Gravedigger of American Democracy? - - Mitch McConnell.

#126
#126
BernardKingGOAT said:
It's not that dumb. Term limits should be legislated,, yes! Making it the issue as to why Congress isn't working now is lazy. The influx of new blood has deteriorated progress. Both sides have been electing fringe candidates during the last two 20 years, and none of them have put forth any positive legislation. It"s all about the culture war on both sides of the aisle
Click to expand...
The culture war crap is mostly an offshoot of candidates pandering to extremist elements of their party, which would also be reduced with term limits. Term limits would help every aspect of the political discourse in this country ... including the lost art of compromise. It is dumb as hell to say they serve no purpose.
 
#127
#127
n_huffhines said:
I remember seeing some research that studied states that have implemented term limits and it doesn't seem to have fixed anything because, theoretically, special interests are really good at manipulating inexperienced politicians.
Click to expand...
Post the study and I will read it. I think that's horse $hit ... but I will give it a look.
 
#128
#128
#129
#129
n_huffhines said:
Coming on pretty strong there. Are you basing your support of term limits on a study or does it just sound good? IDK if it's right, but I also don't think term limits are the slam dunk everybody thinks they are.

https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/political-science-term-limits
Click to expand...
Whatever that is ... it's not coming up for me.

I didn't form my opinion from any study ... but I did just look up how much corporate PAC money goes to incumbent candidates and it is 97% like I said. I also think a majority of people would agree with me on my first point as well. We have way too many old and untalented career politicians who have been parked in Congress for decades. These old farts are not going to solve problems which they created.
 
#131
#131
BowlBrother85 said:
Whatever that is ... it's not coming up for me.
Click to expand...

But I wanted to take a moment to review just what scholars have learned about this topic. We're three decades into the term limit revolution at the state level. We have tons of evidence, pretty much all of which says that term limits aren't that great. But what precisely does it say is wrong with them?

One of the important effects of term limits is that they increase legislative polarization. As Michael Olson and Jon Rogowski report, term limits reduce the value of holding office and increase the influence of legislative parties. Legislatures become more ideologically polarized when term limits are in effect.

Term limits weaken legislatures (to the benefit of governors, parties, and lobbyists), increase polarization, and fail to achieve much of their good government goals.​

Boris Shor and I did a study of the Nebraska Unicam that confirmed these effects. In that state, term limits gutted the legislature in the mid-2000s, leaving more than half the seats open when they went into effect. The parties responded rationally by recruiting people to run for those seats, and the people they recruited were far more ideologically motivated than those they were replacing. Even in an officially nonpartisan legislature, term limits sharply increased polarization.

Another important effect of term limits is to reduce legislators' expertise and capacity, as nicely described in this Brookings study. If you can only serve for six or eight years, chances are you don't get particularly good at some of the key tasks of legislating -- writing a budget, crafting large bipartisan bills, understanding the executive branch well enough to provide competent oversight, etc. -- before you get kicked out. Often legislative leaders have only a few years of experience before they take over the chamber.

This inexperience and lowered capacity tends to make legislatures weaker relative to the governor's office. Under term limits, California legislators, according to Bruce Cain and Thad Kousser, are less likely to screen bills or alter the governor's budget proposals. As they argue, "For a variety of reasons related to term limits, there is more room for fiscal irresponsibility in the Legislature now and less incentive, experience, and leadership to correct it." This weakness also means that legislators are more subject to the influence of lobbyists, who are not term limited and can develop a lifetime of expertise on a subject.

Some more findings suggest that term limits generally fail to achieve what their advocates promise. That is, they have not reduced campaign spending. They have not, as Susan Carroll and Krista Jenkins noted, increased the number of women serving in office. Nor have they increased the overall representativeness or diversity of legislatures.

Interestingly, term limits don't even seem to limit time in office all that much. Jordan Butcher and Aaron Kushner tracked the careers of thousands of state legislators over many years. What they found was that, on average, legislators in term-limited states stay in office longer; they're more likely to finish out the full time for which they're eligible.

The overall summary of the literature is that term limits weaken legislatures (to the benefit of governors, parties, and lobbyists), increase polarization, and fail to achieve much of their good government goals. As Kris Kanthak noted at a recent conference, the reason more political scientists aren't on line criticizing term limits is because our literature on this topic is about as close to a consensus as we get, and there just isn't much of a percentage in writing on a solved problem.

Probably the best one can say about term limits is that they really do limit terms. Unlike many political reforms, this one isn't something you can get around. Even very powerful, well-entrenched legislative leaders lose their seats because of it. The question is whether that makes the political system better as a result, and it's really hard to answer that in the affirmative.

If you're not interested in the results and you just simply don't like experienced politicians, well then yes, term limits may be just the thing you're looking for. But if good governance is something you care about, it's hard to make the case that term limits will get you there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#135
#135
n_huffhines said:
But I wanted to take a moment to review just what scholars have learned about this topic. We're three decades into the term limit revolution at the state level. We have tons of evidence, pretty much all of which says that term limits aren't that great. But what precisely does it say is wrong with them?

