The claim that term limits empower bureaucrats is absurd. Our current bureaucracy is the biggest in our history. It consists of 400-plus departments, agencies and sub-agencies, not to mention millions of employees. All of these programs were created, enabled and funded by a non-term-limited Congress. If we’re going to put anyone on trial for the crime of bureaucracy, it should be the career politicians who created it — not term-limited lawmakers.
The obvious obstacle to term limits is the refusal of Congress to limit itself. But the same opposition to change blocked the popular drive for the direct election of US senators. Then in 1913, enough pressure had built so Congress was forced to end the practice of having corrupt state legislatures select senators. The clinching argument? Senators were grandfathered in and none had to face voters until the end of their six-year term.
It is extremely unhealthy for our republic to allow a highly effective and popular reform like term limits to be held captive by members’ personal refusal to surrender power. With more evidence emerging each day, let’s put country first and pass term limits now.
[In principle, it sounds good, but in practice, it hasn’t worked out so well for legislative limits. California passed term limits, and all it did was increase the pace of the revolving door in Sacramento; it didn’t provide any meaningful accountability. In Colorado, as I wrote in my book Going Red, term limits catalyzed the flip of the state from GOP control to Democrats, although it probably would have happened eventually anyway. Again, it didn’t do anything for accountability. It will take a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on Congress, and don’t bet on any Congress producing the requisite 2/3rds in each chamber to move it to the states. You’d need the states to start the process via an Article V convention — which is a good idea, especially to pass a balanced-budget amendment at the same time. — Ed]
Join the conversation as a VIP Member