From: bjv@shasta.tivoli.com (Brian Vetter)
Newsgroups: austin.politics
Subject: Re: We need Term Limits
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:42:42 GMT
Distribution: austin
Organization: TIVOLI Systems

In article <1992Nov10.143317.11470@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
|> 
|>     Why Having Term Limits for the US Congress is a Good Idea

Or, why Curt Finch thinks term limits for US Congress is a good idea.

|> 
|> Government has been distorted by legislative careerism predicated on
|> constant abuse of the power of the purse.  The allocation of scarce
|> public resources is determined to a large and growing extent not by
|> calm deliberation about public needs but by the runaway scramble by
|> incumbents attending to their career needs by dispensing favors as
|> different as wool subsidies and 'Masterpiece Theatre'.

When I watch Congress on CSpan, I never see any "runaway scrambles".  In
fact, there is hardly any life outside of the speaker at the podium.  The
rest of the chamber is usually "dead" quiet (perhaps because of all of the
sleeping geezers).  But if you think that term limitations will tranform
runway scrambles for bucks into calm deliberation, you must be thinking
of some other countries' congress.  Curt, you are such a dreamer.

|> 
|> For congressmen, the ideal of representation has been replaced with
|> that of self-serving responsiveness.
|> 
|> With term limits, all this would change.  Without lifetime carreers to
|> protect and preserve, congressmen would be free to debate and discuss
|> rather than to just pander to special interest PACs.  Leaders would
|> lead; budgets would be balanced; institutional respect restored.
|> 

I agree that term limits would reduce the incentive for career politicians
to hang around in the US Congress.  This might even be good in many if
not most cases.

But how do all these changes you suggest occur with term limits?  You seem
to believe that just by sticking some time limit on service, that people will
ignore special interests, freely and openly debate issues, develop the ability
to balance near-trillion dollar budgets, and to restore respect for a
body that has seldom commanded "respect" from the public throughout history.

What I expect to happen if term limitations were federally mandated
is the following:

1) Special interests and PACs would continue to thrive.  Instead of limiting
their influence over incumbents, they would just shift to supporting new
members, even contributing heavily to their campaigns.  You might even see
"special interest" candidates running.  Just think of the possiblilties:
The "fundamentalist" candidate - vowing to institute school prayer.  The
"environmentalist" candidate - vowing to save every tree and owl.  The
"defense industry" candidate - vowing to build weapons and then start a
war to see if they work.  The "cigarette" candidate - vowing to banish
non-smoking sections in all public places (don't forget the non-smoking
candidate, wanting to do just the opposite).  And lets not forget the
Abortion/Choice/Life possiblities.

And once these new candidates get into office, they will be bludgeoned by
mounds of data, reports, surveys, etc...  All provided by special interests
as a "favor" to help educate the newly elected congress-person.

2) Congressional sessions could become a circus (as opposed to a sleeper).
It will be much more entertaining to watch.  With all of the new faces,
continuity and tradition will fall.  There will be a bunch of people who
don't necessarily know how gov't works (or used to work) and how to work
with the bureaucracy.

Of course, this might be good.  But then again, it could be such chaos that
the first year of the term would be a waste while everyone was trying to
get settled, get their staffs in place, and adjust to the people they have
to work with (just like dogs, organizations - even congress - have a pack
order).

3) Professional, interchangeable, staffs might become a "new industry".
So what happens with your average, intelligent, joe is elected?  He/she
will have to assemble a staff to help sort through all of the issues
(new and pending from the previous congress) and to rely on for advice,
(few people know everything - if you exclude frequent news-posters like JFH)
and take care of administration duties.  Professional, ready-to-go
staffs and professional aides will be available to "help" out.  A
congress-person will be able to avoid such people but instead rely on
the PACS that helped in the election.  Or not.

4) Pork will be Pork and people still like to eat bacon.  It is fairly
rediculous to believe that term limitations will eliminate pork.  Every
candidate will have its own pet projects or causes.  They still will
want to help their own communities.  Just because they are limited in
time will not prevent pork-like projects.  So called coalitions and
deals will continue to be made - they just have less time to build
up relationships.

Converse to the opinions of many, Congress-persons don't just vote for
pork projects to get re-elected.  Some actually are trying to improve
the plight of the people back home.

Until the voters stop voting for people who promise to "bring home the
bacon" and vote for people who run on gov't reform/perform platforms, we
will continue to have pork funded projects in the federal gov't.

5) and more of the same.

|> Term limits would affirm that being a congressman is a job that anybody
|> of reasonable intelligence can do, (which it is,) and thus that no
|> politician is indispensable.  Besides, how much worse could things
|> get?
|> 

I guess you are assuming people with reasonable intelligence want to be
congress-persons.  I doubt things would get much worse.  I doubt that
things would get much better.  Things will just get a little different.

|> The advatanges of incumbency virtually guarantee that congressmen can
|> serve as long as they like.  Witness recent re-election rates of 95% or
|> more.

Well, they have to die.  Until they pass a congressional imortality bill
and the president doesn't veto it, death is the universal law of the land.
Everyone must succomb to it.  Not to say that there aren't a few dead ones
still serving.

But term limitations doesn't solve the fundamental problems of PPP
(Pros, PACS, pork).  It just means that each will be limited to the
number of years they get to partake in the festivities at the public
trough.  Something needs to be done about campaign reform so that
a person possessing reasonable intelligence, good ideas, leadership
qualities, and a stomach for public service, yet without the enormous
funds required to run for office, has a chance at winning an election.
It is true that name recoginition helps win elections and incumbents
have the edge.  But if non-incumbents were given equal access during
an election, it is possible that they might actually win.

And if a district has a really good incumbent, who serves his community well,
and is responsible in dealing with nationwide U.S. issues, why shouldn't
the voters be allowed to vote for him/her?  Maybe this is the problem.
Everyone thinks their own congress-person does a good job.  They just
want to limit the bozos that the other district voters keep electing.
If that's the case, then isn't all of this moot.  Everyone is happy,
yet everyone is mad.  Seems like politics to me.

Brian Vetter
bjv@tivoli.com