What effect do you think subjecting Congresspeople to term limits would have on our government?

If you think it’s bad now, just wait until you have a bunch of novices running the place. No one will know how to do anything, and the good ones will be replaced by mediocre ones. Term limits are a big mistake, and should be eliminated everywhere.

@daloon I think we’ve already established your opinions of government are bogus. You implied that the two party system is the most effective form of governance. That pretty much destroys all credibility as a person who has any sense of what government should be.

Now darlings, calm down, no need to get nasty. I feel that some sort of term limit is necessary. Perhaps not two terms, but maybe three. As @daloon points out, novice senators and congresspeople do take a while to get started, but it’s also important not to allow our leadership to get complacent.

I’m of two minds about it. On the one hand, those people who have been in Congress forever are still there because their constituents vote for them over and over again. People like Tom DeLay can and do lose their seats when their constituents lose confidence in them.

On the other hand, it leads to stagnation and empire-building within the government. In my solidly Republican district, our last MOC left the House by way of retirement. The Republican who replaced him has been there ever since, 1998 I think. She will be there until she retires, too, unless she turns out to be a total whack job like DeLay. The last guy to challenge her barely eked out 25% of the vote, even though the district as a whole went for Obama. I want to be in Congress. Get there, don’t make a lot of waves, and you’ve got a job for life.

I submit to you: Orrin Hatch. He’s been a senator for almost as long as I’ve been alive (since 1977). Will he ever lose an election? Nope. He’s a republican in Utah. He has too many political connections and has done too many favors.

@zephyr826 No nastiness. Just calmly explaining what the situation is…

The only effect would be a parade of ineffectual fools as opposed to the cluster fuck of ineffectual fools we have now.

@phoenyx , Ah, you young people! 1977 was just yesterday. Let’s look at Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and the Late, Berated, Strom Thurmond

@Jiminez stated, ”@daloon I think we’ve already established your opinions of government are bogus. You implied that the two party system is the most effective form of governance. That pretty much destroys all credibility as a person who has any sense of what government should be.”

That is rather presumptuous of you. To decide that if someone disagrees with your narrow view of how things should be establishes them as a person without credibility, assumes that most people agree with you. They certainly do not. This is evidenced by the fact that no 3rd party has emerged as a legitimate contender for American voters. Your views are in the minority.

I want to back up Daloon here. First of all, we already have term limits: they’re called elections.

Term limits are, fundamentally, anti-democratic. They suggest that it is better to legislate who can run for office than allow the people to decide. If you are unhappy with your Congressional representation, vote against them (or even better, run against them). Term limits lead to very warped governing outcomes. I have examples:

1) Virginia – in VA governors are limited to one four-year term at a time. As a result, there is absolutely no long-range planning nor any willingness to sacrifice some now for better outcomes down the line.
2) California – term limits in CA have resulted in a near comical carousel of inexperienced hacks running the state legislature. No one has incentive to develop any expertise, nor any time to do so even if they had the inclination.

Creating public policy is not, as the cable news networks would have you believe, a walk in the park consisting of talking heads yelling at one another. To do it well, you need to consider trade-offs, estimate costs and benefits, delineate goals, analyze alternatives. Doing these things well takes practice and time and term limits deny the electorate a chance to give their leaders that time, if they so choose.

@Michael , people bring up term limits in part because of the situation I described. There are certain districts and some states that are controlled by a single political party. Once a representative or senator gets into office in one of those places, the only real opposition they face must come from within their own parties, and people tend to be very reluctant to challenge an incumbent of their own party. It does happen, but most of the time, the challenger never gets off the ground.

I’m not saying that legislated term limits are the solution to this problem. But I do see a problem.

The fundamental problem is the way people think about Congressbeings.

”Our representative brings the money we pay in taxes back to us and rewards the people who help out our district, but your representative is an earmarking twit who votes for pork-barrel legislation and gives out political jobs through patronage!”

We already have term limits. They’re called the vote that comes around every 2 or 6 years. If you don’t like the person who’s in there now, organize and do something about it.

@cwilbur I think that’s the wrong way to think about it. Government is supposed to be like a machine. We’re not being humanitarian job appointers here. We’re running a country. It’s supposed to have automatic protections in it. Like a machine, it shouldn’t require more work from us than necessary. Unlimited Congressional terms allows for a culture of crime and corruption to foment. So much so that even the new people are either corrupted or ostracized by the rest of the Congress for not being one of them.

