New Constitution?

[2322]

How do term limits translate into preventing pork barrel spending?

While length of service might not equate to wisdom, it doesn't necessarily exclude it. How do term limits increase the experience and wisdom of legislators?

You immediately say that you wouldn't want to limit terms unless it was for a good reason but then use a parallel argument that doesn't apply. No single senator or representative has any power which is not derived from his or her colleagues. A president has power vested in the office of president. Only majority votes (or failure to consider legislation) of either two legislative chambers bring power to those chambers. If you're going to introduce a republican argument, then republicans will immediately state that the question of term limits should be up to the states themselves to implement or not. It is not for the federal government to determine whom the states can or cannot send to office to represent them since the federal government is of the people (the House and Presidencies) and the states (the Senate), not of the government itself.

How to term limits prevent cronyism? Any elected official is going to owe supporters favors whether they're in for one or two or 100 terms and any rep can introduce and vote for pork projects their first week in office. Cronyism has existed in elected governments of all sorts since the althing. As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried."

And people sometimes ignore their civic responsibilities in monitoring their elected officials but wouldn't it be prudent to erect safe guards against the possible incursion of political cronyism into the government?

If you could show that such safeguards actually stopped cronyism. Term limits are a knee-jerk reaction along the lines of, "throw the bums out!" It sounds like a good idea, but does it solve the problems?

Just recently we saw a sweeping change in the composition of the House and Senate as both houses changed parties. Clearly the people were furious with the incumbent Republican party, but has anything really changed? Has either house, under new management, actually done what the people had hoped? Has the Iraq war improved? Have they reined-in spending? Forced the president to do anything he wasn't able to previous to the change over? Changing faces clearly does not always result in change of policy.

Thanks for the contribution Jason.

Those are all valid points. I would also agree that wisdom is a worthy virtue to have in an elected official. But I would say that political longevity doesn't necessarily equate with valuable experience and wisdom.

For instance here in New Mexico one of our Senators, Pete Dominci is stepping down due to illness after 36 years in office. Because he was there for so long he developed connections and networks in Washington that proved incredibly beneficial to our state. But some of his detractors point out that some of the money he managed to bring into the state was for "pork barrel" spending projects which generates jobs and revenue into the local economy but may not have been for the "public good" and only benefited the part of his constituency that was the base for his re-election.

Simply retaining the same individuals in Congress doesn't ensure wisdom on their part. They may know the intricacies of the governmental system and how to accomplish their agendas but that doesn't translate to wisdom and understanding of their duty to public service if they operate with the selective interests of the voting base. With term limits they might feel more obligated to seek the favor of their entire distract



Also, I wouldn’t want to deny a district the opportunity to re-electing a candidate if they truly wanted him to remain in office unless it was for good cause. For the same reason we have term limits for the President we ought to have term limits for Congressmen. To prevent them from accumulating too much power and influence around themselves and perhaps becoming tyrannical with that power. I admit term limits might seem undemocratic but we are more a republic than a democracy in point if fact.

And people sometimes ignore their civic responsibilities in monitoring their elected officials but wouldn't it be prudent to erect safe guards against the possible incursion of political cronyism into the government?

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

So, if you have to keep changing it, what does that tell you about things written in stone?

That's the whole point. It's not written in stone. That's part of the genius behind its design. It was always intended to be a dynamic document.

 

[kalipygian]

I would favor limiting campaign contributions to individual constituents, no corporate or PAC contributions.

A term limit could also have a maximum of consecutive terms, and allow a person to run again after being out of office one term. That is how our Municipal Assembly here is, in the time it has been in force, there has only been one person I regretted losing, and he is our current mayor. There have been about half a dozen I have been glad to see term limited out.

I would favor Term limits in our state legislature and congress.

 

[thoreau]

How do term limits translate into preventing pork barrel spending?

What I meant was the example I was using of the senior Senator I mentioned from my state was that he had developed the political connections and clout during his long tenure that he could peddle great influence in Congress in addition to his seniority allowing him the opportunity to acquire key seats as chairman in pivotal Congressional committees that have oversight responsibility to how public funds are distributed. From his position he could ensure that certain amounts of revenue were funneled back into our state. So that's what I mean by pork barrel spending, a congressmen using his the advantages of office and positions on important boards gained through his political experience and longevity to disproportionately use the funds intended to be distributed for the national or public good for the personal projects important to the elements of his constituency that are critical to his continued re-election.


