Okay, Let’s Have a Discussion
Term limits. I would prefer campaign finance reform. If you limit the money and gifts coming into politics, you don’t need term limits, because bad incumbents become much easier to beat. And, some people have served for a lifetime and done an excellent job.
I see term limits in the city of Houston come to mean they play musical office holders chairs and they just scamper around seeking each others jobs when their term is up.
On the other hand, with this Supreme Court, campaign finance reform ain’t gonna happen.
The Texas Senate today voted 28 – 3 for HJR13, which would limit non-judicial statewide officeholders to two consecutive terms in office. The starting point would be 2014 – the next election. This means that officeholders can serve more than two terms if they sit out one term. Humm … that seems like something that could be become a family full employment act pretty quickly.
I have not made up my mind about this term limits stuff.
You might have. Let’s hear it.
This is one of those push-me, pull-me subjects. I would want to keep someone like Barney Frank in office as long as possible, i.e., someone whose politics I agree with and who uses for causes I believe in. But then you get the guys who just use the power to make themselves richer and become more corrupt by the second. It’s like state employees. While you don’t want the next governor to fill state offices with his cronies, you also don’t want people who have tenure to use it as an excuse to do nothing. Much like JJ, I just donno.
1There may be an advantage to term limits, as long as the retirement and other benefits are either pro-rated to length of actual time in office or simply stop when the critter leaves office. It has the potential to get rid of a lot of corruption. But, then again, it may actually pave the way for even more corruption seeing as the Texas Lege passed it with such a wide margin.
2I don’t much like term limits. Experience in governing can be an asset and a lame duck officeholder lacks clout (though that person may also be more willing to take risks). Also, the financial backers of the current lousy politicians will know their person can’t run again and transfer their allegiance to someone else, giving the new person a head start on the office.
We need honest redistricting and campaign finance reform, not term limits.
3Term limits transfer power to unelected professional staffers. With nobody serving long enough to truly learn the ropes, staff fills the void on skills and institutional memory.
4The better answer is non-partisan redistricting, public campaign financing, and free TV time [at least in theory, the public owns the airways].
These 3 reforms as a package would give us more and better candidates, and cut the special interests down to size. So of course it will never happen.
These term limits are for state officeholders only and not for Federal officeholders. You would have to amend the US Constitution to get term limits for federal office holders.
Rick Perry would have been caught up with these limits a long time ago and that would be a good thing. But I do not like the way term limits in Virginia work where you can only serve one term. I also like having people like Kirk Watson and Ron Reynolds in office even though I do not live in their districts. I guess that I am leaning against term limits. If this state constitutional amendment gets through the House, we will get to vote on it in November.
5The only way term limits can become law is for the legislators, county, state or national, to enact such limits. Does anyone think that somone who has enjoyed the royalty-like perks that come with elective office would actually vote to reduce their largesse?
Term limits could and would reduce the amount of money in our auctions, er, elections, but I see money as the most evil part of our political system.
I would vote for JJ in a minute, but where is she going to get $1billion to run for president?
6Term limits I’ve seen lead to a decline in competency and a rise in ideology. Combine that with gerrymandered districts or heavily red states, and what you get is and endless succession of idiots seeing who can claw to the top of the bone-heap for their turn.
7I don’t like term limits because while the elected officials come and go, the people behind the scenes, accountable to no one, stay on forever. And when the newly elected folks come to town, knowing they have to hit the ground running to accomplish everything they promised, they will fall right into the arms of those oh so helpful behind the scenes people who cannot be term-limited out and who have their own agendas. Term limits won’t give us more control over our government. They will give us less.
We have term limits. They are called elections. If we cannot regulate the finances, then we have to figure out some way to get the word out about the right people even without a boatload of money to buy expensive ads.
There is much to be learned from the recent Obama campaign, and now is the time to do it, while the republicans are still scratching their fossilized heads and wondering why no one likes them.
8I like the idea of term limits, because I prefer the idea of public servant rather than career politician.
Many of the founding fathers thought politics was a limited-term calling and that after serving, you went back to your real job (farm, business, etc.).
But that concept of the political machine died a long time ago and so is impractical to try and impose on today’s realities.
Any system may create benefits, but can also be gamed. If there was some way to isolate the $$$ from the job, that might help, but everything else is a bandaid against the arterial spray of human nature (ego, greed, power-hungry…).
