Term Limits or No Term Limits? That is the question.

The benefits and liabilities of term limits should be weighed. Let me have an argument with myself and you can decide the merits of the case.

If we limit an elected official we run the risk of term limiting a devoted public servant and replacing him with a less able office holder, or worse, a crook.

If we reject the notion of term limits, the power of incumbency will allow a slug, who may be a good campaigner stay long after he has any new ideas.

With term limits we would remove from office a Ted Kennedy, a Michael Bloomberg, a Mario Coumo, a Bob Dole, or an Orin Hatch. Well, depending on your politics, you may say, "Yeah so, who cares?" If that is your stand, let me hasten to add, each of these people were competent and trustworthy. You can take issue with that point too. I don't care it's my opinion. In addition there is institutional memory that is lost when term limits are enforced.
But . . .
A Term limit has the benefit of introducing more people into the democratic process. The more opportunities there are, the more people will feel they have a chance of getting into that realm. We will almost certainly see more talent and ideas. When you create a constant need for elected talent you get it.
And . . .
Term limits will mute the power of lobbyists. Lobbyists are useful because they represent the needs of specific groups. But if they have the opportunity to build long relationships with an elected official they can distort the perspective of that official, particularly if they are supplying campaign funds.
And What if;
A person that is term limited out of office aspires to another office? I say why not. If he left his last office as a shinning star he should be able to run for another office. This would not in any way corrupt the term limit principle. In fact this progression would be desirable. The candidate would have experience and be in a fresh arena. He or she would still have to compete without the benefit of incumbency. The other corrupting force is campaign funds. Campaigns should be relatively short and publicly financed

S-o-o-o, maybe the winning combination would be to have term limits and publicly financed campaigns. Hmmmm What do you think?

Corporatocracy

I know the title probably is not a real word, but I am also sure that we all know what it means. Our country is in a sour mood, and the focus of the people’s malcontent is government. There are many things that government has done, and in some cases, has not done that rile us, but the bigger problem is the power of corporations. Corporations have enormous power in this country. We all know why and how they have gotten great power. The financing of political campaigns puts an implied obligation on our public officials that is nearly impossible to resist.

There isn’t a public official in any political party that will admit that they have been influenced by campaign money. They will tell you;“Even as I accept campaign contributions I always vote on the merits of the legislation being voted on.” The ordinary citizen is rarely listened to, and almost never is consulted. Why because either we can’t afford a campaign contribution or the $25 or $100 we do contribution doesn’t warrant a serious ear.

Recently the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can contribute to political campaigns without limit. If that is true what chance has the ordinary citizen have in competing with that, and getting any attention. Furthermore, as a stockholder, does the president and the corporate board ask me what I think. No! So the corporation can back a candidate that is proposing legislation that hurts the stockholder, essentially using the stockholder’s money to support a position that is diametrically opposed to the interest of the stockholder. Where is the fairness in that?

Years ago we argued the merits and shortcomings of communism. That failed model of governing stifled innovation, created shortages that central planning could not anticipate. An elite emerged from this and most people remained relatively poor. Products were shoddy, expensive, and limited. What do you suppose happens when corporations rule? What happens when corporations have a monopolistic hold on the country? Innovation is stifled, products are progressively shoddy, more expensive than they could be with real competition, and they become limited. An elite class is formed at the expense of the small businessman and workers in those businesses. In other words communism and unfettered capitalism is bad for the country for more or less the same reasons.