Ted Cruz Calls for Term Limits for Members of Congress
Senator Ted Cruz and Rep. Ron DeSantis have an op-ed in this morning’s Washington Post titled If Republicans really want to drain the swamp, here’s how to do it. The piece advocates for a constitutional amendment providing for term limits for Congress:
During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump called for enacting term limits, and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has endorsed the idea. As soon as the 115th Congress convenes, both of us will move to restore accountability among the entrenched Washington establishment by introducing a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms that a member of Congress can serve to three in the House and two in the Senate.
Passing term limits will demonstrate that Congress has actually heard the voice of the people.
Cruz and DeSantis argue that term limits will change how politicians behave:
Term limits will change the calculus of those who serve in Congress.
Without term limits, the incentive for a typical member is to stay as long as possible to accumulate seniority on the way to a leadership post or committee chair. Going along to get along is a much surer path for career advancement than is challenging the way Washington does business.
I used to be foursquare in favor of term limits after reading George Will’s book Restoration: Congress, Term Limits and the Recovery of Deliberative Democracy back in the 1990s. But since that time, I have watched how term limits have played out in California, and the results have not impressed me. Career politicians are still career politicians; they just bounce from job to job. A feeling of civic duty does not pervade the halls of our state senate or assembly. If anything, they seem more beholden to our governor and his quirky schemes for overregulating business and freeing as many criminals as possible. I can’t say California’s silly policies these days are a result of term limits, but term limits seem to have done little to prevent them.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe politicians not facing term limits do lose some courage. Take Ted Cruz, for example. The man who had the guts to take on his own party back in the day — a man who believes in the free market enough to oppose ethanol subsidies in Iowa during a presidential race! — has been remarkably praiseworthy of the Carrier deal that picks a winner (Carrier) over a loser (its competitors). The Carrier deal flies in the face of Cruz’s longstanding opposition to such government intervention — which, interestingly, he subtly alludes to in this op-ed, saying: “The Washington Cartel is hard at work picking winners and losers, with hard-working Americans typically winding up as the losers.”
But he knows the politics of criticizing this deal openly, at this time, with Trump’s popularity high, would be costly. And so, for now, he refrains from open criticism, and even praises the deal. Is that because he faces re-election in 2018? Because he hopes to run for President again? Because he hopes to have a long Senate career? Who knows for sure?
Ultimately, Cruz may have calculated that his support of term limits today is a cost-free position to take, because there is no chance Congress will propose an amendment that reins in the ambitions of its own members. (Note that Cruz does not propose an Article V convention for the purpose of passing this amendment.)
Cruz’s support for term limits may be prove to be a miscalculation, though. Having proposed a Constitutional amendment to limit Senators to two terms, Cruz is likely to be reminded of his position . . . if and when he runs for a third term.
[Cross-posted at RedState.]
He should be reminded.
DRJ (15874d) — 12/9/2016 @ 10:14 amso random
it makes me wonder if harvardtrash ted really has his head around how very very much failmerica needs to do in a very very short time if she’s to slip the noose food stamp and his toxic debt and regulation have placed around her neck
this long horizon term limits blah blah blah, this is empty virtue signalling
chop chop harvardtrash ted, we have work to do
happyfeet (28a91b) — 12/9/2016 @ 10:19 amI wonder who Goldman-Sachs will choose as Chief Operating Officer now that Trump has picked Gary Cohn to head the National Economic Council. Cohn should fit right in with Bannon, Mnuchin and other Vampire Squid alumni at the core of the Trump Admin.
Rick Ballard (764455) — 12/9/2016 @ 10:31 amCompetition drives innovation and market responsiveness – and we have a legislative electoral structure designed to stifle competition. I know I’ve been harping on it for years, but FPP systems create massive barriers to entry for would-be competitors.
That’s why our legislature is unresponsive to consumers. The parties don’t have to compete, because the system locks out competitors.
