Term limits for politicians came into vogue in 1994 with the advent of the "Contract for America," the political marketing plan of the Republicans to take over Congress. I was initially opposed to the idea, thinking it was a lazy way to circumvent citizen involment. After all, every politician is term limited, and must run for reelection when it expires. If voters think he is not doing an adequate job, they should mobilize to displace him come election time. The Republican wanted term limits, until they got elected, and found that staying in office was to their liking, and the term limits pledge quietly drifted away.
But another factor has come to sway my opinion on the matter: seniority. We are all supposed to be equal in the United States. However, in such bodies as the Congress, members with more seniority have more power than their less tenured colleagues. Although the Constitution gives Congress the right to set its own rules, I feel it violates the overall spirit of the Constitution. US Senators have been known to serve for decades, faithfully bringing home the pork because of the number of years served in the institution, not because of the actual need for the project. This in turn puts voters in an uncomfortable position: vote for the candidate with new ideas and energy (and loss of seniority and plum committee assignments), or vote for the multiple termed Senator whose only credentials are how much federal monies he veered to his state. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle of reelection and the ensuing pork, and candidates with something new to contribute are therefore shut out and left in the political periphery, and their talents going no further usually than city council and the private sector.
One reason I think we are in such a financial mess we are in is because pet projects ear marked for states and districts, and thereby ensuring reelection. Although many public works need tended to, there are some that are really just not needed for public (such as festivals) use and protection, and at the expense of worthy projects in districts not represented by poiticians with the necessary time in office. These projects are usually named with the incumbent's name attached to it, providing free campaign publicity and making a newcomer's bid that much harder.
Another reason some have against term limits is experience is necessary to properly perform governmental functions. While I don't underestimate the virtueof experience, experience can come from other venues, such as from other elective and appoined offices, working in nonprofit groups and charities, education, as well as critical thinking. Institutional memory is good, but long term staffers can provide that to, as well as advice from former members.
Recently, an incumbant who's been in office since the Carter administration was defeated, and essentially lived in Virginia, a couple thousand miles from the state he was supposed to represent. How involved was he with the daily lives and concerns of his constituants beyond town hall meeting? Another Senator passed away recently with five decades of service, and was known as a king of pork spending. The people who elected him might claim that term limits rob them of their ability to choose who they send to Washington. Perhaps so. But this was a United States Senator, not a state senator. The laws he advocated and wheedeled affected the entire country, not just his state. The money he earmarked were paid by taxpayers of the fifty states, not just his.
Whiule we want politicians to to be accountable to our needs, and it happens when they run for reelection because they want to keep the job, it can sometimes be detrimental as well. Take Medicare and Social Security. These programs are going broke, and the answer is to wait, or let other politicians worry about it when it comes to it, because by then they will be out of office anyway. Social Security is a program based on 1935 demographics and actuarial tables (18 workers to one retiree ratio, and life expectancy of 65 years of age). If Social Secuity will be bankrupt in thirty years, do you want to wait twenty eight years to fix it? Or, in other words in your own case, do you want to wait two years before retirement? With these programs cosidered the third rail of politics, don't wait for career politicians to fix them.
But another factor has come to sway my opinion on the matter: seniority. We are all supposed to be equal in the United States. However, in such bodies as the Congress, members with more seniority have more power than their less tenured colleagues. Although the Constitution gives Congress the right to set its own rules, I feel it violates the overall spirit of the Constitution. US Senators have been known to serve for decades, faithfully bringing home the pork because of the number of years served in the institution, not because of the actual need for the project. This in turn puts voters in an uncomfortable position: vote for the candidate with new ideas and energy (and loss of seniority and plum committee assignments), or vote for the multiple termed Senator whose only credentials are how much federal monies he veered to his state. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle of reelection and the ensuing pork, and candidates with something new to contribute are therefore shut out and left in the political periphery, and their talents going no further usually than city council and the private sector.
One reason I think we are in such a financial mess we are in is because pet projects ear marked for states and districts, and thereby ensuring reelection. Although many public works need tended to, there are some that are really just not needed for public (such as festivals) use and protection, and at the expense of worthy projects in districts not represented by poiticians with the necessary time in office. These projects are usually named with the incumbent's name attached to it, providing free campaign publicity and making a newcomer's bid that much harder.
Another reason some have against term limits is experience is necessary to properly perform governmental functions. While I don't underestimate the virtueof experience, experience can come from other venues, such as from other elective and appoined offices, working in nonprofit groups and charities, education, as well as critical thinking. Institutional memory is good, but long term staffers can provide that to, as well as advice from former members.
Recently, an incumbant who's been in office since the Carter administration was defeated, and essentially lived in Virginia, a couple thousand miles from the state he was supposed to represent. How involved was he with the daily lives and concerns of his constituants beyond town hall meeting? Another Senator passed away recently with five decades of service, and was known as a king of pork spending. The people who elected him might claim that term limits rob them of their ability to choose who they send to Washington. Perhaps so. But this was a United States Senator, not a state senator. The laws he advocated and wheedeled affected the entire country, not just his state. The money he earmarked were paid by taxpayers of the fifty states, not just his.
Whiule we want politicians to to be accountable to our needs, and it happens when they run for reelection because they want to keep the job, it can sometimes be detrimental as well. Take Medicare and Social Security. These programs are going broke, and the answer is to wait, or let other politicians worry about it when it comes to it, because by then they will be out of office anyway. Social Security is a program based on 1935 demographics and actuarial tables (18 workers to one retiree ratio, and life expectancy of 65 years of age). If Social Secuity will be bankrupt in thirty years, do you want to wait twenty eight years to fix it? Or, in other words in your own case, do you want to wait two years before retirement? With these programs cosidered the third rail of politics, don't wait for career politicians to fix them.
No comments:
Post a Comment