Law Ted Cruz Puts a Bill to Curb Senators and Representative Term Limits

[Higus]

They do (or used to? @Rod1 could you chime in) have term limits in Mexico and it causes a host of other unintended consequences.



Excerpt from link:

INSKEEP: You know, there are people in the United States who might think that that's the ideal because there have been movements for term limits in the United States. And the idea has taken hold that lawmakers stay too long and they get to be too much part of the establishment. Here's Mexico having no re-election whatsoever, why would they want to change that?

KAHN: It's funny that you said it like that because I spoke to an analyst just yesterday. And he was saying, you know, I'd love to have those problems that you're talking about, that you can get rid of the politicians. We would love to have that as a problem because what you have here is that if you have a mayor who can only be in office for three years, it doesn't really allow for good governance. They have no civil servant workforce. You bring in the people with you and you take them when you leave.

I've seen towns in Mexico where not only does the mayor take all of his people with him and all that expertise that has built up over three years, but he also takes all the furniture. He takes all the computers, all the pens, everything. And you also get entrenched political parties where these mayors and these local legislators are more beholden to the political parties than they are to the voters. And so that's something that they really want to put an end to.

INSKEEP: Oh, because they don't have an independent power base that they can maintain, they have to be thinking about where their next job is coming from and so they're dependent on someone.

KAHN: Exactly. Exactly.

 

[grizzard2bid]

I actually lean against this idea. I think you need to have very hard lobby restrictions before this or you just give way more power to them. People may think they hate lifers yet they manage to get reelected time after time because of their expertise/ experience.

What is that experience? Screwing things up and getting nothing done?
After being there decades, they create trenches for newcomers to fall into and it creates a constant stalemate. Some see it as a good thing, but it just isn't working any more. Some of them are actually physically senile.

 

[grizzard2bid]

I expected to see something along the lines of...

SENATOR TED CRUZ PROPOSES NEW 6 MONTH TERM LIMITS FOR DEMOCRATS

with a lot of Republican support.

No, as opposed to now where guys like Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown can stay in the senate fighting for working people for as long as they can get re-elected rather than having to worry about lining up their next gigs.


Once again, sounds great in theory. In practice, though, there are some fairly predictable "unitended consequences."

How many average guys or even working professionals (like doctors or lawyers) do you know who are eager to give up on promotions and raises for 8 years, leave a good job, go into public service, then go back to looking for a new gig?

The result would be to skew Congress even more towards older people (people at the ends of their careers who have already made money) and the independently wealthy... and Congress is already skewed too much in that direction.

If we really want to clean things up, campaign finance reform is the place to start and end. Once campaign finance reform is in place, term limits would be largely unnecessary; without campaign finance reform, term limits would probably do more harm than good.

That's why Ted "Oil Money" Cruz is proposing term limits rather than campaign finance reform, btw. Without corporate campaign financing, a guy like Cruz could never get elected; with corporate financing, term limits are no skin off his teeth because he is just going to spend the rest of his life on a bunch of corporate payrolls anyways.

Ted Cruz supports unlimited campaign contributions — something no politician actually says

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ly-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.46b0e2a5cd9f

Term limits work in favor of corporations, because if a guy like Bernie actually fights against corporate interests, he's gone in 8 years versus now, when he will be re-elected for life.

Corporations will always have the money to prop up a new candidate-- or two to run against each other.

There will always be a "next Ted Cruz"; there won't always be a "next Bernie Sanders."

Look, if a Senator can't get anything meaningful done in 12 years, his ideas are just not that popular and he needs to get a new job. That's over a decade- if you ever had a job and didn't get nothing done in 10+ years you gotta go.

Same goes for Reps in 6 years.

 

[luckyshot]

Look, if a Senator can't get anything meaningful done in 12 years, his ideas are just not that popular and he needs to get a new job. That's over a decade- if you ever had a job and didn't get nothing done in 10+ years you gotta go.

Same goes for Reps in 6 years.

What if their ideas are popular and his/her constituents believe they are moving the national dialogue in the right direction? Too bad, time to replace him with some potential schmuck just because?

Constituents are already allowed to vote against people who they don't think "get anything meaningful done" for them.

You are aware of that, correct?

 

[Rod1]

They do (or used to? @Rod1 could you chime in) have term limits in Mexico and it causes a host of other unintended consequences.



Excerpt from link:

They changed that already.

Still for governors, senators and the president of the republic, there are still a 6 years limits.

The reason we have term limits is because there was no democracy in Mexico and succession and power struggles caused constant civil wars for over a hundred years. With term limits is easier, there is less chance of a dictator rising and creating turmoil, as unpopular politicians just had to be waited out. Similar to Deng Xiaoping reforms.

That being said, most politicians in Mexico are profoundly inept and just there because of political connections, they rely on experts to get anything done, and said experts dont have term limits.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

good...this should lower some of the reliance on big donors

if you're there forever, you're more beholden to who paid for it.

If you only have two terms, you should be known more for what you accomplish, and not who you are beholden to....

 

[Mr Holmes]

. People may think they hate lifers yet they manage to get reelected time after time because of their expertise/ experience

And a little campaign chedda cheese doesn't hurt either.

 

[JamesRussler]

We already have "terms limits": 6 years and 2 years for the Senate and House, respectively.
If the people want to reelect someone, why shouldn't they be able to?

 

[Prefect]

People really need to take in consideration how incompetent a new person can be. Especially someone with no public service history.

 

[hillelslovak87]

People really need to take in consideration how incompetent a new person can be. Especially someone with no public service history.

Right?

