The US Federal Government Should Pass a Term Limit Amendment

I. What the People WantMy opponent begins by citing that 80% of Debate. org supports term limits. However, not only is this a small sample size, it it also an unreliable sample; many people just fill out the big issues and then never return to Debate. org. If we look at people we've heard of on Debate. org, many recognizable people oppose term limits, such as RoyLatham. So therefore, my opponent's point here is irrelevant. Next, my opponent asserts that 78% of voters would like a term limit in Congress. However, this is an Ad Populum fallacy. A greater percentage of the population supported Hitler in Nazi Germany. Also, keep in mind that the people have the right to create term limits, but they fail to act upon it year after year. In fact, "Term limits' popularity does not make them a good idea. In fact, they're a bad idea, for several reasons. "[3] But also, "Of course anti-legislative sentiment was so strong at the time that even rural voters joined in passing term limits. In Muskogee County [Oklahoma] voters went nearly 2-1 for term limits and in the same election returned to office a House member with nearly 25 years experience. "[3] Do they really want them or not? However, this negates this point perfectly: "Term limits are presumptuous. Turnover was not a problem in the Oklahoma Legislature, especially in the urban areas. In 1990 only 10 percent of House members and 20 percent of senators had served more than 12 years. The problem for the Republican proponents of term limits was that the senior-most members — those who kept getting re-elected over and over — tended to represent rural or small-town districts and they were mostly Democrats. The term-limits advocates were essentially telling rural voters, 'We don't like the people you keep electing to office so we are going to restrict your ability to elect them. '"[3]Are term limits really that democratic? II. Limits Power All the career politicians with relationships to special interests started out as new politicians; there is no reason to think the new blood in Congress won't make deals with lobbyists. Note that pro offers no evidence that new politicians are less likely to listen to lobbyists. Compare this to my University study showing that term limits cause politicians to rely more on the advice of lobbyists. In addition, like I said in round 2, term limits mean that politicians have a “lame duck” term- a term where they know they aren’t coming back because they have the term limit. These politicians have no incentive to stay accountable to their electorate, what is to stop them from “cashing in” before they are permanently booted from office and selling their vote to the highest bidder behind closed doors? To negate this point fully, when term-limits exist, lobbyists simply adjust to the quickened timetable of finite terms in office. They are skilled enough to ensure that they maintain their influence despite the shorter term-limit. [4]III. Government Becomes More Effective I will start with my opponent's two sources. I read them thoroughly, and although about the 'fiscal cliff' and the upcoming battle over the debt ceiling, I failed to see any quotation or indication that their failure to make a deal on time was the result of them being able to have unlimited terms. In fact, the cause cited in his source 4 is, "Most critics believe that the lack of a comprehensive, long-term deal on deficit reduction—one that addresses the need for major tax and entitlement reform—has propelled the use of short-term political expedients like the "doc fix" and other extenders. Meanwhile, the nation's debt soars on an unsustainable path, according to most projections. "[1] And his source 5 gives no explanation to why the fiscal cliff crisis occured. Now, I will deal with my opponent's claim that term limits create a more efficient government. My opponent seems to conclude that politicians who are elected to Congress stay in it until they retire. However, this is obviously a fallacy. There were huge upsets during the 2008 elections by Tea Party backed Republican challengers and notably Arlen Specter was defeated in his 2010 Senatorial campaign after serving for nearly 30 years. New blood comes into Congress each election cycle. Conclusion This is necessary to refute my opponent's central premise: that Congressman stay Congressman their whole lives. In point 1, people already have the power to impose term limits - by simply booting out all who they feel have served long enough. As I mentioned earlier, "And the problem isn't just that six years isn't enough time to understand the issues and the process. It's also not long enough to build strong relationships across the aisle, particularly given that a lot of other members will have to leave two or four years after she gets there. "[2] If a public servant does a good job, why not reward their service with a positive vote and more time in office? Sources [1]: . http://www.cfr.org...[2]: . http://voices.washingtonpost.com...[3]: . http://www.tulsaworld.com...[4]: . http://www.soyouwanna.com...