Leviticus (efada1) — 12/9/2016 @ 10:41 amIf you want competition in Congress, you need proportional representation.
Leviticus (efada1) — 12/9/2016 @ 10:41 am(Which, importantly, is completely compatible with both Federalist and republican principles).
Leviticus (efada1) — 12/9/2016 @ 10:44 amWhile they’re at it, Cruz and DeSantis might just as well term-limit federal employees too – say to 12 years or so.
That one simple stroke would relieve the taxpayers of the costly burden of retirement programs and get rid of the biggest pile of useless deadwood now obstructing free markets and personal liberties.
Term-limits have worked well in preventing US presidents from becoming tyrants. And, there’s no good reason to assume term-limits for both Congress members and federal employees wouldn’t put an end to the lifelong grasping dependency of temporary office holders and lazy obstructionist paracites.
ropelight (e490f4) — 12/9/2016 @ 10:46 amTerm limits isn’t enough, as you point out Patterico, they just go from job to job.
If you want to eliminate career politicians, which is the problem, then we should go back to filling offices by lot.
Holding office should be like jury duty; it should be random, it should suck, people should try to get out of it.
Congress would look like America: half female, 12% black, etc. Would some proportion be idiots, crooks, lunatics, ignoramuses? We have that NOW.
But what we would not have is an entrenched political class fundamentally different from the citizenry. The principal-agent problem would not be solved but it would be greatly mitigated.
I would rather be governed by the first 535 names in the phone book, etc.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 12/9/2016 @ 10:49 am@ropelight:term-limit federal employees too – say to 12 years or so.
Huh. Let’s try 6 and then see if we like it before we go to 12.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 12/9/2016 @ 10:50 amI support ending federal unions but not taking people’s jobs, unless you like the spoils system. But most populists do.
DRJ (15874d) — 12/9/2016 @ 10:59 amOf course, term limits for elected officials is different. It is not taking a job.
DRJ (15874d) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:01 amGH, with so many “Al-##…..” out there, you might rethink that first 500 in the phone book thing, but kidding aside, I feel that your method is the way to do electors for the presidential electoral college. Randomly select electors via the existing juror selection apparatus to go to their respective state house (provide per-mileage and one meal) and cast the vote. If one objects for the inconvenience or the candidate to be selected (like the Texas cases), they should serve community service in lieu of participating in the electoral college.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:16 amWe need perk limits, not term limits. Cut their benefits limit their power to intrude in state authority and they’ll self-deport. This wasn’t a problem until they grew their power and feathered their beds.
crazy (d3b449) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:17 amOne way to improve the proposal would be to not merely set a limit on re-election but also make service in public office for more than x number of years a disqualification for further service. In other words, a person can serve up to (f.i.) 10 years in an elected or other position (this would make it apply to the bureaucrats), but having served for 10 years, can not serve in any position (elected, appointed, civil service, whatever) until another 10 years have passed. One could even make the disqualification permanent, meaning for life. If a truly deserving person was needed to fill a job but was disqualified because of prior service, Congress could waive the disqualification by a two thirds vote of each house, and only on a case by case basis, not a general waiver that allowed POTUS to appoint whomever he wished.
But the true danger of term limits is that a person in a term limited position will be making plans about his post position employment, and you will certainly run into bureaucrats who make regulatory decisions motivated not by what they think is the public’s interest, and not according to the policy dictates of their agency and (ultimately) the POTUS, but in the interest of an entity or person whom they see as a potential future employer. This of course happens now, but I think term limits would intensify it.
What about a civilian equivalent of the military’s supposed program of “promote or out”?
kishnevi (870883) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:19 amA lot of people like the spoils system. You seem to use the term “populist” as a derogatory term. Why?
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:20 am“Having proposed a Constitutional amendment to limit Senators to two terms, Cruz is likely to be reminded of his position . . . if and when he runs for a third term.”