@The_unconservative_one I think if you did a poll, the majority of Americans would agree that 3rd parties are a much-needed feature of the American political landscape. So, maybe you should be less “certain”. Anyway, it doesn’t matter because you’re invoking a logical fallacy in your reasoning.

@Michael You said: “Term limits are, fundamentally, anti-democratic.”

False. If something is adopted democratically, then it’s not anti-democratic. We have a right to decide how our government runs. An absence of term limits just gives politicians more time to perfect the art of manufacturing consent. In fact, they’ve already done this.

What about those of us that don’t believe we need a centralized, federal government for anything beyond providing a military during times of war?

I’d say you probably need to re-evaluate the role of government.

@Jiminez Polls are done every year in this country, we call them elections. The only logical fallacy is you thinking that if Daloon disagrees with you, his opinion is somehow less valid. You seem to be under the impression that 3rd parties are not allowed to participate in the political process. There are many parties in American politics. Here is a partial list:

Constitution Party
Green Party
Libertarian Party
Independent
Boston Tea Party
New American Independent Party
Party for Socialism and Liberation
Prohibition Party
Reform Party
Socialist Party USA
Socialist Workers Party
The reason these parties don’t have a large following is because they don’t appeal to enough people to attract their votes. How’s that for a logical fallacy?

I voted for one of the 2 main parties, @The_unconservative_one. Does that mean I don’t think 3rd parties are a much-needed feature of the American political landscape? Elections are not polls. Sorry.

@Jiminez…Are you saying that the states are incapable of governing themselves?

I’m saying that the federal government should have some say about what goes on in the individual states. But I don’t think we necessarily need politicians for that.

Can you give a few examples of what type of say the Federal government should have?

@Jiminez I never said 3rd parties aren’t needed. I don’t know about MUCH needed, but they are needed somewhat But until one comes along that has a serious chance, they don’t actually put any fear into the big 2. BTW, elections are essentially polls.

@Jiminez: The American government is designed to be of the people, by the people, for the people. If you think being aware of the performance of your representative every two years and the performance of your senator every 6 years is too much work, you’re getting the government you deserve.

@cwilbur Much lurve for that last post. The only problem is, if there are too many uninformed voters, the rest of us get stuck with their poor decisions. 2000 to 2008 comes to mind

We actually have them here in California and every year it gets worse. You end up with a bunch of newbie ideologues who have no concept of negotiation so everybody takes a stand and refuses to budge. In any organization you need experience.

BTW It doesn’t get rid of any politicians. The guys like Willie Brown just run for other offices or get appointed to political positions, they never term out of politics.

In Massachusetts, for instance, the electorate voted in favor of term limits for state legislators in the same election in which they sent Ted Kennedy to the Senate for the seventh time. (1962 special election, 1964, 1970, 1976, 1982, 1988, 1994). This is a crystal clear illustration of both the impetus behind and the best argument against term limits. Voters see their representative in a positive light; it’s all the other bums they want to throw out.

And @Jiminez, in other posts you’ve advocated simple direct democracy, but in this thread you seem to think that government should just happen without any intervention. You don’t trust people enough to pay attention to their representatives and senators and evaluate whether they’re happy with their performance, but you do trust people enough to keep abreast of dozens of issues, staying well enough informed on them to vote meaningfully? There’s a contradiction here.

I would be surprised if more than a handful of people could tell you the names of their state representatives and senators, let alone even one difference they have brought about for their state.

@Jiminez
Dude, due in part to your political acumen I shall say the opposite of most of what you are saying except on the 3rd party getting some power. Let that party be the Libertarian Party. Mostly cause they are the next in line and best suited to the situation but also because I bet you hate them. ;)

@cwilbur No matter the bias one might have against lazy people, no one deserves subjugation and oppression.

@cwilbur

You said: You don’t trust people enough to pay attention to their representatives and senators and evaluate whether they’re happy with their performance, but you do trust people enough to keep abreast of dozens of issues, staying well enough informed on them to vote meaningfully? There’s a contradiction here.

