potential unintended consequences:
- Great performers cannot keep their job, even if they earn it in the view of the electorate
- In the final term, the voters essentially lose all accountability over the politician's actions
- Experience and wisdom would constantly be thrown out in exchange for unproven novices
- All politicians would constantly be at the beginning of the learning curve
- Politicians may spend more time looking to set themselves up for their post-office career. . . this could counter-intuitively lead to MORE corruption, not less
- The behind-the-door selection process for who gets to stand in line for the next turn could become nasty

Politics is a dirty profession, but I don't know that term limits will clean it up. Strict term limits could lead to the same handcuffing of the system as the zero-tolerance policies at schools that cause so many of us to bang our heads into walls. Statutorily reducing choice, discretion, and freedom essentially removes an element of power from the electorate. . .

I can understand limiting the terms of the President. I could get my head around limiting the terms of the Governor. But Senators, Representatives, Lt. Governor, Land Commissioner, Railroad Commissioner, and on down the line? I think the resulting situation could be worse than the status quo.

Just trying to stimulate some interesting dialogue on the subject. . . mostly thinking out loud.

I saw an interesting quote from an old thread when I was searching to see if this poll had been done before:

Paraphrase of TexasCHLforum member wrote:We already have term limits. They're called elections. We regularly get to reassess a politician's performance and throw them out if we don't like it.

Do we need more laws to protect us from ourselves? (And, as I stated above, could they actually backfire and make things worse?)

We used to have term limits for Senators. Then they passed the 17th Amendment and destroyed the system of checks and balances. Representatives are as close as we come to democratic elections. They represent the voice of the people. Senators were supposed to represent the voice of the State. They were appointed by the Governor or Legislature and represented the party that was in power at the time. When the Governor or Legislature changed, the Senator might change too. Furthermore, Senators were not beholden to the people to represent their views. Now both houses are about the next election.

Repeal the 17th Amendment. Then let's see what impact that has before we make any further changes.

I find the notion of being afraid of term limits rather quaint. It's like saying, I love this guy that represents me now and there's not another person in my state who could do as well as he does. Really? How do you know if you don't try? Maybe fresh blood will bring the change we need. New ones wouldn't be quite so influenced by the "old" ones if the old ones were leaving soon.

If term limits were in place right now, I would be willing to bet wide and sweeping gun control would have passed this year.


Having Politicians worry about getting reelected isn't necessarily a bad thing....

baldeagle wrote:Repeal the 17th Amendment. Then let's see what impact that has before we make any further changes.

wholeheartedly with this. Although at the time, the backroom deals for choosing Senators had led to significant allegations of corruption. Still, the states lost their voice at the Federal level and the Republic has suffered ever since.

baldeagle wrote:I find the notion of being afraid of term limits rather quaint. It's like saying, I love this guy that represents me now and there's not another person in my state who could do as well as he does. Really? How do you know if you don't try?

That's a dangerous standard. The "how do you know if you don't try" sounds like, "well, there's only one way to find out". . . close our eyes, do it, and live with the results! (I'm exaggerating that characterization. Obviously at the state level in Texas there will be more coming up, but now, they'll all be motivated to watch for what's next. Move up? Slide into corporate life? Their motive for self preservation won't change, it'll just refocus to new jobs instead of holding on to the one they've got.)

More importantly, if the electorate unilaterally loves the person representing them, why should they be forced by law to choose somebody new?

FWIW, there are bills at the state level wanting to enforce term limits on any statewide office. . . not just the guys who office in D.C.

Where does it end? State reps? County commissioners? City council? School boards? HOA committees?

Great points. ..

steveincowtown wrote:If term limits were in place right now, I would be willing to bet wide and sweeping gun control would have passed this year.


Having Politicians worry about getting reelected isn't necessarily a bad thing....

I think this thought is exactly what prompted me to start mulling this topic over a few months ago. . .

If we could somehow require some type of IQ test, as well as a test covering basic civics and current events, I don't think term limits would be an issue.

I'm surprised how many people are seemingly settled on this. I left the poll open so that we can change our selection. . . I've gone between "No" and "Only in very limited cases".

I can see the potential for a President to entrench himself and dangerously increase the powers of the office. In the head executive office, limits might be worthwhile.

But Senators? Representatives? Lt. Governor? Land Commissioner?

I don't see the pressing need. I understand anti-politician rhetoric, but this will just make more politicians, many of them likely to be far more unpredictable.

Not really. For the president yes. For gov. maybe. Anyone else....if they don't do what the people want then we can vote em out.

baldeagle wrote:We used to have term limits for Senators. Then they passed the 17th Amendment and destroyed the system of checks and balances. Representatives are as close as we come to democratic elections. They represent the voice of the people. Senators were supposed to represent the voice of the State. They were appointed by the Governor or Legislature and represented the party that was in power at the time. When the Governor or Legislature changed, the Senator might change too. Furthermore, Senators were not beholden to the people to represent their views. Now both houses are about the next election.

Repeal the 17th Amendment. Then let's see what impact that has before we make any further changes.

I find the notion of being afraid of term limits rather quaint. It's like saying, I love this guy that represents me now and there's not another person in my state who could do as well as he does. Really? How do you know if you don't try? Maybe fresh blood will bring the change we need. New ones wouldn't be quite so influenced by the "old" ones if the old ones were leaving soon.