No, that’s silly. If he falls for that, he is a dumb sh*t.
His answser should be “I work with the system as it is, even though I want it to be different. But until there *are* term limits, I won’t act as if there were.”
You know, like Trump said about paying bribes (“campaign contributions”) to politicians.
Just like you take a tax deduction for your house mortgage, even if you think it would be better for that deduction to not exist.
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:20 amanother possibility:
kishnevi (870883) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:23 amincrease the number of congresscritters. keep it proportional to state population, but is there actually anything sacred about the number 435?
Oh god no, Kish!! We need fewer not MORE Congresscritters.
elissa (daedf7) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:25 amJobs in federal government belong to the taxpayers, and to no one else.
ropelight (e490f4) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:31 amIt is descriptive, Hoagie. To me, populists are pragmatists who adopt ever-changing popular solutions. (Change is not bad per se, but I don’t like change just to be popular. It’s the trademark of leftists like Obama.) In addition, historically most populist movements in America have embraced progressive solutions. We’ll see what Trump does.
DRJ (15874d) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:33 amThe thing about the spoils system is that while you got a bunch of crooks and cronies in there, at least it was different ones every time.
And since the spoils system has been out for over a hundred years now I don’t know how on earth DRJ knows it to be in favor with “populists”, at least those not centenarians.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:34 am@DRJ:historically most populist movements in America have embraced progressive solutions
“Progressive” in 1915 meant something rather different than in 2015.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:35 amelissa, I understand what you are saying. But my proposition is based on the idea that more Congresspeople mean less power to individual Congressmen, but each one will be more responsive and representative of the people of their district, and Congressional leaders will have that much harder a job. Think of Paul Ryan trying to shepherd twice as many cats as he has to deal with now.
Alternatively, impose a districting scheme that is makes gerrymandering nearly impossible. Perhaps require every district to be as close as possible to a square in shape, or something like that. Throwing “majority minority” districts would be necessary for that, but I doubt any of us would weep to see Alcee Hastings (the most flagrant example in my locale) being forced to actually campaign for office. And state legislatures and state level parties would do everything they could to stop that.
kishnevi (870883) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:37 amYou realize that our most famous populist President, Andrew Jackson, is known for the spoils system? He was trying to drain the swamp, too. It is a solution, and maybe we have become so corrupt and partisan that it is a valid one.
So, no, I am not being derogatory. Sadly, this is where we are. Back in 1829.
DRJ (15874d) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:39 amIs Trump a populist or not, Gabriel?
DRJ (15874d) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:40 am@kishnevi:keep it proportional to state population, but is there actually anything sacred about the number 435?
There wasn’t, used to be 30,000 people to the Congressman but Congress was getting to huge so it was capped at 435.
So, what you are proposing was tried already and rejected. Maybe time to give it another whirl but I doubt it.
House of Commons has 650. Probably is workable.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:41 amLook up the definition of ‘populism.’ It tracks rather closely with what most Americans consider fair and democratic.
ropelight (e490f4) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:42 amMy take on populism is that its basic impulse is to get the benefit of government decisions and largess to flow almost exclusively to the people, without regards to the rights of others who are not seen as being member of the people. Problem number one is that the leaders of the populist movement are the ones who define who “the people” are. So the American people and “the people” are not necessarily one and the same. Right now, American politics can be described as two alternate populisms fighting for control, under the direction of an elite leadership on each side.
Andrew Jackson, btw, was probably the first populist American POTUS.
kishnevi (870883) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:43 am@DRJ:You realize that our most famous populist President, Andrew Jackson, is known for the spoils system?
Yeah, I know that. You’re reaching back 200 years. We had slaves then too and were largely an agricultural nation. This is a little silly.
Is Trump a populist or not, Gabriel?
According to who’s definition? And what if I don’t agree with that definition? Not interested in argument clinic.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:43 amHe was trying to drain the swamp, too. It is a solution, and maybe we have become so corrupt and partisan that it is a valid one.
kishnevi (870883) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:45 amHis solution was to essentially replace the old swamp with a new one.
