“…According to US News & World Report, ‘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’ (Term Limits Don’t Work).
“…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…’ (The Truth about Term Limits).
“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 an influx of novices or a constantly changing
legislature. Think about the ability of
a wealthy plutocrat [like Rauner] 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…”
For
John Dillon’s complete analysis, “Term Limits and Bruce Rauner,” click here.
Funny, I just read an item in Sneed (Sun-Times) today that stated Madigan & Rahm were lunching & "discussing" Quinn's push for mayoral term limits.
ReplyDeleteWhich Madigan, of course, is going to squash...esp. coming from Quinn.