Term limits suck. Whatever you THINK they’ll do, here’s what they actually do: Shift power from the people you elect to the staff that serve the office.
The faces go on a freight train from one office to the next, but behind the scenes, their office staff run everything.
Need examples? Look at the recent mockery of the impeachment process. Or look at California.
I’ve heard that argument before. It makes sense, but term limits are a reset. It also weeds out the career politico.
Hard to get entrenched when you are only around for 8 years. You need to deal with the issues at hand instead of kicking the can down the road.
It keeps deep state on their back feet, because they need to keep retraining and rebranding candidates. That costs resources and money.
If somebody is a safe district forever, there is no need to divert resources.
Introduction of term limits would cause a disruption that they may never be able to recover from. As long as the pressure is on.
>>Term limits suck. Whatever you THINK they’ll do, here’s what they actually do: Shift power from the people you elect to the staff that serve the office.
Worth saying again. The permanent bureaucracy in Washington is clearly a much bigger problem than semi-permanent Congressmen and Senators.
Staff doesn't vote. I'm not saying they aren't influential, but in the end they don't vote and they don't put their names on legislation.
Senators: Two six year terms.
House Members: Six two year terms.
But it seems we already have a permanent bureaucracy...that’s what needs to be dealt with
Unelected bureaucrats must be denied "power" by shifting them about from agency to agency, so they can't get their fiefdoms set up and running. Any good administrator can effectively administrate any agency by referring to the files containing the rules and following them. For operations requiring specialized expertise, have consultants on retainer.