Grand Rapids Pundit Forums

1. 

   GRPundit
   Key Master

   Last week saw a Grand Rapids Press article on legislators debating the extenion of the current state term limits. Members of the state House are limited to three terms of two years and members of the state Senate are limited to two four year terms. A proposal, which may appear on the ballot in January for the newly-moved primary, would extend those term limits to 12 years for Representatives, but not effect the limits on Senators.

   Some folks have even blamed the “inexperience” of legislators, due to terms limits, on the current budget morass. They say that lobbyists are running Lansing and that our legislators somehow don’t know what they’re doing.

   Don’t buy it. A study by the Cato institute has shown that there are numerous benefits to term limits:

   -Term limits remain popular with state electorates long after their introduction.
   -Term limits stimulate electoral competition in state legislative elections.
   -Term limits enable nontraditional candidates to run for seats in state legislatures. Female, Hispanic-American, and Asian-American candidates find it easier to enter term-limited legislatures than non-term-limited bodies. The record is more mixed for African Americans.
   -Term limits weaken seniority systems in state legislatures.
   -Term limits tend to weaken the leadership of a state legislature.
   -Term limits have not strengthened interest groups, state bureaucracies, or legislative staffs as predicted by critics of term limits.
   Some evidence suggests that term limits foster public policies compatible with limited government.

   There’s even evidence that term limits lead to lower taxes in the long run. In other words, term limits foster a citizen-run government, not a government run by the political class. We need to protect that at all cost. The so-called arguments against term limits don’t hold water.

   The current budget problem is a sign of the health of term limits and a citizen legislature. The very fact that the legislature and governor are fighting so long over the issue is good for the state. It forces a very sincere debate on some very important issues. Instead of focusing on quick fixes and budgetary gimmicks, they are finally looking at real, long-term, systemic changes to make sure that our state operates effectively and efficiently in the future.

   Long live term limits!

   Posted 4 years ago #
2. 

   Rollnggrnade
   Member

   It's not only experience that is lost with term limits; we citizens also lose a great measure of accountability for our legislators. If they know they'll never have to run for re-election, there is no incentive for them to make good on their campaign promises or serve their constituents.

   In reading through the Cato paper you're quoting by Patrick Basham (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa413.pdf), the data backing the claims is really flimsy.

   Popularity: The only source for the "long term" popularity of term limits is a study done by two pro-term limits wonks (Gideon Doron and Michael Harris) that isn't published in any peer-reviewed scholarly journals.

   Assuming it's true that the public generally supports term limits, I see two reasons why that isn't relevant. 1. By that same rationale - the 70% of the public that supports the Reform Michigan Government Now amendment makes that good public policy. 2. The general public is woefully ignorant about how government operates (especially state government). It should be far more telling (as Basham notes) that people who do pay attention to politics (like journalists) oppose term limits.

   Competition: If competition is desired, campaign finance reform is a better solution because it helps water down the power of the two major parties so that independent or third-party candidates can get into the mix (whereas with the competition created by term limits - all it means is that you get competition in the primary process which is eliminated by the time the general election rolls around and the two most viable candidates are already determined).

   Diversity: The idea that term limits are to credit for more minority candidates for office is intellectually-dishonest, and ignores the fact that racial and sex prejudices have been on the decline for several decades and that across the board so that overall opportunities have increased. Basham does nothing in his study to control for this reality so that conclusion is weak at best.

   Seniority Systems: Term limits eliminate SOME seniority systems in legislatures - but they give power to various other interests (like lobbyists). Basham shrugs off the claims that seniority has benefits in complex legislative matters because it's incompatible with his libertarian worldview:

   "[...] To someone who thinks that less government is better governance, diminished legislative expertise if that is the effect of term limits) may be a good fact.118

   'Viewed through that prism, the evidence accumulated to date suggests that the fears of critics are unwarranted. The critics’ claim that the legislative process takes many years to master is less an indictment of inexperienced legislators than of the legislative process. The workings of America’s state legislatures are far more complex than is necessary. Arguably, many of the states are better off without some of this vaunted experience.'" (p. 13).

   Power of Interest Groups: Michigan provides a great example of exactly what a crock Basham's paper is - our term limits most certainly have increased the power of interest groups; especially the anti-tax interest groups which wield tremendously disproportionate power over the legislature (as illustrated in our debacle of a budget process where legislators were petrified to cast any vote that might be seen as raising taxes - in spite of the need).

   Lower Taxes: Basham then uses an incredibly flimsy leap of logic to arrive at his claim that term limits lead to lower taxes by taking data about NATIONAL congress, and applying it to the state level - and then combining it with unsupported political stereotypes to come up with the utterly unsupported conclusion that taking legislators out of office more quickly will result in lower taxes. To further prove his point he cites a mere five examples of term-limited legislatures - only two of which actually lowered taxes. The fallacy of his claim was illustrated last year in Michigan's budget process as our term-limited legislature raised taxes.

   Your last paragraph is the most irresponsible portion of the entire post; NOTHING about what our legislature is doing right now relates to real, long-term, systemic changes. IT's ALL about short-term quick fixes and gimmicks (like selling off future tobacco settlement dollars and raising fees to hide the increases). It's as though you don't even follow our state's politics.

   Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.