Just One Rauner Demand: Term Limits
Although term limits were applied to those who
served for the original Articles of Confederation, it was a reluctant and
physically drained President George Washington who set the precedent for a
limitation of the seat of office of the Presidency, until some 150 years later
when passage of Article XXII of the US Constitution (by 36 of 48 states) forced
an end point (two terms only) for those who would be President of the United
States.
Current Republican Governor Rauner has vigorously promoted
the need for an historical reversion to this principal for our state General
Assembly.
"We
desperately need new faces and new ideas in Illinois politics. We need to make
serving in government more about public service, and less about power and a
government pension. That should be obvious," (Rauner) said.
In Ron Chernow’s Hamilton,
the heated debate of our Founders against any possible return to a class-based
rule or possibly perpetual aristocratic omnipotence in a newly born government
is understandable. After all, the American
Revolution had been fought and barely won, refuting such political constructions. No one wanted anyone to hold an office
perpetually. Not anymore.
Washington would not have said it much differently. He considered his position as President as a
kind of “Civilian Leader,” not a King. And
he too feared the permanent entrenchment of power for the few and the wealthy.
Rauner has included term limits in his Turnaround Agenda
demands, requiring members of the General Assembly to adhere to a tenure of no
more than 10 years, senate or representative.
“The structure of our government has contributed to years of
mismanagement of the state’s finances.“
By ‘structure,’ Rauner attributes our current unfunded liability of over
$100 billion in pension debt NOT to the steady and recurrent diversion of money
owed annually by the state to pet political projects, but instead to a “cycle
of corruption” which allowed previous governors to negotiate “sweetheart deals
with those who make money from the government.”
By the way, his simple causal reasoning has been refuted by
Ralph Martire of the CTBA, the Pew Research Organization, COGFA, TRS, as well
as the chief legal counsel for the Senate of the General Assembly, Eric
Madiar.
Washington stepped aside, not down, after two terms of
office. He was, according to reports in
Chernow, a man who had lost his vigor, and was incapable of anything more than
hollow and weakened speech. A decision
based upon health as much as political consideration.
Today, in fifteen state legislatures, party members are subject
to term limits. In 35 others there are
no term limits, although those states have been subjected to ongoing attempts
to achieve them. Voters have nullified
some while courts finding objection with their methodology have legally
prevented others. The fifteen states
enforcing state term limits for legislators include the following:
Arizona: H – 4 terms,
8 years; S – 4 terms, 8 years
Arkansas: 16 years both houses, cumulative
California: 12 years cumulative, both houses
Colorado: H – 4 terms, 8 years; S – 2 terms, 8 years
Florida: H – 4 terms, 8 years; S – 2 terms, 8 years
Louisiana: H – 3 terms, 12 years; S – 12 terms, 8 years
Maine: H – 4 terms, 8 years; S – 4 terms, 8 years
Michigan: H – 4 terms, 6 years; S – 2 terms, 8 years
Missouri: H – 4 terms, 8 years; S – 2 terms, 8 years
Montana: H – 4 terms, 8 years; S – 2 terms, 8 years
Nebraska (Unicameral): S – 2 terms, 8 years
Nevada: A – 6 terms, 12 years; S – 3 terms, 12 years
Ohio: H – 4 terms, 8 years; S – 2 terms, 8 years
Oklahoma: 12 year cumulative either or both
South Dakota: H – 4 terms, 8 years; S – 2 terms, 8 years
And has it helped those states? Have they become more attentive to the needs
of their citizens?
According
to US News & World Report, “evidence from states that have already adopted
such measures actually suggests the opposite. States that have restricted their
legislators’ time in office have seen no clear benefits but rather some
unexpected negative results.”
“Voters
were persuaded that term limits were desirable by several different arguments.
One of the more compelling was that such limits would create a new breed of
citizen legislators more reflective of the public’s will. In turn, this would
weaken the grip that special interest lobbyists had on lawmaking.
In fact, the
backgrounds of state legislators elected after term limits were imposed closely
resemble the backgrounds of those elected before such restrictions. They
typically have previous political experience and are more educated and affluent
than the voters who selected them. And while term limits have changed the way
lobbyists do their business, they have actually increased their influence. The
legislators elected after term limits were imposed often lack knowledge of the
details of many complex policies and turn to lobbyists for information. These
special interest groups actually report that they now work harder “educating”
less knowledgeable legislators.”
They – Hamilton, Washington, Madison, and Jefferson - all
feared the possible reversion to a more familiar and British aristocratic form
of rule as well as an anarchic, bloody revolution witnessed in France in their recent
history. It was an unfathomable balancing
act for which they not only held the tightropes but also yanked on personal and
political disagreements. They never
forgave each other in the often-political internecine combat to keep our
country on a path to avoid those European extremes.
Our own battles remind us of their obdurate positions. One feckless Governor wants this; the others
refuse to give in. Now, a year beyond a
real budget, our state faces an additional $14 billion of debt to
purveyors. Drive by a Walgreens on any
corner – then realize you and I owe them $1 billion (with interest).
So, who does win with term limits? Governors, of course.
“Still,
almost everyone involved in the legislative process sees governors as big
winners under term limits. In addition to their constitutional authority to
sign and veto bills, governors in term- limited states control many top-level
state jobs that legislators facing short stints will soon want. Whether it is a
question of job ambitions, a shortage of information or sheer inexperience, the
reality seems to be that legislators do a far less effective job of competing with
governors for power once term limits take effect.
According to the
Public Policy Institute of California, that state's term-limited legislators
make just half as many changes to the governor's budget as they did in the old
days, representing many billions of dollars in legislative discretion that is
no longer exercised. The NCSL/CSG study found similar budgetary effects in
other term-limited states, including Colorado and Maine. "The crumbling of
legislative power is clear across states," says Thad Kousser, a political
scientist at the University of California, San Diego, and author of a book on
term limits. "There's no more clear finding in the research than a shift
in power where the legislature is becoming a less than equal branch of
government."
http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/Truth-Term-Limits.html
On the other hand. the political landscape has undergone
some mutations since the first battles of our Founding Fathers to maintain the
original concept of a balanced Republic.
In the long time elapsed since the original Founding
Fathers’ concerns and arguments (even duels), much has changed. The two party system they feared has become entrenched,
the destructive possibilities of a for-profit system of speculation at the
expense of democracy has occurred, the power of monetary influence in the
political environment has metastasized, and the loss of a thinking populace and
an impotent free press has become increasingly destructive.
Term limits? Think of
them as a constant and continual flushing of the system – good and bad. A guaranteed loss of sense of history,
responsibility and knowledge. The favorite
legislator of any one district is destined to discard his/her advocacy in short
order. Also, consider the increased veto power of a
governor who faces a an influx of novices or a constantly changing
legislature. Think about the ability of
a wealthy plutocrat who has installed himself in office to force new and
inexperienced challengers in a few years to attempt running against his well-financed
competitors.
Starting to get the picture?
Madigan is not my friend, nor is he the friend of anyone who
has a pension or holds to the basics of contract law. But he is not the single issue, as Rauner
would have. He is not the “Voldemort”
of the General Assembly. Like many in the General Assembly, Madigan is
a politician who has delivered for his constituents, has ignored the future fiscal
responsibilities which we will all pay, and has displayed an uncanny and frightening
sense of how to magnify his office as Speaker.
But to place it all on him? C'mon, Governor. Many more, including your own party, have avoided the payments leading to our debt.
“It’s time we break the cycle of corruption…” says
Rauner.
Like I should trust you?
No comments:
Post a Comment