Resolved: The US federal goverment should pass a term limit ammendment

In this final round, I am going to break from the preceding structure of the debate to present a more streamlined way to analyze the arguments. 1) Why Term Limits Are Not Needed To be sure, Pro enunciates some very legitimate concerns about Congress. He points out the long-time members often wield large amounts of influence and often have strong ties to special interest groups. He points out that we need to allow new blood more freedom to contribute ideas and to make sure Congress is not controlled by lobbyists. But these are all problems that can be solved without initiating term limits. Revising campaign finance laws would limit the power of lobbyists and special interest groups. Restructuring the seniority system and increasing the frequency with which committee chairs rotate would limit the power of older Congress members and give freshman more of a voice in Congress. These are just a few of the reforms that are targeted specifically at the problems Pro mentions, and in fact even Pro’s sources show that the issues these reforms target are at the heart of the matter- for example when his Cato source says “Term limits will increase the turnover rate for committee chairs and indeed for the entire legislature…” Throughout the course of this debate Pro has not offered a single reason why the reform possibilities I have offered up are inferior to term limits or why we should prefer term limits over targeted reform. Additionally, term limits do not solve many of the concerns put forth by Pro. He has not explained why younger members of Congress would somehow ignore the influence of lobbyists and special interests. The bottom line is there are other, more efficient and direct ways to solve the problems Pro outlines. 2) Why Term Limits Hurt US Congress First, term limits prevent Congress from accumulating valuable experience. In every industry, experience is a valued commodity- to even apply for an engineering license you must have 5 years experience and Pro has pointed out doctors require 6 years of on the job training (on top of years of medical school). Congressman must understand issues from economics to healthcare to agriculture- the wide range of issues requires a long time to master. With term limits, by the time a legislator has mastered an area of public policy they are booted out of office. No business operates like this- you don’t fire an architect once they hit 10 years of service- and the reason for this is that experience is crucial for any organization to run successfully. This is illustrated by the poor healthcare ranking of states with term limits and the fiscal ruin of term limited California. Second, term limits give greater power to lobbyists. While legislators are term limits, lobbyists and special interest groups are not. This means that lobbyists learn the workings of Congress better than the legislators. Coupled with the lack of familiarity with policy issues due to lack of experience, legislators have a tendency to rely on the guidance offered by lobbyists in developing public policy. Keep in mind that this isn’t my own conjecture, this is the scenario discovered by research from the University of Missouri, which found the influence of lobbyists to increase in the state legislature after Missouri instituted term limits. Third, term limits force out respected and efficient members of Congress like John McCain and Ron Paul. These are politicians who have been instrumental in developing important legislation and have valuable insight on how to reach compromises on difficult issues. Finally, term limits mean that at any given time, half of the U. S. senate would be “lame ducks”- meaning they have no option of re-election and so are unaccountable to their electorate. These politicians might vote in unpredictable ways. Also, these politicians could be tempted to sell out during their final term, bowing to lobbyists and special interests, since they have no fear of jeopardizing future election bids and have a need to secure a future after they leave office. For example, a Senator may vote in line with a group of lobbyists in exchange for a job offer once he leaves office. 3) Why Term Limits are Undemocratic Pro would have you believe that if term limits increase the number of candidates in an election, this represents an increase in choice. Allow me to show that this is false by analogy. Imagine you go to a restaurant because you know they have a great filet mignon steak. However, the waiter informs you that you may not order the steak, but instead you may choose from a wide variety of other dishes. Of course from your perspective the waiter has restricted your ability to choose, not expanded it. You wanted the steak, but that option was taken away form you- it doesn’t matter what the other dishes are because your first choice was taken away from you. This is exactly the situation the good people of Texas would face were they told Ron Paul was ineligible for election. Note: this is a new argument, but it is only in response to a new argument presented by my opponent in his final round so I ask the judges to allow it. Of course I have shown that while incumbents have an electoral advantage, there are plenty of historical examples of long-term politicians losing reelection bids and of mass incumbent losses during times of political dissatisfaction. In 2010, in the House of Representatives alone, 58 incumbents loss re-election bids. This shows that incumbents are vulnerable to a dissatisfied electorate and that new blood enters Congress frequently. Again, the answer to solving any structural inequities in elections is not to restrict electoral choice but to institute targeted reform of how elections are carried out. 4) The Non-sequitur Pro seems to think Congressmen are just less powerful versions of the president, and so wants to know why the president should have term limits but not Congress. Congress is entirely different than the President- only Congress passes laws, Congress must act by group consensus, Congress represents individual states, etc. The very different purpose and structure means comparison between president and Congress is inappropriate. Conclusion: Term limits are a superficially appealing solution to systemic problems with Congress- it represents an easy solution to a complicated suite of problems. Unfortunately, easy solutions are rarely as great as they seem. From 1) we see that term limits are inadequate to solve the problems outline by Pro and that targeted reform is the true way to solve these problems. From 2) we see that term limits actually initiate a slew of problems that would be detrimental to U. S. Congress. From 3) we see that term limits restrict the choice of the voters and so represents an anti-democratic policy move. The question we are left with is why would we choose to initiate a policy that fails to solve the core problems, initiates more problems, and is undemocratic when we have alternatives available that do solve the core problems, are unproblematic, and preserves our democratic values.