Not the way I see it. People are unable to pay attention to their representatives and senators and evaluate whether they’re happy with their performance for actual reasons, not no reason at all, and not as a result of laziness. Supervising some brat who is looking to defy you at every turn is more exhausting than just doing the job yourself. Moreover, certain laws exist only because we have representative government. Those laws would disappear along with representative government.

@Blondesjon

Peter Defazio House
Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkely
All 3 worthless in all areas besides medical pot. ;)

@Blondesjon You said: Can you give a few examples of what type of say the Federal government should have?

Ultimate say on all matters, really. At least, that’s what I think right now. That’s subject to change. But, again, I’m against representative government. I think We, The People (our votes on various laws) should be the federal government. I think if the federal government doesn’t have more say than the states then there is no “United States” at all.

If our government were as simple as it was 200 yrs ago fine. If our government still held to the Constitution, fine. But since it doesn’t then we need experience in it along with fresh faces once in awhile.

@Jiminez
Our federal gov has the Constitution to direct it. So far they are failing. There is nothing in the Constitution about a dept of education, DEA, BATF, Dept of Human Services and so on. Those are state problems and need to be delt with at state levels as well as issues of abortion, gay marrage,... The feds don’t need to be in our lives. We need to be in theirs.

Government is not “simple”. It’s a machine. Machines are, sometimes, complex. “What works” is how you gauge it. What if your computer was suddenly made “simple” again? Sure it worked to perform a few simple tasks when it was simpler, but why limit it in that regard? The problem is leaders. The Constitution is the foundation of governance; not governance itself.

@Jiminez…It is a fact that the more working parts a machine has the greater the probability that it will malfunction.

@Jiminez
The Constitution is the Law of the Land and has been perverted into governments tool instead of control.
We the People have allowed our federal gov too much power thus losing control of it and allowing the corruption of today.
That said, I feel they have created the welfare state of today that you are advocating.

I second the comments of @galileogirl In California, where we have term limits, the politicians simply have to find ways to get around the limits. They either work behind the scenes with puppets, including their own family members, or take on other leadership positions.

@Jiminez “You implied that the two party system is the most effective form of governance.”

I can see again that you don’t read what I write. I shall try to explain once again in hopes you won’t ignore it again.

What I am trying to show you is the technical or game theory reasons why a democratic system eventually evolves into a two party system when you use winner-take-all voting. I am not implying this is the best form of governance. I’m just trying to explain why any efforts to start a third party are a waste of time and effort.

I totally wish that there was a mainstream party that represents my views. There isn’t. So my best hope is to work within the Democratic party, and that’s what I do.

I understand that you are casting about for ways that you can get your views to be reflected in legislation and governance. I can support that idea, even if we might disagree on policy (I’m not actually sure if we do). However, you seem to think that when I explain the real world reasons why your ideas won’t get you what you want, you seem to take this personally, and attack me, by making me into a straw man that you can shoot your disdainful barbs at.

You can do what you want. You can tilt at windmills if you want. I’ve been doing it most of my life and I’m tired of it. I want to make a difference; a real difference in the lives of many people. I spent more than a decade of my life working for universal coverage under a single payer system. I applaud efforts to go for universal coverage now, although they won’t work without single payer. I hope that after trying everything that doesn’t work, we Americans will finally try the thing that does.

@Jiminez – you said, “People are unable to pay attention to their representatives and senators and evaluate whether they’re happy with their performance”

I’m wondering how it would be better to have multiple parties with term limits then. If people can’t be trusted to pay attention to the three people who are charged with petitioning on their behalf, how could you possibly expect it would be better if they had to learn about new people all the time?

I think that would make government more schizophrenic than it already is with new people coming in and working to overturn the previous efforts on a continuous basis without ever having the time to understand some of the complexities inherent in governing.

Blondsion: House of Reps-Nancy Pelosi, State Senator-Leland Yee, State Assemblywoman-Fiona Ma. I know you never doubted me

gerrymandering

@fireside I think it’s not at all established that there are so many complexities inherent in governing. At least, not at the level described by many here. Anyway, the people that continually get elected are the ones that know all the nuances of the system and do not have the peoples’ best interests in mind, making it so they can defy the people that much more effectively. I’d prefer they didn’t know them.

