a "reflection" published January 1993
Term limitation measures were on the ballots of 14 states. In every state, they were passed easily; on average 66% of voters supported them.
This is all to the good. [National t]erm limits would require Congress to completely restructure the way committees are selected and maintained, that is, how power is divvied up on Capitol Hill, thereby giving the bloated institution the enema it so sorely needs. Though it is no doubt true that Congress would find a way to constipate itself under a regime of term limits, before it does so it may very well be forced to face up to such pressing problems as runaway entitlements, ubiquitous pork, the yearly budget deficits and the national debt.
Meanwhile, the mavens of the status quo are squirming, desperately trying to explain away the phenomenon. The most widely proposed excuse they offer is that term limitations are expressions of voter outrage, nothing else. They wish.
The absurdity of most of the attacks are apparent. Most contemptible is the characterization of term limits as undemocratic,
as restricting the voters' rights.
Where were these folks when Reagan was prohibited a third term as president? Where were they when California was cutting taxes by plebiscite?
Luckily, voters see through such half-truths. I have the sneaking suspicion that voters realize that they are also part of the problem. Restricting whom they can vote for (in the future) is surely seen by many who vote for term limitations as a way of putting temptation out of reach. Just as a smoker trying to quit the habit gives away his unopened cartons of cigarettes, so the voters disqualify long-term incumbents. There is no real paradox
(as the pundits proclaim) in voting for term limits and for your current pork-providing incumbent. It is similar to signing up at a Schick Center and lighting up the last cigarette in your pack.
Liberty, Vol. 6, No. 3
 |
Click here for this site's general fair-use permissions statement. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|