4 ms·

> If he does, and if he manages to get congressional term limits passed as well, DC will be in a much healthier state once the current crop of entrenched geezer

by nkozyra 10y ago

> If he does, and if he manages to get congressional term limits passed as well, DC will be in a much healthier state once the current crop of entrenched geezers vacates the premises. Why would an arbitrary restriction on representative government = a healthier state? Look, I think there are grand problems in the electoral process that lead to the same people getting elected forever. That produces an environment conducive to career politics and incites people to pursue that path over public service. But the public voting for representation is not the problem. The baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.

handedness 10y ago
Whether or not one agrees with it, the idea of arbitrary restrictions on representative government is at least as old as George Washington himself. Were the USA a direct democracy it would be pretty easy to refute the idea of term limits, but as it's a democratic republic, the issue becomes far less clear cut.
- nkozyra 10y ago
  Even direct democracies have restrictions; it's the arbitrary ones that need some real validation to support. Just cause "throw all the bums out" feels good does not mean it's sound policy for a republic.
  - pzxc 10y ago
    It was arbitrary for George Washington to decline to run for a third term as President, feeling that two terms ought to be enough for anybody. And it took over a century for that wisdom to be codified into the 22nd Amendment.
  - handedness 10y ago
    It doesn't require much abstract thinking to see how legislators (and chief executives) could craft policy to guarantee their reelection. Places without term limits are good examples of how policy can ensure reelection. Whether or not one agrees with it, the concept, at least, of term limits, isn't wholly without merit. It may be feckless, it may be antithetical to the direct democracy many Americans inaccurately assume they live in, but it isn't inherently just some partisan, feel-good policy. This particular implementation of the concept may be, but that's a separate conversation.
- gozur88 10y ago
  Congressional representatives are chosen directly by the people in their districts. Aside from judges, are there any federal office holders or appointments that don't have term limits or serve at the pleasure of the current administration?
  - phonon 10y ago
    Head of CFPB? Can't be removed by the President. Also, President can't fire SEC commissioners
    - gozur88 10y ago
      From the wiki page: "The CFPB was initially established as an independent agency but it effectively became an executive agency after a federal appeals court found that the President of the United States' power to remove the CFPB Director had been unconstitutionally limited." And while the president can't fire an SEC commissioner, there are only five and one comes up for reappointment every year. By the end of his first term Trump will have the opportunity to replace four of them.
      - phonon 10y ago
        The CFPB ruling will (is?) certainly to be appealed. Besides the SEC, you also have the FTC, FCC, CFTC, CPSC, PCAOB etc run by groups of Directors who can't be fired at will. The FHFA and OCC are led by single Directors. See the "Ground for Removal" section in https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43391.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43391.pdf Grounds for Removal Although not always specified in statute, it appears that the heads of financial regulators, in contrast with Cabinet Secretaries, typically do not serve at the pleasure of the President (“at will”). Instead, most regulators may be removed only if a higher “for cause” threshold is met. The one clear statutory exception is the OCC’s Comptroller of the Currency, who “shall hold his office for a term of five years unless sooner removed by the President, upon reasons to be communicated by him to the Senate.” “For cause” removal limits the ability of a President to remove, or threaten to remove, an appointee solely for political reasons. According to one law review article, “The distinguishing feature of [independent] agencies is that their principal officers are protected against presidential removal at will.” According to another, A requirement that members serve a fixed term of years is an essential element of independence, but alone is not sufficient. The critical element of independence is the protection—conferred explicitly by statute or reasonably implied—against removal except “for cause.”
marcoperaza 10y ago
So I used to oppose term limits for Congress until I saw a very interesting argument: The longer you have been in power, the longer the list of prior decisions and positions that you must defend, or else admit you were wrong. And so you end up clinging to bad positions, opposing good laws and good repeals, or supporting bad laws and bad repeals, because your own political fortunes are tied up in having been correct the first time around.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  Being called a "flip-flopper" guarantees one cannot learn from experience.
  - nkozyra 10y ago
    It's amazing how a potentially valuable human attribute has been branded as a political handicap.
    - manquer 10y ago
      Well it depends.. if you vote someone for his current stance towards something I would expect he keep it whether he personally has changed view or not . If you vote for someone on their ability to think and act , for thier character I would expect them to change. Usually it a combination of both so there is no simple answer
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        Also, you want these people for their good foresight. Hindsight isn't quite as useful.
- xbmcuser 10y ago
  Look at how the presidents behave in the 2nd term. They know that they don't need to get reelected so are willing to do the right thing more than pandering to their donors. Currently other elected officials have to balance what their voters want with what their donors want and side with the donors. But the biggest problem with US currently is two party system where their is huge us against them mentality republicans vote republican and Democrats vote democrat. So politicians from both sides are unwilling to vote across party lines as that would kill their chance of getting reelected. If they don't need to run again they will be more willing to compromise.
general_ai 10y ago
Ok, got it, you want Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell running things forever. It's a bold strategy, let's see how it works out for you.
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  Holy Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, Batman!
  - general_ai 10y ago
    You just don't hate those two particular geezers enough. One ran the Democratic Party into the ground (and got rewarded for it with another term as the leader of House Democrats), and another makes Emperor Palpatine look like Mother Theresa. One is 76 years old, another is 74. They should long have retired if they had any decency whatsoever. Anything that shows them where the exit door is will receive my enthusiastic support.
    - cmurf 10y ago
      That's fine but what does it say about their constituents? First it's a handful voting for each in their respective primaries; second a substantial number of eligible voters who do not care enough to participate in that primary. And then more than half of the eligible voters who don't care enough to participate in the general election. So why disable the ability of those willing to participate to re-elect the person they want?
      - general_ai 10y ago
        It says that their constituents don't really give a shit about the finer points of things. It also doesn't help that the longer the congress critter stays in congress, the more power they seem to amass, Frank Underwood style. So after 15-20 years they bring in a ton of pork barrel cash to their district, and ensure indefinite reelection until they keel over and die. That's might seem like a good deal for that district, but it's, IMO, not a good deal for the country as a whole. This is similar to how most eligible voters don't give a shit about electing the president. If Obama could run indefinitely, assuming he managed to not screw up really badly, it'd be a piece of cake for him to get re-elected in perpetuity a-la Putin, simply because it's much easier for the incumbent to win (even goddamn Dubya won!), and he'd be able to adjust the laws to his liking with the support of his party in Congress when they have the majority.

