• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

George Will on term limits.

C

chess9

Elite member
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...sable_term_limits.html

"Advocates of term limits argue neither that political talent is irrelevant nor that it is ubiquitous. Rather, they argue that talent is not so scarce that the benefits of rotation in office must be sacrificed in order to prolong indefinitely a talented person's tenure in office. And they argue that the benefits of churning the talent pool exceed the costs of limiting tenures."

This is in the context of the Bloomberg announcement that he would like to run for another four year term. Bloomberg is very popular and has done a wonderful job for the most part. So, if it ain't broke, why fix it? Why move on to another mayor who might be much worse? Why pull Nolan Ryan in the 5th inning for a minor league unknown?

My view is that on the menu of solutions to the removal of a lousy government leader, term limits are the best known solution. Until we come up with a way to yank the chain on the lousy public servants that works, I'll go with term limits even if we lose an occasional great one, like Bloomberg.

-Robert
 
Term Limits :thumbsup:

I would think that having a person there for a limited amount of time, they wouldn't be hardly persuaded by outside influences as someone who is worried about the upcoming election and trying to please the big money donors.
 
Originally posted by: KK
Term Limits :thumbsup:

I would think that having a person there for a limited amount of time, they wouldn't be hardly persuaded by outside influences as someone who is worried about the upcoming election and trying to please the big money donors.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If a person knows their congressional career is limited to six years and they are 40 years old, the special interest that dangles a lobbyist/consultant/etc. job in front of them is going to get a heck of a lot of attention, at a minimum.

I've said it before and I'll say it again-term limits are not the problem. Seniority rules give long time incompetents like Ted Stevens an inordinate amount of power. eliminate seniority rules and the public will weed out the now useless hacks.
 
What will happen with term limits? Congresspeople will constantly be changing. The only thing that will get you to be in the Congress is money. And since you will be leaving it shortly, you would have to sell yourself to the big money donors.
The most effective people in Congress have built up a name recognition and voter approval that alllows them to actually work for the country and not their donors or party.
Of course, if you get a bad one, they stay a long time and work against everyone but their interests.
AS bad as it is now, it would be even worse. Far, far worse
 
We should have the two candidates win the primaries in their district and then randomly be put on the ballot in a different congressional district every time around for the general election.
 
I think voters should be allowed to vote for anyone they want. If folks want to return a scumbag to office so be it. I agree with Thump's point about seniority.
 
George Bush is all you need to make the argument in favor of term limits.

I think we collectively breathed a sigh of relief after the 2004 election at least knowing that there was a light at the end of the tunnel.
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
George Bush is all you need to make the argument in favor of term limits.

I think we collectively breathed a sigh of relief after the 2004 election at least knowing that there was a light at the end of the tunnel.
Click to expand...

Not really all you need.. he wouldn't be re-elected, if even nominated, if there weren't term limits. And maybe Clinton would have run again. Reagan might be a better argument because he would have been even more senile than he was in his last two years.
 
Everyone hates Congress. Except that they love their own Senators and Representatives. People want term limits for the other guy, not their own guys.

The answer is to make congressional races much more competitive, not limit terms. There are two obvious ways to accomplish this:

Put in place strict laws limiting gerrymandering. Come up with computer algorithms that create districts based on common-sense notions of topology and which, on average, favor no particular party or individual.

Even more important: Create universal and generous public funding of elections. There are totally convincing studies that show clearly that if a viable opponent is funded beyond a reasonable threshold (about $1 million for house races and $6 million [iirc] for senate races]), the races WILL be competitive and a high percentage of incumbents will lose. Check out just6dollars.org.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top