In the movie Shawshank Redemption, the character played by Morgan Freeman cautiously defends his friend, Brooks, after he has acted out irrationally. Realizing that his friend has become institutionalized, Freeman notes “The man has been in here 50 years…this is all he knows.” Freeman goes on to say while most of us hate big institutions at first, “then you get used to them, enough time passes you get so that you depend upon them.”
The institution that has rightfully come under great scrutiny lately is our federal government. Over the last decade, we have all watched the federal government grow dramatically in both size and scope. To put this in prospective, while the federal budget represented 33% of GDP in 2000, it is projected to represent 45% in 2010.
While it is easy to proclaim that the government is too big and as a result needs to be shrunk, these are empty words until we address the root cause of the problem.
Democrats will blame Republicans, and Republicans will blame Democrats. The simple truth is that this explosion of government occurred over a time when both parties were in control, and this cannot be simplified into a partisan issue.
Though the problem is very complex, it also contains a simple truth – the walls of government are being built each day by the very people that depend on them. This is why politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to make decisions not based on ideology, but on what centralizes power within the federal government. These decisions have the unintended consequences of continuing a cycle where political leaders accumulate more power, making it more difficult to replace them. This centralized power in Washington unfortunately also leads to more influence and government spending, further distorting our free market system.
Only in Washington could we see misguided policies such as bailing out the automotive industry, and then turning around and creating a program like “Cash for Clunkers” for people to buy cars from the very companies that are now government-owned. This is only one outrageous example of many where the government has grown in scope and continues to interfere with free markets.
In fact, during 2009 approximately $3.3 billion was spent in Washington lobbying elected officials, $19 million which came from bankrupt GM and Chrysler. I am sure it is no surprise to hear that the average elected official who voted for the automotive bailout received almost twice as much in political contributions than one who voted against it.
While we have quietly been going about our lives, we have a government that has entrenched itself. We must now take the steps to change this. It will not be easy, but the reward is well worth the fight. To do so, I believe it is time we revisit term limits.
We must return to our Founding Fathers’ notion of citizen legislators, not career politicians. Previous attempts to move this agenda forward focused on 6 year term limits enacted immediately. This attempt in the mid 1990s to change the way Washington works did not succeed for two reasons. First, many people did not feel 6 years was enough, noting that it takes time to bring about change and understand the complexities of our government’s problems. Second, the fact that an overwhelming majority of Congress would effectively be voting themselves out of a job was insurmountable.
Due to these shortcomings, I believe we can make 2 straightforward changes to the term limit platform which can help bring them to fruition. We should first double the limit to 12 years, allowing for 2 full Senate terms, or 6 terms in the House of Representatives. In addition, there should be a “grandfather clause” excluding all sitting legislators. While this is not a perfect solution, I believe it provides the best chance of enacting this needed reform. These changes can help ensure that we have elected officials who will focus more on the needs of the nation, rather than the needs of government which is the source of centralized power.
83% of Americans support term limits, because they know it will create a churn of leaders, which will provide a continuing flow of fresh ideas and individuals with outside perspectives, which we need now more than ever.
This will get at the root cause of the problem. It will create a completely different mentality and dynamic within Congress. It will allow us to have political leaders that are looking to tear down the walls of government, as opposed to those who are propping them up in an effort to centralize more power in Washington.
I agree completely. We need a new mindset, new leadership, and a new way of doing things. We cannot solve problems with the same tools that have created them.
OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!
I like this idea but it would be ineffective without simultaneous campaign finance reform and limits on lobbying and special interest donations.
I am all for term limits and your idea is a great one!
While I am definitely for term limits and believe they would help stop this vicious cycle, they are only one part of the solution. You also, as Tal wrote, need campaign finance reform so that our politicians don't have to spend most of their term raising money for their next election. In our current system, Senate elections even in the smallest states can cost tens of millions of dollars. To raise that kind of money requires near-constant campaigning, which impedes the ability (and interest) of our politicians to actually use their power to accomplish things.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the FEC case isn't going to help this situation any. By allowing corporations to throw their money around on campaign ads, politicians will become even more indebted to money.