onadesertedisland
Member
Good luck with that. In this political atmosphere, you won't get two thirds for anything.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ted Cruz introduces constitutional amendment for congressional term limits
- Thread starter StarCreator
- Start date
- Status
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Yeah, they're not going to vote themselves out of a job. Lobbying and the money that comes with it is a more important issue.
Congressional Republicans don't pass actual legislation by design; it's an ideological and tactical decision, not a result of spending too much time campaigning.
That would just encourage politicians to cultivate private-sector and lobbying connections that they can immediately profit from upon leaving office.
If that were such a big concern, what keeps greedy politicians in office now? Surely they could easily just use the office to benefit private industries then step down quickly to reap the rewards right?
This may come as a shock, but for all the transparent ladder-climbers and corrupt officials using their influence to lead to big pay outs down the road, there are actually very many career politicians in DC -- both Democrats and Republicans -- who are on the Hill for the sake of performing a public service. There are far more lucrative and less stressful ways to make a living than subjecting yourself to voters and journalists every day for decades, and while there's always a contingent of people in the Senate and the House who are just rotten, there are also many more who -- regardless of your ideological agreements or disagreements with them -- are there to do what they believe is the right thing for their constituents and their country.
With term limits, it's faster and easier to jump on and off the Hill just to build your private-sector or lobbying cred, and those joining Congress who are actually interested in civic service will find their efforts seriously handicapped by constant turnover, which makes policymaking and coalition building much much harder.
LegendofJoe
Member
This is what I was thinking. You need to have a good balance of people who have been in Congress for a while and know how the institution works. 18 years for a Senator and 12 for a Congressman/Congresswoman sounds closer to the mark for me. Only 6 years for someone in Congress is a bad idea.
But what's the difference from how it is right now?
Dude Abides
Banned
The Lobbyist Empowement Amendment of 2017.
Term limits are complete shit. All they do is push out talented people for no reason.
In Illinois, some tea-partier ran in the last election on the promise of term limits. He failed miserably because it was a transparent attempt at kicking the senior democratic leaders out of the legislator.
Like it or not, no term limits bring stability. You're always gonna know how Orrin Hatch will vote. Someone who has only been there 5 years who is about to be replaced? Not so much.
Like it or not, no term limits bring stability. You're always gonna know how Orrin Hatch will vote. Someone who has only been there 5 years who is about to be replaced? Not so much.
Aaronology
Member
Aye, agreed on all points. This is one of those ideas that appears great at a cursory glance but the repercussions would be markedly negative. I'm not even sure that I care for Presidential term limits.
bggrthnjsus
Member
if lobbyists already have so much power, how do shorter terms make it worse? i actually have no idea.
really not sure which argument is better/worse, haven't seen enough real hard (data!) evidence from either side
really not sure which argument is better/worse, haven't seen enough real hard (data!) evidence from either side
We just had to replace Obama when no one wanted to. Presidential limits were definitely a mistake.
I haven't seen any real hard evidence outside of the fucking heritage foundation on the side saying term limits are good.
Did you see my post full of research on why term limits are not?
There are already real examples of the difference playing out in state politics today. See RDreamer's post on the last page.
The President is a big enough and singularly powerful enough position that I understand why it needs to be term limited compared to congresspeople or senators. That said, what I find most disconcerting about presidential term limits that too many voters -- seemingly enough voters to sway an election -- believe that we should alternate between Democratic and Republican presidents every eight years just for the sake of mixing things up. Which results in a lot of incoherent long-term policy, if not just simply bad governance.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
This is stupid
I think it's wrong to say all limits would be bad, what would be bad is limits that are low enough to create the problems other posters are describing, having no limits at all encourages politicians to do crazy shit like shut down the government and waste 4 years of their lives doing nothing except stopping the other guy.
If you know you only have 12 years to achieve something and you think 8 of them will be under a president from a different party, you're much more motivated to try and work with them than if you think you've probably got 30 years if your heart doesn't fail.
If you know you only have 12 years to achieve something and you think 8 of them will be under a president from a different party, you're much more motivated to try and work with them than if you think you've probably got 30 years if your heart doesn't fail.
thehypocrite
Member
People fail to see how good they got it, try to solve for symptoms rather than causes. Term limits aren't the problem, but it "feels" like one when in actuality is a symptom of a compromised political system that's beholden to corporations, sacrificing common good in the name of economic benefit.
bggrthnjsus
Member
ah this is very useful information
Exactly, the amount of time they serve isn't what matters, its the kickbacks they get along the way. Of course, restricting lobbying has less chance of getting through than term limits, soooo...
Ron Mexico
Member
How is this not dismissed as a damaged goods politician throwing a legislative hail mary in the hopes of being relevant again?
To think Cruz and his buddies sponsored this out of the goodness of their hearts is naive at best. This is nothing more than a political play to keep their name relevant.
To think Cruz and his buddies sponsored this out of the goodness of their hearts is naive at best. This is nothing more than a political play to keep their name relevant.
womfalcs3
Banned
And they are?