@DRJ: Do you think Trump is going to beat someone to death like Andrew Jackson did, because you’ve pinned a label to both men, despite their living 200 years apart and being utterly unlike one another in virtually every way?
Maybe he’ll grow his out the same way. That would be awesome. Maybe he’ll ethnically cleanse Georgia of the Cherokee too, which would be less awesome.
But none of these is very likely.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:45 amAttack of teh Job Killing Robots!!!
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/08/carrier-plans-to-use-the-money-from-deal-with-trump-to-purchase-robots-that-will-replace-workers/
Colonel Haiku (9fca6c) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:53 amBe happy, don’t has a sad, people!
Hillary Clinton will never be the President of the United States of America!
Colonel Haiku (9fca6c) — 12/9/2016 @ 11:56 amBesides, Kanye West will go blonde before term limits for senators are ever brought online!
Colonel Haiku (9fca6c) — 12/9/2016 @ 12:01 pmAmazing that any of us has a job, with all the foreigners and robots. More of both are being produced all the time. Yet somehow we all keep getting more and better stuff, even if we don’t all make as much money as we to. It’s a mystery.
If we get too worried about jobs we can always abolish backhoes and require excavations to be dug with teaspoons. That should get the economy right back up.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 12/9/2016 @ 12:04 pmWe need the one two punch of term limits and a seven year moratorium on lobbying.
Pinandpuller (7ca3fb) — 12/9/2016 @ 12:12 pmCruz’s support for term limits may be prove to be a miscalculation, though. Having proposed a Constitutional amendment to limit Senators to two terms, Cruz is likely to be reminded of his position . . . if and when he runs for a third term.
That should be forever known as “pulling a Meehan” after the insufferable and sanctimonious Marty Meehan (D-MA) who ran for the House in 1992 on a strict promise to serve no more than four terms, and then after the GOP took over the House in 1995 he made a very showy display of reaffirming his pledge to quit after eight years as a way of accusing the GOP of being insincere about Congressional term limits. Naturally, Meehan served seven terms, only deigning to leave when the corrupt Massachusetts Democrat establishment bought him off by making him the president of a public university. He was also made infamous when his staff was caught trying to scrub his term-limits pledge and reversal from his Wikipedia page.
JVW (6e49ce) — 12/9/2016 @ 12:36 pmIt used to be in, Minnesota and North Dakota, that Aamco Transmission was on the third page of the phone book.
Pinandpuller (7ca3fb) — 12/9/2016 @ 12:55 pm@14 kishnevi
That sounds a lot like Sulla’s reforms, though we should probably stay away from his tax policies.
Pinandpuller (7ca3fb) — 12/9/2016 @ 1:05 pmWhat we need is competitive elections, not term limits.
Sammy Finkelman (54fd00) — 12/9/2016 @ 1:06 pmAt 38, I thought that would be the case in Grand Rapids also.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 12/9/2016 @ 1:11 pm“What we need is competitive elections, not term limits.”
– Sammy Winkelman
Yup. No question in my mind.
Leviticus (efada1) — 12/9/2016 @ 2:04 pmPlease use any definition you want, as long as you tell me what it is as I did with you. And what is the internet if not a debating society or argument clinic? An echo chamber?
DRJ (15874d) — 12/9/2016 @ 2:21 pmMaybe you see no comparisons between Jackson and Trump, but I do. I think history can teach us important things but apparently you don’t.
DRJ (15874d) — 12/9/2016 @ 2:22 pmIf you’re talking constitutional renovations, how about bringing back the line item veto?
Craig Mc (c8ba9d) — 12/9/2016 @ 2:27 pmCold call from the headline. Not reading the article. Don’t have too.