 

[JamesRussler]

So why term limits for Presidents then?
In the smaller-profile elections, name recognition plays a big part and Congressional incumbents generally get the nod. It's much harder to unseat an incumbent to Congress.

That's a good question. Why have term limits for the POTUS and not legislators?

I can think of at least one reason: unlike legislators, the POTUS has access to the levers of executive power, and that power tends to calcify the longer he wields it. Over time, the POTUS can stack executive agencies with loyalists, develop methods for executing the law in a biased manner, build political / electoral advantages into the system, and otherwise influence political outcomes. That was actually the main concern behind the Hatch Act—FDR had been in power a long time, and legislators were concerned that he was using it for political influence (recall, terms limits were introduced because he won 4 terms). For a more recent example, look at Vladimir Putin, who is effectively President for Life of Russia. He controls the system, so he set up the system to allow for his perpetual reelection. This is a problem endemic of executive authority—power tends to perpetuate itself.

But legislators have no such power. They primarily vote to pass laws. They have some investigatory authority as part of committees, but that power can't be wielded unilaterally like a President's can. They have no ability to enforce laws or stack agencies with loyalists. Simply put, the dangers of self-perpetuating power attendant to executive authority are not present in the legislative branch. The mere fact that an incumbent has more name recognition is not a reason to deny the People their choice of representative. If the People want to "throw the bum out," you must trust that they will. For better or worse, it's their prerogative. Enforcing term limits on popular incumbents is basically just enforcing diversity for the sake of diversity.

 

[Scott Parker 27]

I'm gonna be against. If you dont want your representatives, vote for someone else.

Im strongly in favor of this. Redistricting has made it much more difficult for a new person to be elected. Time for some new blood and ideas. Get rid of these career politician fossils.

 

[panamaican]

Strongly against. I believe in the benefits of accumulated knowledge. There's no substitute for experience. It's just as true in government as it is in any other endeavor. Term limits essentially force out your government representatives right at the time that they have acquired sufficient knowledge to start being really, really useful.

If you had a doctor, you wouldn't agree with the idea that "After seeing a doctor for a certain amount of time, you have to get a new doctor." If you had a lawyer on a case, it would be really bad to change lawyers mid-trial just because they'd been your lawyer for an arbitrary number of years. Industry after industry values accumulated knowledge - we should do so in government too.

Sure, there are people who abuse the system, the solution is to get rid of those people. Not to make it impossible for good people to keep helping us.

For the record, I'm also against Presidential term limits for a similar reason. There are no "lame duck" Presidents and wasted time when Congress can't be sure if the guy is going to be back. Right now, we only get 4-5 effective Presidential years out of an 8 year time period. Why? Because once a guy enters his 2nd term, everyone (from Congress to foreign leaders) knows they can just wait him out. Stymie him and wait for the next guy. It hurts our country's ability to govern.

 

[Whippy McGee]

Ted Cruz... that dude is a national treasure.

 

[Higus]

So why term limits for Presidents then?
In the smaller-profile elections, name recognition plays a big part and Congressional incumbents generally get the nod. It's much harder to unseat an incumbent to Congress.

Originally, the founding fathers did not intend for the President to have term limits. They came into effect when FDR was incredibly popular and decided to run an unprecedented 3rd and then 4th term. The GOP at the time was 0-4 for the Presidency and not happy about it, so when they won control of congress during a midterm election, they passed the 22nd amendment to prevent another FDR term.
As for why congress does not have terms, 2 reasons stand out: First, the term limits were never intended by the founding fathers, so there's always going to be some push back from trying to change the constitution for tradition's sake. The second reason is that the amendment change would have to begin in congress, and it would be tough to get them to vote on limiting their own terms.

 

[curryjunkie]

Ted Cruz... that dude is a national treasure.

i agree, he should be buried somewhere

 

[Seaside]

But each one is still in charge of passing or blocking legislature. Congress is not working and hasn't been for decades. Founding father's playbook when it comes to government branches basically became obsolete. President does more than ever, Congress does less things then it ever has, SCOTUS is way more political/activist then ever. It's all not shaping up as it was meant to because country was founded on premise of homogeneous society, which it no longer is.

The US will break apart. Ive been saying it. The southwest will join mexico or found its own Latino mexicamo aztlan state. I suspect Whites will form an ethnostate somewhere. And then the rest of America is fought over.

Its inevitable. There is so much division and hate. And liberals help push mass immigration, open borders and multicutluralism. And islamism. Allowing elements that are anti American to grow. And its getting worse.

 

[hillelslovak87]

The US will break apart. Ive been saying it. The southwest will join mexico or found its own Latino mexicamo aztlan state. I suspect Whites will form an ethnostate somewhere. And then the rest of America is fought over.

Its inevitable. There is so much division and hate. And liberals help push mass immigration, open borders and multicutluralism. And islamism. Allowing elements that are anti American to grow. And its getting worse.

You know nothing about my country, and are clearly a product of nothing but blind media conditioning.

 

[vengeful]

If people want to keep voting in the same bastard for term-after-term I say let them. I also think they should get rid of term limits for Presidents as well, if people got a president they want, let him or her be President for as long as the people deem it so.

 

[godking]

About damn time.
New bill seeks to curb Senators to two 6 year term limits(12 years total) and House reps to three 2 year terms (6 years total). Many republicans in Senate support it, while we have yet to see if Democrats get on board.

I think general public is in favor of this.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politics/term-limits-ted-cruz-proposal/index.html

I support it on principle but its Ted Cruz putting it forward.

What's the hidden agenda ?