One of the important effects of term limits is that they increase legislative polarization. As Michael Olson and Jon Rogowski report, term limits reduce the value of holding office and increase the influence of legislative parties. Legislatures become more ideologically polarized when term limits are in effect.

Term limits weaken legislatures (to the benefit of governors, parties, and lobbyists), increase polarization, and fail to achieve much of their good government goals.​

Boris Shor and I did a study of the Nebraska Unicam that confirmed these effects. In that state, term limits gutted the legislature in the mid-2000s, leaving more than half the seats open when they went into effect. The parties responded rationally by recruiting people to run for those seats, and the people they recruited were far more ideologically motivated than those they were replacing. Even in an officially nonpartisan legislature, term limits sharply increased polarization.

Another important effect of term limits is to reduce legislators' expertise and capacity, as nicely described in this Brookings study. If you can only serve for six or eight years, chances are you don't get particularly good at some of the key tasks of legislating -- writing a budget, crafting large bipartisan bills, understanding the executive branch well enough to provide competent oversight, etc. -- before you get kicked out. Often legislative leaders have only a few years of experience before they take over the chamber.

This inexperience and lowered capacity tends to make legislatures weaker relative to the governor's office. Under term limits, California legislators, according to Bruce Cain and Thad Kousser, are less likely to screen bills or alter the governor's budget proposals. As they argue, "For a variety of reasons related to term limits, there is more room for fiscal irresponsibility in the Legislature now and less incentive, experience, and leadership to correct it." This weakness also means that legislators are more subject to the influence of lobbyists, who are not term limited and can develop a lifetime of expertise on a subject.

Some more findings suggest that term limits generally fail to achieve what their advocates promise. That is, they have not reduced campaign spending. They have not, as Susan Carroll and Krista Jenkins noted, increased the number of women serving in office. Nor have they increased the overall representativeness or diversity of legislatures.

Interestingly, term limits don't even seem to limit time in office all that much. Jordan Butcher and Aaron Kushner tracked the careers of thousands of state legislators over many years. What they found was that, on average, legislators in term-limited states stay in office longer; they're more likely to finish out the full time for which they're eligible.

The overall summary of the literature is that term limits weaken legislatures (to the benefit of governors, parties, and lobbyists), increase polarization, and fail to achieve much of their good government goals. As Kris Kanthak noted at a recent conference, the reason more political scientists aren't on line criticizing term limits is because our literature on this topic is about as close to a consensus as we get, and there just isn't much of a percentage in writing on a solved problem.

Probably the best one can say about term limits is that they really do limit terms. Unlike many political reforms, this one isn't something you can get around. Even very powerful, well-entrenched legislative leaders lose their seats because of it. The question is whether that makes the political system better as a result, and it's really hard to answer that in the affirmative.

If you're not interested in the results and you just simply don't like experienced politicians, well then yes, term limits may be just the thing you're looking for. But if good governance is something you care about, it's hard to make the case that term limits will get you there.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can extrapolate case studies on state-level politics to the United States Congress. It's a different animal.
 
#136
#136
n_huffhines said:
I definitely think we should behave and be nice, but JFC, he's 81. This is what 81 YO's do. This isn't that weird or tragic, or however we want to label it. He had a good run. If he cared about his health, he would've given up on this life a while back, so why should I be considerate of his health? I don't understand old people hanging on for dear life to the stresses of young living. Whether you're Lee Corso or Mitch McConnel, go enjoy your wealth, family, and retirement, and let somebody else have a turn. I can't wait to retire and play.

IDK why American politicians have got to be so fkn old. It's the most bizarre thing. Name one old AF politician who is good for America.
Click to expand...
I agree that they should hang it up when it's time.
 
#137
#137
EasternVol said:
They're not that busy in Congress so campaigning doesn't lower their productivity much. Two years is fine.
Term limits serve no real purpose and can deprive us of rare good legislators.
Click to expand...
Yea it would appear he doesn’t know the purpose of the House…
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#141
#141
n_huffhines said:
What exactly makes it qualitatively different?
Click to expand...
Seriously? Everything is different.

The pieces of legislation being written by members of the United States Congress have an impact on so many more people. It raises the stakes so much higher. In turn, that involves more corporate PAC money and lobbyists. They are not comparable.

That seems elementary to me. If you disagree? Fine. We can disagree. I'm not engaging in any more endless back and forths on here. I've done that too much. They never end, and it achieves nothing.
 
#142
#142
BowlBrother85 said:
One of the dumbest things I have ever seen posted on this board.

There are many benefits that term limits serve. I will focus on the most important 2.