by nkozyra 10y ago

handedness 10y ago

Whether or not one agrees with it, the idea of arbitrary restrictions on representative government is at least as old as George Washington himself. Were the USA a direct democracy it would be pretty easy to refute the idea of term limits, but as it's a democratic republic, the issue becomes far less clear cut.

nkozyra 10y ago
Even direct democracies have restrictions; it's the arbitrary ones that need some real validation to support. Just cause "throw all the bums out" feels good does not mean it's sound policy for a republic.
- pzxc 10y ago
  It was arbitrary for George Washington to decline to run for a third term as President, feeling that two terms ought to be enough for anybody. And it took over a century for that wisdom to be codified into the 22nd Amendment.
- handedness 10y ago
  It doesn't require much abstract thinking to see how legislators (and chief executives) could craft policy to guarantee their reelection. Places without term limits are good examples of how policy can ensure reelection. Whether or not one agrees with it, the concept, at least, of term limits, isn't wholly without merit. It may be feckless, it may be antithetical to the direct democracy many Americans inaccurately assume they live in, but it isn't inherently just some partisan, feel-good policy. This particular implementation of the concept may be, but that's a separate conversation.
gozur88 10y ago
Congressional representatives are chosen directly by the people in their districts. Aside from judges, are there any federal office holders or appointments that don't have term limits or serve at the pleasure of the current administration?
- phonon 10y ago
  Head of CFPB? Can't be removed by the President. Also, President can't fire SEC commissioners
  - gozur88 10y ago
    From the wiki page: "The CFPB was initially established as an independent agency but it effectively became an executive agency after a federal appeals court found that the President of the United States' power to remove the CFPB Director had been unconstitutionally limited." And while the president can't fire an SEC commissioner, there are only five and one comes up for reappointment every year. By the end of his first term Trump will have the opportunity to replace four of them.
    - phonon 10y ago
      The CFPB ruling will (is?) certainly to be appealed. Besides the SEC, you also have the FTC, FCC, CFTC, CPSC, PCAOB etc run by groups of Directors who can't be fired at will. The FHFA and OCC are led by single Directors. See the "Ground for Removal" section in https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43391.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43391.pdf Grounds for Removal Although not always specified in statute, it appears that the heads of financial regulators, in contrast with Cabinet Secretaries, typically do not serve at the pleasure of the President (“at will”). Instead, most regulators may be removed only if a higher “for cause” threshold is met. The one clear statutory exception is the OCC’s Comptroller of the Currency, who “shall hold his office for a term of five years unless sooner removed by the President, upon reasons to be communicated by him to the Senate.” “For cause” removal limits the ability of a President to remove, or threaten to remove, an appointee solely for political reasons. According to one law review article, “The distinguishing feature of [independent] agencies is that their principal officers are protected against presidential removal at will.” According to another, A requirement that members serve a fixed term of years is an essential element of independence, but alone is not sufficient. The critical element of independence is the protection—conferred explicitly by statute or reasonably implied—against removal except “for cause.”