Why shouldn't it be a career to be a politician? 'All the politicians I see do politicianing as a career, and all politicians I see are bad, therefore they are bad because they are career politicans! Derr'
Never mind what the actual evidence says about the impact of term limits, yeah let's do what feels right.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Oh it's totally a "gain favor with Trumpers because I'm up for reelection in 2018."
Skellig Gra
Member
I'm actually in favor of it (the house limit is a little low tbh) but it'll never pass because they'll be voting to put themselves out of a job, not freaking likely.
What I would be in favor of, instead, is limiting when Senators and Reps can begin campaigning for their next elections. A big part of the breakdown in across-the-aisle relations in Congress nowadays is that senators and congresspeople of opposite parties don't really hang out anymore, don't lunch together anymore, don't get after hours drinks together anymore -- in large part because they spend all of their downtime flying back to their states or districts to raise money (which comes with demonizing the opposite party). Maybe limiting the start of (re-)election campaigns to the calendar year of that election, at least for congressional races, would help keep more Republicans and Democrats on the Hill for longer, and make it easier for them to spend their off time building those relationships outside of the office.
Plus, I'm already getting fundraising emails from the DCCC and DSCC for the 2018 cycle, which is just ridiculous.
Plus, I'm already getting fundraising emails from the DCCC and DSCC for the 2018 cycle, which is just ridiculous.
Laevateinn
Member
I can't wait to see this fail.
California learned this the hard way that all this does is empower lobbyists (since they are now the ones with all the experience as to how passing law works).
If you wanted term limits, you need them to be fairly long so that the Senators can actually learn how to do their job and use that experience to legislate. If you had term limits, 3 for House representatives is far too short. It'd need to be 6-8 for House members and 3-4 for Senators.
Skellig Gra
Member
Oh for sure, you need time to get shit done but you also need to not have the time to get too comfortable. Something over 10 and under 20 feels about right to me. Maybe 2 full term presidential administration cycles would make sense.
Term limits increase the power and influence of lobbyists while damaging institutional memory. It's happened in every single stage they've been implemented in.
Term limits are a bad idea that sound like a good idea if you don't think too hard about what you're trying to fix.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
That's what elections are for. The issue isn't arbitrary term limits it is a lack of transparency to inform voters.
YuriLowell
Member
This would be so good for my area.
The poison that is Bob Goodlatte needs to go.
The poison that is Bob Goodlatte needs to go.
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
Beautiful news. Let's hope this passes.
We need to enact term limits. This will help the general public get over their incumbency bias.
We need to enact term limits. This will help the general public get over their incumbency bias.
That you support it is further proof that this is an awful idea.
Skellig Gra
Member
Don't get me wrong. There are a multitude of issues but there are plenty of instances where people are blind to the sins of their elected rep and just keep voting him/her in over and over again and not even allowing a challenge from their own party.
What in hell are you even basing this on? Feels?
Is there any other job int he world we would put an arbitrary limit on how long you can do it just because you have time to get too comfortable?
"Hey guys, I just feel like my doctor of 40 years is too comfortable."
Oh, so you hate democracy. Cool.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
dotheoppositeofwhatbartsays.jpg
Skellig Gra
Member
What we have is not a democracy and you can't compare an elected position to a vocation like a doctor, that's a meaningless analogy.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Then you get named successors instead of opposition. That doesn't stop incumbency bias, because it is tied to name recognition.
You still basing this on feels?
Dude Abides
Banned
The plebes keep voting for the wrong people! We must make it impossible for them to do so by setting arbitrary restrictions on who they are permitted to vote for!
Why is it a meaningless analogy? You would agree that a policeman, judge and a lawyer require full-time professionals, right?
Skellig Gra
Member
I get that there will be some of that but even with named successors as you put it you can get an influx of new ideas. Look at our most recent presidential election, the people running are past normal retirement age. We need to get fresh blood in the system somehow.
When you want to have an actual debate let me know
Neuromancer
Member
Why can't the same argument about inexperience and lobbying be made for the president?
Term limits are not going to affect that, because for the Republicans, opposing anything the Democrats want to do is a virtue in and of itself. Their whole purpose is to prevent the enactment of liberal programs; that is achieving something, in their view, and the view of the constituents who elected them.
Term limits are not going to have any impact on partisanship, because the causes of that are structural. Terming out Louie Gohmert is not going to make the next representative from the Texas 1st District a more reasonable person, because that person will be selected via the same process as Gohmert was.
Look, I've posted links to research on term limit. I'm afraid it's your turn to actually put up or shut up here.
I also asked you if there's any other job that you'd put a limit on, and you just responded that the example I gave can't be compared with no actual evidence on that either.
You're the one not debating.
A president is a whole different ball game than congress in this argument. The president is pretty much done working for life after they're done. We give them salary and protection for life. That and the prestige guarantees they really don't need to actually work afterwards. You wanna give every congressman a salary for life after one term?
- Status