I agree. A poli-sci discussion about Michigan term-limits has shown that the lack of institutional memory (new blood meet new rules) has partially enabled special interests to coopt members into factions whereby representatives serve special interests in order to “get a corporate job” after term-limited.
I think this answer is partially true in that congressional members “move on” after serving the public good; yet I cannot believe that members fail to learn the rules and “precedent” within the 1st year. After that, it’s a matter of courage.
Overall, term limits save us from any form of dictatorship because new blood will “understand the rules” differently than legislators who fail to serve the public good in office. There is a constant shake-up.
After all, James Madison in Federalist Papers 10 feared corporate interests and with a particular vehemence, which is why he constantly found ways to disperse political agency and power at all levels of government; even if imperfectly.
Term limits are a contentious topic here in Los Angeles County. In 2002, voters passed Measure B (64% in favor), to limit the terms of County Supervisors to three consecutive four-year terms. So right about now things are getting interesting in LA.
Why limit the terms of elected officials? Presidential Candidate Dr. Rand Paul thinks, “We have all seen the consequence of long-term incumbencies. Career politicians seem to care more about their career than what is best for their country…As President, I will continue to support term limits in the hopes of ensuring that your elected officials act in direct representation of you and your needs.”
I support term limits, but for a different reason. If some politicians care more about their career than their country; it will be revealed publically soon enough. And it has nothing to do with removing the financial barriers to become an elected official.
View original post 44 more words