1) Term limits would eliminate the biggest problem which Congress has ... the career politician. Term limits would provide more people with real-world experience from all walks of life an opportunity to serve in elected office. More entrepreneurs, teachers, doctors, small business owners, and business execs would be inclined to run, with realistic opportunities of winning. In other words, more talented people. These more talented people would stand a better chance of winning, when they don't have to oppose incumbents with huge war chests accumulated over time. Fewer people running purely for their own self-interest like Joe Biden and Chuck Grassley would be interested, without having as much time to sell influence.

2) Term limits would get corporate PAC money out of politics. 97% of corporate PAC money goes to the incumbents because the lobbyists and special interest groups have already exerted their influence over them. Term limits stop those ties from becoming unconditional, long-term relationships ... which too many Republicans have with the NRA.
Click to expand...
1. Eh, no. Career grifters like Biden, Shumer, and McConnell are problems. Replacing one grifter with another doesn't help, there will still be corruption. If they know their terms will be limited they'd be motivated to get as much as possible as soon as possible.
Good Congresspeople are hard to find. We don't want to get rid of them unnecessarily, to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Clean up campaign financing and side incomes and we'd have a better Congress.
If a district or state likes their Congressperson they should be able to keep their Congressperson as long as they want.
We can take the 'more opportunity' thought a step further and have all eligible voters registered for election duty, like jury duty. If their names are called they're running.
2. Term limits we wouldn't get rid of PAC money; it would just redistribute it. If we want to get rid of PAC money, and we should, get rid of campaign donations.
 
#143
#143
n_huffhines said:
I definitely think we should behave and be nice, but JFC, he's 81. This is what 81 YO's do. This isn't that weird or tragic, or however we want to label it. He had a good run. If he cared about his health, he would've given up on this life a while back, so why should I be considerate of his health? I don't understand old people hanging on for dear life to the stresses of young living. Whether you're Lee Corso or Mitch McConnel, go enjoy your wealth, family, and retirement, and let somebody else have a turn. I can't wait to retire and play.

IDK why American politicians have got to be so fkn old. It's the most bizarre thing. Name one old AF politician who is good for America.
Click to expand...
Name a young one.
 
#144
#144
BowlBrother85 said:
Seriously? Everything is different.

The pieces of legislation being written by members of the United States Congress have an impact on so many more people. It raises the stakes so much higher. In turn, that involves more corporate PAC money and lobbyists. They are not comparable.

That seems elementary to me. If you disagree? Fine. We can disagree. I'm not engaging in any more endless back and forths on here. I've done that too much. They never end, and it achieves nothing.
Click to expand...

Those are differences, yeah. Why do they change anything with regard to why term limits do or do not work, tho? Why does more $ mean green congressmen are better than experienced? I can't tell which way the pendulum swings. Somehow you know, I guess.

Endless back and forth? My read was you had your mind made up before you saw any of the evidence, so we can be done.
 
#145
#145
BowlBrother85 said:
The culture war crap is mostly an offshoot of candidates pandering to extremist elements of their party, which would also be reduced with term limits. Term limits would help every aspect of the political discourse in this country ... including the lost art of compromise. It is dumb as hell to say they serve no purpose.
Click to expand...
Please explain how term limits would help in those two areas. There's no obvious link.
 
#146
#146
EasternVol said:
Name a young one.
Click to expand...

I don't like any of them, really, but the best in recent history are Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Massie, Synema, and Flake. Amash is the only one I'd vote for. I voted for Jorgensen. She's not old either. I have to go back to Ron Paul to find an old one I can tolerate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#148
#148
n_huffhines said:
I don't like any of them, really, but the best in recent history are Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Massie, Synema, and Flake. Amash is the only one I'd vote for. I voted for Jorgensen. She's not old either. I have to go back to Ron Paul to find an old one I can tolerate.
Click to expand...
I liked Ron Paul a lot but can't stand his brat. But if you like those now and they and you don't change much, you'll like them when they're old.
 
Last edited:
#149
#149
BowlBrother85 said:
Seriously? Everything is different.

The pieces of legislation being written by members of the United States Congress have an impact on so many more people. It raises the stakes so much higher. In turn, that involves more corporate PAC money and lobbyists. They are not comparable.

That seems elementary to me. If you disagree? Fine. We can disagree. I'm not engaging in any more endless back and forths on here. I've done that too much. They never end, and it achieves nothing.
Click to expand...
That's way off. It's the same game in a different place.
 
#150
#150
EasternVol said:
Pay and benefits aren't the problems but campaign donations and side and post-term income are. We need to quash the payola.
We could triple their salaries if we could do away with them selling votes.
Click to expand...

The pensions and lifetime healthcare add to the problem.

If there was a way to limit the outside income after so much time in office they won’t stick around. Like making a law that after 12 years any book royalties or speaking fees must be 100% donated to charities (or the US Treasury). And lobbying or consulting for some groups is also no longer permitted after so many years in office. Or a reasonable amount is allowed but for actual consulting - not influence peddling disguised as something else.

Anything to make them more like citizen politicians again instead of holding office as a lifetime profession. But it’s just a dream. They would have to create those laws. And they all have their hands out collecting huge $$$s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top