9IMO, there is no approach that will solve the problem; just some will be better than others. Figure out who the main players in the country are and the real rules that run this place. Term limits will not work unless the lobby industry and entrenched bureaucracy are taken into account. I think I recall an attribution to de Gaulle, “The cemeteries are full of indispensable men.”
10Full disclosure of all moneys and its equivalents from whatever source immediately; eg, for campaign financing, ear marks, home territory benefitting legislation, time limiting the revolving door between gov’t and private sector; ie, who’s on first.
Goal should be to establish a system that can be reasonably tweaked to attract the slightly more altruistic candidates.
The real basic problem is the voting electorate being ignorant, self-centered and apathetic at the grass roots especially. Short of excruciating pain inflicted upon them, I don’t see how to change this systemic cultural problem.
Therefore, term limits is an approach to offset some of these attempts for total control of the system by the wealthy few, which is their real goal and all this other stuff in the media is just so much diversionary flack.
If we had term limits, we would not have had Sam Rayburn.
11If we could get special interest money out of politics then a large number of political problems would be fixed. The core reform would be politicians answering to voters instead of to the highest briber.
12I agree with Diane. Some people make a career of public service and do a good job of it.
Also term limits makes big money contributions most important, because new candidates will have less name recognition. Corporations who buy politicians have no problem with buying a new one every few terms, if necessary. It may even be cheaper for them.
13Campaign finance reform, money out of politics, fair redistricting and , perhaps one six year term for POTUS.
14We want our doctors, lawyers, accountants, plumbers, chimney sweeps, etc. to possess the experience to do the job right; why shouldn’t we also want elected officials who are professionals? It is true that voters elect and then retain some terrible office holders, but that is the price that comes with democracy and majority rule. Consequently, despite the Rick Perrys, the Louie Gohmerts, and that idiot sheriff in Arizona, in principal, I oppose term limits.
A better solution is to shorten the ballot by reducing the number of elected offices. That would make it easier for voters to know the candidates who remain. And it makes little sense to elect court clerks and other administrative job holders. Even worse is electing judges in partisan elections.
15I know this is referring to national – but with term limits, we would have lost the services of Bernie Sanders, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, and others. What if we have their ilk in state?
16It’s one of those double-edged sword deals, like abolishing the filibuster. Sounds like a great idea until it isn’t.
Here’s a thought, slightly off track, but one I’d like to offer up for folks to ponder:
Let’s change the presidential term in office to one six year term. What would it mean? No reelection campaign. No fundraising ’round the clock. A prez would have six years to make his mark, so he/she would be more concerned about making that legacy a priority. It would focus the attention of the winner, give the electorate a break from the constant campaigning and posturing.
17On Houston City Council, term limits means….. no more than three consecutive two year terms. That’s six years, and that’s how long most of them stay. And for me, that’s probably long enough. Most of them do a lot of damage in six years. Some don’t.
We got term limits because we kept electing Dems. And the Repubs felt if they enacted “term limits” they could put some of their folks in office. Didn’t really work out all that well. They got some folks in office, but we kept electing a Democratic Mayor, so it didn’t matter all that much. We did, however get folks like What’s-her-name who bought a bunch of refrigerator magnets, for her campaign,and charged them to the taxpayers.
I think 8 years as Governor, is plenty. Double that scares me crazy. I’d love to see some campaign finance reform so people aren’t bought and paid for. But, I don’t see that happening any time soon. As long as people can throw money at politicians they will. Public service is a thing of the past. Nobody can afford to do it. I guess we can all be thankful that bunch only gets together in Austin every couple of years.
18I’m for them at the top of the food chain (governor and lt gov), just as we have at the national level. Below that, I think we need the opportunity to keep the good ‘uns and ditch the weak.
19In addition to the two-term limit on the U.S. presidency, the governors of 36 states and legislators in 15 states currently are subject to some form of term limits. Another five states have had legislative term limits repealed or overturned by court decisions.
I don’t know that term limits help a whole lot, because once the incumbent jackasses have to quit, you have the prospect of electing a whole fresh set of jackasses. Pick your poison. Term limits will never substitute for an informed electorate. We have to step up to the plate as citizens and keep ourselves informed about what’s going on, rather than surrender our good judgement to some standard procedure. Public office does not run on autopilot.
20I’m for term limits if it is the only way to get shed of Perry and Ted Poe.
But like Dianne said, then the staffers would really run the place, which might not be a bad thing.
21I agree whole-heartedly with Dianne and daChipster. I would add that I support the two-term limits on the President and for Governors, as well. Entrenched Executives tend to lead to a lot of corruption among appointed staffers. And, that’s a job that needs a regular infusion of new blood.
