Lets Get Real About Term Limits
The bureaucracy, as has been clearly demonstrated during the last four years, controls a great deal of power. In fact, It can easily be argued that today, the bureaucracy is more powerful than any of the three legitimate branches of government.
That is the first of my concerns with the popular call for "term limits". In any new job, there is a learning curve. During that learning curve, it is common for the new employee to lean heavily on the "staff" and take cues from them. If term limits are imposed, that will mean that the number of elected officeholders who are in the early stage of the learning cycle will increase. Would that not mean that the "staff", who are employees and not elected by the people, would have more power?
My second concern is "What if the elected official is doing a good job?" Shouldn't the American public be allowed to retain elected officials who are doing a good job as long as they would like to retain them? Why should officeholders who are doing a good job be removed from office? Why should the American public not be allowed to vote for a person that they believe is doing a good job? Term limits will limit our choices at the polls. It is easy to imagine a situation where term limits would require a very competent person to step down and be replaced with an incompetent candidate. Is that a wise plan?
Another concern is that term limits might encourage candidates to adopt a short term view in their decisions. Candidates would know that they have a limited time. Would that result in a "Get it while I can" attitude? If there is a two-term limit, The officeholder would have little restraint during the second term. After all, they will not be competing for office again, so why would they pay any attention to the needs and opinion of the public?
Term limits are a simplistic answer to a complex problem. It is highly doubtful that term limits will solve any problem, and they make the problems worse than they are now!
That is the first of my concerns with the popular call for "term limits". In any new job, there is a learning curve. During that learning curve, it is common for the new employee to lean heavily on the "staff" and take cues from them. If term limits are imposed, that will mean that the number of elected officeholders who are in the early stage of the learning cycle will increase. Would that not mean that the "staff", who are employees and not elected by the people, would have more power?
My second concern is "What if the elected official is doing a good job?" Shouldn't the American public be allowed to retain elected officials who are doing a good job as long as they would like to retain them? Why should officeholders who are doing a good job be removed from office? Why should the American public not be allowed to vote for a person that they believe is doing a good job? Term limits will limit our choices at the polls. It is easy to imagine a situation where term limits would require a very competent person to step down and be replaced with an incompetent candidate. Is that a wise plan?
Another concern is that term limits might encourage candidates to adopt a short term view in their decisions. Candidates would know that they have a limited time. Would that result in a "Get it while I can" attitude? If there is a two-term limit, The officeholder would have little restraint during the second term. After all, they will not be competing for office again, so why would they pay any attention to the needs and opinion of the public?
Term limits are a simplistic answer to a complex problem. It is highly doubtful that term limits will solve any problem, and they make the problems worse than they are now!
Comments
Post a Comment