marcoperaza 10y ago

So I used to oppose term limits for Congress until I saw a very interesting argument: The longer you have been in power, the longer the list of prior decisions and positions that you must defend, or else admit you were wrong. And so you end up clinging to bad positions, opposing good laws and good repeals, or supporting bad laws and bad repeals, because your own political fortunes are tied up in having been correct the first time around.

WalterBright 10y ago
Being called a "flip-flopper" guarantees one cannot learn from experience.
- nkozyra 10y ago
  It's amazing how a potentially valuable human attribute has been branded as a political handicap.
  - manquer 10y ago
    Well it depends.. if you vote someone for his current stance towards something I would expect he keep it whether he personally has changed view or not . If you vote for someone on their ability to think and act , for thier character I would expect them to change. Usually it a combination of both so there is no simple answer
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      Also, you want these people for their good foresight. Hindsight isn't quite as useful.
xbmcuser 10y ago
Look at how the presidents behave in the 2nd term. They know that they don't need to get reelected so are willing to do the right thing more than pandering to their donors. Currently other elected officials have to balance what their voters want with what their donors want and side with the donors. But the biggest problem with US currently is two party system where their is huge us against them mentality republicans vote republican and Democrats vote democrat. So politicians from both sides are unwilling to vote across party lines as that would kill their chance of getting reelected. If they don't need to run again they will be more willing to compromise.

general_ai 10y ago

Ok, got it, you want Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell running things forever. It's a bold strategy, let's see how it works out for you.

Analemma_ 10y ago
Holy Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, Batman!
- general_ai 10y ago
  You just don't hate those two particular geezers enough. One ran the Democratic Party into the ground (and got rewarded for it with another term as the leader of House Democrats), and another makes Emperor Palpatine look like Mother Theresa. One is 76 years old, another is 74. They should long have retired if they had any decency whatsoever. Anything that shows them where the exit door is will receive my enthusiastic support.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    That's fine but what does it say about their constituents? First it's a handful voting for each in their respective primaries; second a substantial number of eligible voters who do not care enough to participate in that primary. And then more than half of the eligible voters who don't care enough to participate in the general election. So why disable the ability of those willing to participate to re-elect the person they want?
    - general_ai 10y ago
      It says that their constituents don't really give a shit about the finer points of things. It also doesn't help that the longer the congress critter stays in congress, the more power they seem to amass, Frank Underwood style. So after 15-20 years they bring in a ton of pork barrel cash to their district, and ensure indefinite reelection until they keel over and die. That's might seem like a good deal for that district, but it's, IMO, not a good deal for the country as a whole. This is similar to how most eligible voters don't give a shit about electing the president. If Obama could run indefinitely, assuming he managed to not screw up really badly, it'd be a piece of cake for him to get re-elected in perpetuity a-la Putin, simply because it's much easier for the incumbent to win (even goddamn Dubya won!), and he'd be able to adjust the laws to his liking with the support of his party in Congress when they have the majority.