With term limits in Congress it might prevent the coalescing of power into the hands of a few influential Senators and Representatives who would only hold allegiance with a minute fraction of the country’s population.

While length of service might not equate to wisdom, it doesn't necessarily exclude it. How do term limits increase the experience and wisdom of legislators?

Term Limits wouldn't increase the experience and wisdom of the legislators. But I feel it would do is encourage the introduction of a fresh perspective into the realm of national politics on a more routine basis. If current Congressmen were limited to say two terms in office and were unconcerned with the pressures of re-election and therefore wouldn't feel the need for the political pandering and appeasement of the citizenry during campaigning then I think their disposition while in office would be more focus the fulfillment of their duty, which is promoting the general welfare of the people and protecting the public interest and not with monumentally distracting exercise of winning elections.


And furthermore, with the continuous transitions of senators and representatives I believe it would foster a continual influx of enthusiastic individuals who are eager for the opportunity to engage in the business of government. As junior members of Congress that agendas would be centered around the relevant matters of serving the public good and not with aggrandizing power to themselves; because they realize that they have a finite amount of time within which to work and wouldn't frivolously waste it in the vain and fruitless attempts of satisfying their ambition but rather spend it in the productive and genuine service involved in goverence.

You immediately say that you wouldn't want to limit terms unless it was for a good reason but then use a parallel argument that doesn't apply. No single senator or representative has any power which is not derived from his or her colleagues. A president has power vested in the office of president. Only majority votes (or failure to consider legislation) of either two legislative chambers bring power to those chambers. If you're going to introduce a republican argument, then republicans will immediately state that the question of term limits should be up to the states themselves to implement or not. It is not for the federal government to determine whom the states can or cannot send to office to represent them since the federal government is of the people (the House and Presidencies) and the states (the Senate), not of the government itself.

But as I said earlier I do think it is possible for Senators and Representatives to attain positions of power and influence within their respective branches of the legislator, through important cabinet and committee membership and also having influential leadership positions in the structure of the Senate of the House. Particularly powerful congress members can direct and sway the outcomes of government policy and perhaps marshal enough political support to create the necessary majority of votes on a given issue when it suits their agendas. I think this is especially true due to the impact that political party affiliation plays in the voting patterns of Congressmen. (But that's another issue to deal with entirely.)


I don't think the issue of term limits ought to necessarily be left to the states. At least not considering the framework of our political system. It is up to the discretion of the federal government to decide the procedures that states adhere to in sending their representatives to Congress. Ours is decidedly more Federalized system of government that has the federal government in final authority over the state governments. Each has its own respective spheres of sovereignty but the federal government is regarded as supreme authority. Now, if our political make-up was more of a Confederacy than I would agree that the citizens of the States would have the authority and the prerogative to decide on what terms their congressmen are sent to the national legislatures over that of the federal government But that would imply that States sovereignty was held above that of the federal government in making a final decision and that simply isn't the case. The Federal Government as you said being representative of the people of the nation would be the final decider for the issue of the terms of service in Congress, but they combined voice of the people across the nation would have to make that rule imposed upon the citizens of all the other states

How to term limits prevent cronyism? Any elected official is going to owe supporters favors whether they're in for one or two or 100 terms and any rep can introduce and vote for pork projects their first week in office. Cronyism has existed in elected governments of all sorts since the althing. As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried."



If you could show that such safeguards actually stopped cronyism. Term limits are a knee-jerk reaction along the lines of, "throw the bums out!" It sounds like a good idea, but does it solve the problems?

I would agree that elected officials might feel beholden to the supporters that were instrumental in getting them elected and feel the need to return favors or offer preferential treatment. However, I think that term limits would lessen this sense of obligation. Why would special interests groups or political advocate groups each with their own agendas support certain candidates that have limited amounts of time in government to make an impact and promote their agendas when he probably wouldn't have the political ability to be very useful to them. And once you've been placed into office the concern of over re-election is secondary with the use of term limits and what is of primary concern is the use of the candidate’s conscience in decision-making.


I don't know if I could offer any concrete evidence that term limits would correct the problem I see in our government. It's just what I believe would be a good solution.