What was the term limit for Senators? I know that original Senators were appointed by the Legislature, but never heard of any term limits. BTW, Sam Houston was a Senator from 1845 until 1859, pre-17th Amendment.

The only real difference it made was that now instead of bribing the Legislators for support, the candidate had to bribe the people, cater to them.

The idea of term limits has all sorts of enticing possibilities but it has been a dismal disaster in California. Before, you had legislators who hung around long enough to learn how things worked. The entrenched bureaucracy had to obey them, for better or worse because they were going to be there, likely. Since term limits, the legislators are only going to serve a couple of terms then must move up or out or somewhere else. The bureaucrats just bide their time, dealing with rookies mostly. The Speaker of the CA House last term was first elected in 2008, made Speaker in 2010. That's absurd. Of course, absurdity is not disqualifying here.

I suggest you think long and hard about term limits. It doesn't work the way you think, or hope, it does in practice.

We have term limits for these people. Just don't re-elect 'em when their term expires.

Oldgringo wrote:We have term limits for these people. Just don't re-elect 'em when their term expires.

If that only worked.

Incumbents have a tremendous advantage in any election. First, they have "connections." A group that I belong to targeted one of Joe Strauss's strong supporters with another primary candidate and she called out support from a surprising cadre of other officials. I don't think that Wendy Davis from Ft Worth would have won re-election without drawing upon the power that she amassed in office among other elected officials.

Second, incumbents have things like ear marks, particularly at the Federal level. They do things with government funds for constituents and build their base. No challenger has that kind of advantage. Unless and until ear marks or anything like them can be eliminated, it is bloody hard to overcome the government money garnered influence.

For me, term limits are not a singular solution to governmental corruption but they are a good start.

How about this for a story? My brother worked for a phone company and one of his early jobs was collecting from pay phones (yes, it was a while ago.) The company would not allow anyone to hold that job very long because they believed that the longer they were there and saw the process, the easier it became for the employees to develop "light fingers." That only involved coins. Think how much worse it gets when the numbers are in $B. 'nuff said.

Why should we have term limits? Ted Kennedy. Robert Byrd. Richard Durbin. John Kerry. Diane Feinstein. Barbara Boxer. Richard Schumer. Barney Frank. Nancy Pelosi. Sheila Jackson Lee.

It's the citizens' way of saying to the bozos in liberal states, try again. That one was a bust. Allowing politicians to server forever doesn't make them better legislators. It makes them more accomplished crooks. By limiting their terms you tell them they will have to live under the laws they pass and they will not suck off the government teat for the remainder of their lives. That should make even the most cynical of them think twice about the laws they support.

baldeagle wrote:Why should we have term limits? Ted Kennedy. Robert Byrd. Richard Durbin. John Kerry. Diane Feinstein. Barbara Boxer. Richard Schumer. Barney Frank. Nancy Pelosi. Sheila Jackson Lee.

It's the citizens' way of saying to the bozos in liberal states, try again. That one was a bust. Allowing politicians to server forever doesn't make them better legislators. It makes them more accomplished crooks. By limiting their terms you tell them they will have to live under the laws they pass and they will not suck off the government teat for the remainder of their lives. That should make even the most cynical of them think twice about the laws they support.

I think you mean Chuck Schumer.

Calvin Coolidge had the answer to the problem. "Don't vote for Democrats" he advised.

steveincowtown wrote:If term limits were in place right now, I would be willing to bet wide and sweeping gun control would have passed this year.


Having Politicians worry about getting reelected isn't necessarily a bad thing....

That's a very good point. My frustration levels tell me that term limits are a good idea. My brain tells me, like Fickman says, that it might have unintended consequences. I think there are possibly viable alternatives that might have the intended effect of term limits without the possible pitfalls.

One idea might be to set a limit to the number of terms that an elected official can serve consecutively with a set number of terms before they can run again. For instance, set a limit that restricts representatives to 5 consecutive terms and senators to 2 consecutive terms, and make them ineligible to run again for 4 terms and 2 terms respectively. Or something like that.

Another idea: take away their pensions, and only give them healthcare insurance while they're in office, and then pay them less. Make the pay enough for a strictly middle class income, pegged to the national average (not the DC average), and forbid them to receive any other kind of current or deferred compensation or gifts of any kind outside of their congressional salaries during their employment as congressmen. The point being that nobody would want the job except for those who really have a servant's heart.

Another idea: take away their staff. Allow them one secretary and one file clerk apiece, and remove the locks from all their doors. Forbid their staffers from being involved in writing legislation.

Another idea: Require all submitted legislation to be handwritten, either in the congressperson's handwriting (of which a sample will be kept on file), or in the handwriting of the lobbyist who wrote it, certified as his/her writing, and the final copy of the handwritten bil goes into the national archives, with the congressperson's signature and date affixed. Require all submitted legislation to pass a 60 day long period of review after coming out of committee before it can be voted up or down on the floor. Require all congresspersons to pass an exam administered by the CBO to display competency for every piece of the legislation that comes up for a vote, before they can vote on it.

Another idea: Require all legislation to include its constitutional justification in specific detail in the first paragraph of the bill, then make the text of the bill available on the home page of the congressional website, with the CBO's analysis of the bill.

I could go on....but the point is that it is not enough to force accountability at election time. What happens between elections counts more, and for decades the vast majority of these folks have demonstrated themselves to be unworthy of the public's trust. Therefore, we demonstrate that we trust them no more by requiring day by day accountability from them.