2867

First things first, let’s throw out all the plans that require constitutional amendments, cuz they ain’t going to happen.

2868

So you’re for government by lobbyist?

Because that’s what you end up with when you have term limits. The only people who understand the nuts and bolts of lawmaking are paid outside interests - the institutional power and knowledge are vaporized by people churning through too quickly to fully grasp how things work.

2869

Having no term limits dramatically increases the power of lobbyists.

One, it allows them to focus their efforts on incumbents. Two, it means that a huge amount of every lawmaker’s time is always focused on getting re-elected, meaning that they need to appeal to lobbyists to get money.

It could potentially be argued that those in institutional power don’t in fact know how things work… because the government really doesn’t work that well these days.

What they know, is how to play partisan games. That’s what so much of the government is actually focused on at all times now.

2870

I’m not sure I buy this lobbyist argument. Lobbyists work by both donating to reelections, promising votes for reelections, and claiming to represent constituents, which also influence elections. Minimize elections and they lose power.

As for institutional lawmaking knowledge, fuck that shit. Lawmaking is not a career. You can learn Robert’s Rules of Order in a weekend.

2871

Uh… lobbyists also work by literally writing bills and telling Legislators to go put that bill up or no support.

Its bad now. Add term limits, and it’ll be a lot worse.

2872

If you think term limits are the answer, i think that solution involves having no second term at all.

2873

Ok - let’s solve for that by making every office not be up for reelection until they resign or die. Does that solve the lobbyist problem?

2874

Or we could have them be answerable to their constituents every so often. Say… every 2 years in the House or every 6 years in the Senate.

2875

Interesting. Why not every year?

2876

Too frequent.

2877

This might be ok for Senate, actually. The 6 year term allows them to think a little more strategically. that might be enough.

For house, I’m ok with that too, but the 2 year limit kind limits their ability to be strategic. Maybe match the Senate term and give them a limit of 3.

Anyways, I’m all for term limits. Serve then go back to whatever you were doing before. Can’t do anything else? Go fold shirts at the GAP.

2878

They won’t go fold shirts at the GAP, they’ll become lobbyists to pressure the next neophyte who walks through the door.

It’d be hard to convince me that AOC or some of the other fresh(wo)men are as deft getting shit done in the House as Pelosi is. I certainly wouldn’t want them handling the impeachment inquiry while they try to figure out how everything works along the way.

2879

Why would it be worse?

2880

Every time someone talks about term limits, the question I ask myself is, if Barack Obama isn’t term-limited in 2016, does he beat Donald Trump? I think so. And is that a better outcome? Is there any doubt?

2881

Unquestionably yes. On the flip side, it means DJT could be President for Life. Which he’ll probably try to do anyway. Keep eating that fried chicken, fatboy!

2882

Because they’ll need to rely on the outside experts to help draft viable bills, as they’ll lack the know-how to do it themselves. This isn’t theoretical as it already happens.

2883

Anyone could be, but with this guy it is damned unlikely.

2884

It takes a Village (of foreign autocrats)!

2885

Can’t have a village idiot without the village (of foreign autocrats).

2886

Whatever arguments there are against term limits, “the lobbyists will have more control” isn’t among them. They already have maximum control. It can’t go higher than 100%.