A few minutes ago I wrote in favor of term limits for U.S. Congress. The reasons for this are many. But Mr. Term Limits, Paul Jacob, in his column this weekend, gives a simple rationale for them:

Almost any citizen can become corrupted by systems of power. Philip Zimbardo's prison experiments and recent book The Lucifer Effect do more than suggest this.

We have to realize that power corrupts — whether in Abu Ghraib or . . . Anytown, USA. We must keep prison guards and senators (and even dog catchers) on a short leash. They should be reprimanded when they do bad, and they should know that abusing their positions just doesn't pay. They need limits. Rules. Term limits, even. . . .

But I went to U.S. Term Limits site and couldn't find what Jacob's organization favors for U.S. Congress. What limits, precisely?

It seems to me that these term limits make sense:

• A lifetime limit of two six-year terms for U.S. senators.
• A consecutive limit of three two-year terms for U.S. representatives. That is, a politician may serve a maximum of three full terms in a row.
• A representative may run for and serve in the U.S. House again, after serving three full terms, if three years intervene between his or her departure and the beginning of his second stint in office.
• No senator or representative may run to renew a position in either house of Congress if that position was obtained by appointment to fill a vacancy.

These seem to me to be reasonable limits.

Senators would be subject to lifetime restrictions on service, as is the Presidency, now. The difference is that senators would be allowed to serve four years more than the president.

Representatives would suffer no lifetime restriction on limits. That is, it would be possible to serve, say, 24 years in the House, so long as at least nine years (but more likely twelve years, because of the two-year staggering of elections) were spent outside of this service. So, a 36-year career in the House is quite possible, only it would have to endure interruptions. Interruptions that would help erode the incumbency privilege, and also erode the temptations for corruption.

Of course, the reason many people oppose term limits for representatives is that they support the policies that never-ending incumbency inculcates: ever-growing government. The politics of policy is pretty clear. The longer one is in office, the more you tend to support increases in regulation, taxation, redistribution, what-have-you. This is why you are more likely to find a Republican than a Democrat supporting term limits. And libertarians more than Republicans.

Leave a comment

Comments:

No Comments for this post yet...

Leave a comment:

Name:

Email:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.

Site/Url:

Your URL will be displayed.

Comment text:

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>

Options:

Auto-BR (Line breaks become <br />)
Remember me (Set cookies for name, email and url)
Allow message form (Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))

Pingbacks:

No Pingbacks for this post yet...