The main problem with term limits is that they can be ignored. How many sitting Rethugs in the Congress swore that they would abide by the term limits they voted for themselves in 1994? It was part of the Contract On America. Bloomberg managed to change the two-term limits in NYC to run–and win–a third term. We in DC voted for term limits for the City Council and they simply ignored it.
There are more effective means to improve governance. One of them is get rid of elections for judges. That isn’t something to be left in the hands of low-information voters. Also, transparency in all contributions would help, along with free access to the airways.
Term limits wind up throwing the baby out with the bath water and doesn’t really address to core problems.
22I see both sides. In Colorado, we had them. It torked me to see good folks “limited”, especially when the next person elected was not up to the same standards as the person who had to give up the office. On the other hand, it made me freakin’ estatic to get rid of some of the idiots who were in office. Allegedly we elect citizens to represent the masses…. and with the money it takes to win an office now adays, it is a holy hell… or wholly hell… however you want to dice it.
Does Cluster F*** ring a bell?
23We already have term lmits – things called elections.
24Well since Bernie is my Senator, I’m not partial to term limits , I’d like to see him stay in forever.
25I agree totally with what Juanita says in her opening. Term limits is telling me who I CANNOT vote for, and I don’t like that. And when you have the rare class act, like we do in Stafford with mayor Scarcelli, why should he have to quit running things if we all want him to stay in there? And from what I’ve seen in Houston, term limits just mean you can’t get them out no matter how awful they are until their limit is up.
26Term limits can prevent the most qualified candidate from entering the race. If you are trying to cull out the experienced and competent candidates, term limits work.
On the other hand, the Peter Principle works tirelessly to make our bureaucracy fail.
Anyway, we already have term limits–on a case by case basis. We decide at the end of every term whether the limit has been reached.
27Folks it won’t have anything to do with Kirk Watson (love him) or whoever your State Senator or State Representative is. Won’t have anything to do with your city council, county commissioners, or anyone other than statewide offices: governor, lt. gov, land cmsr, ag cmsr, comptroller, atty. general probably leaving out one or two. ONLY the offices currently held by Rick Perry, David Dewhurst, Jerry Patterson, Susan Combs, Todd Staples, Gregg Abbott and whoever else is a STATE wide person. Not judges.
28I used to say no to term limits because we have elections, but we keep getting the same dudes mentioned above, and as long as we have these dudes we will have no reforms for money. This is a start. It’s like Joe Biden said yesterday about the background check for all gun purchases- that it doesn’t completely solve the problem but it’s a start. He also used the analogy that banning leaded gas did not solve global warming, but it helps. If we can get term limits for statewide office holders then the next battle can be the money problems. It’s sort of like the kid who wants two pieces of cake and one of pie but he settles for just one piece of cake.
So you really want to see Greg Abbott for 12 years as governor or Susan Combs as anything else ever?
While some states have legislated term limits, Congress is a whole different matter. Congressional terms are designated in the Constitution; it would require a constitutional amendment to change that. http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2013/01/30/why-no-term-limits-for-congress-the-constitution.htm
Constitutional amendments are hard to come by. The odds of Congresscritters limiting themselves is nil.
29LynnN is exactly right, I recently wrote to my congressvarmint about this very subject. About 20 years ago, he ran on term limits, and that’s what got him elected. His eventual response cited the Supreme Court ruling. What he didn’t answer was “why do you keep running?” See, the Court ruling doesn’t say that he HAS to keep running, just that he can. He lied to voters at the outset and has continued to do so. (He is a true varmint, and his name starts with “Doc” and ends with Hastings, in case anyone wants to know.) But since you asked, JJ, I would say that “term limits” is a really good idea philosophically, but it never seems to work. Let’s focus all our efforts on financing and getting out the vote.
30There are two thoughts regarding gerrymandered districts that seem relevant to this discussion. First of all, if Democrats are any less guilty than Republicans of gerrymandering it is only because we have not had the same opportunity to protect our folks with safe districts. Secondly, the spector of unintended consequences haunts the Republicans. Safe Republican districts have led to the election of Louie Gohmert and other Republicans whose elections we dismay while ridiculing their antics and the crap they create. Although they cause havoc in congress and in state legislatures, at the same time they damage the Republican brand by being unable to compromise and, except in Texas and like venues, are too extreme to win statewide elections. Ultimately, enough folks in Texas, Alabama, Alaska, etc., must tire of the right wing extremisim those legislators espouse.
31