Having third party politicians and newbies would be no different than it is now. You learn about new people all the time when you vote for them. There’s nothing worse than those career politicians showing up on your TV screen every election cycle stinking it up with rhetoric about how he/she and the people are best of friends and to vote for her/him. I’d prefer younger/fresher energy come along from time to time with a hunger to make a difference.

That’s what happened recently in Texas, @oneword.

Term limits would have prevented Castro from being in power for over 50 years. Oh, and if he actually allowed elections like he promised before his revolution. Term limits are a good idea because we should have better representation for average Americans, no scewed career government people who believe that every single problem (some the result of governance) should be solved with more governing. It would be nice to have people who were more in touch. Imagine doctors, nurses, pharmacists and medical technicians actually writing and voting on important healthcare bills…laws like HIPPA would never have happened and the American public would have saved $100 billion!

Jimenez, the topic isn’t gerrymandering which has been around since beginning of the country. What we are talking about is term limits. Since term limits have come into place in California, governance has almost ground to a halt. Because the budget due July 1 couldn’t be passed until February, there were delays in paying bills (including tax refunds) and we had gotten to the point where we were virtually out of money. We got to the point that they were having to close down all state construction projects. The states credit rating dropped and now we have to pay a higher interest on state bonds. In the next couple of decades this fiasco will cost the taxpayers billions of $$

As far as the complexity of governance, are you kidding me-or yourself. Can you name any organization, from Microsoft to the local church council that would not be impeded if every 8 years there was a complete turnover in personnel?

@lataylor: Just curious about your issues with HIPPA? I have a couple of my own, but I was wondering what your’s were.

On the other hand, I also understand they were trying to protect the privacy of individuals. Do you think that is important?

galileogirl – not sure that term limits are the cause of your budget problems in CA. You had a $45 billion deficit after tripling your state budget in under 15 years. If you really consider the scope of the spending increase it is difficult to imagine a way to simultaneously increase tax revenue at a pace to keep up with that degree of spending increase. Your probelms are astronomical spending…and the solution the CA legisltaion came up with this year was to increase income taxes again to the highest in the nation, increase gasoline tax to teh highest in the nation and increase sales tax to the highest in the nation. The result…Next year you already have a projected deficit…agian! Here in New Mexico we have a balanced budget, lower income tax, sales tax, gasoline tax and subsequently half the unemployment you have.

HIPPA is a disaster. The biggest problem is that it was not necessary. The secondary problems are that it is not pragmatic and is cumbersome. It impedes communication with patients, delays patient care in emergency settings, and makes clinics run slower. And, it doesn’t matter what your political leanings, we all hate it and we all make fun of how ridiculous it is on a daily basis. Classic over-governance by lawyers trying to fix something that isn’t broke. The first year it cost the Federal government about $70 billion to comply, and the costs keep on going since.

Of course part of that astronomicaL ‘spending’ was the 11 billion $$ the state was defrauded in another ill-thought-out quick fix-the breakup of PG&E. In less than a year, the new owners of Ca’s power plants and transmission lines raised our rates by 11 billion, about a quarter of our current deficit. Since that would have tripled our energy costs and crippled our economy, the state borrowed the money to cover those costs and set in motion a lawsuit against the out of state energy companies including Duke Power (and the defunct Enron). The Federal court decided that California energy users had been wrongfully charged but only awarded the State 1/11th because to make the power companies pay would ‘bankrupt’ THEM!!

Most of the rest of our ‘spending’ is in reality a system where property tax and income tax (for the richest of course) did not keep up with inflation due to the ridiculous Prop 13 in 1978 and the restrictions on the legislature requiring 60% passing of any tax bill. It is all part of the idea that people think they can maintain services without paying for them. The Republican Model Again. Before you get too cocky, California is the bellwether of the nation.

galileogirl – Ah, another Prop 13 argument. Is the solution always “missed tax revenue?” How can you dismiss the tripling of the state budget in under 15 years? Did your personal budget and salary triple in 12 years? The average US income rosesteadily the last 12 years, but did not triple. Of course more tax revenue would make a smaller deficit, but I cannot ignore the largest state budget in the nation, nor the highest income, gasoline or sales taxes.

@lataylor To which I would add that now we can’t get data about patient morbidity at any useful geographic unit. We used to be able to get it at the zipcode level, but now I think the best you can get is county level, if that.

great!