Term limits haven’t worked out well in California. The lack of track record eases the way for the scoundrel to gain office. The collective time limit urges the congress of scoundrels to the first easy score at the quick step.
papertiger (c8116c) — 12/9/2016 @ 2:28 pmPlus it removes being voted out of office as a stick. Disarms the public. Long term government strategies fall to lobbyists and bureaucrats by default.
papertiger (c8116c) — 12/9/2016 @ 2:33 pmIMO the problem in Calif is not the existence of term limits, but the lack of a functioning opposition party at the state level, and in many parts of the state at the local level.
That’s the circumstance that leads to a bunch of “musical chairs” by politicians in one party who always have an eye on where they are going to go next one they are termed out of their current job. Longevity in office is a matter of out-maneuvering members of your own party for the next office, rather than appealing to the broadest possible cross-section of voters to win office in a contested election.
As long as the Dems control the state via demographics, term limits won’t matter because the new members of the legislature are just the little worker bees who do what their told in order to get party support when they need to move to another elective office.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 12/9/2016 @ 2:36 pm42… Sammeh teh Wink!?!?
Colonel Haiku (9fca6c) — 12/9/2016 @ 2:55 pmProportional representation: indeed, one Congress person per every 5.469886 million acres. Residency required except for the 3 months Congress is session, December through February. Oh, and they should mow their own lawns.
BobStewartatHome (c24491) — 12/9/2016 @ 3:07 pmWould the term limits respect a person’s current sexual orientation? For example, would Bruce get two terms as a Senator, and Caitlyn two more? And if so, if Congress declares that there is yet a third choice, would the Jenners get two more after that?
BobStewartatHome (c24491) — 12/9/2016 @ 3:15 pmTed Cruz Calls for Term Limits for Members of Congress
Oh, Tedtoo… why wait. Lead by example. Resign.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/9/2016 @ 3:17 pmA curious position for the authoritative Gabriel. An indication of a lack of confidence, or simply an absence of established credentials?
BobStewartatHome (c24491) — 12/9/2016 @ 3:19 pmBeing retired has its advantages. However, if you’ve purchased any modestly priced, mass produced, high tech item recently, like a wireless, GPS, bike computer ($70), you know that pretty much any of us could write user manuals for the English speaking world that would largely eliminate the need for customer support, as well as greatly increasing user satisfaction and (perhaps) market share.
I have a theory that there are five smart guys who live in secluded, gated communities (no need for too many more,) who do all the technical design work, and they leave it to their lawyers to hire the guys who explain how to use the item that will be produced in the millions in China (probably exactly one container full.) And the lawyers, seeking to minimize the expenses that will be charged to their account, hire people who have never seen the item and don’t know what it is used for, to write the manual/comic book. Sadly, it would be apparent to even the lawyers that their subcontractors do not speak English if their work product was ever examined. But the lawyers also live in secluded, gated communities and have better things to do.
BobStewartatHome (c24491) — 12/9/2016 @ 3:42 pmIf you’re talking constitutional renovations, how about bringing back the line item veto?
We have it here in Florida. Sometimes it works the way it is intended. Other times it merely shifts the balance of power towards the executive away from the legislature.
One thing we have in Florida that might be worth making federal: a rule that any piece of legislation must be confibed to one subject.
Kishnevi (31ec7b) — 12/9/2016 @ 4:17 pmI don’t give a damn cause I caught 4 Pompano today and I’m watching a Beat Farmers concert from 1992 at the Belly Up.
Donald (57d854) — 12/9/2016 @ 5:04 pm@DRJ, @BobStewart: “Argument clinic”, for people who didn’t see Monty Python, doesn’t have any arguments. “Argument clinic” is basically “Did not!… Did too!”
As for what credentials have to do with anything, Bob, I imagine you get all your lawsuits argued by your babysitter, your taxes done by your lawyer, and you have your accountant watching your kids.
It’s only for creationism, climate skepticism, and alternative medicine that credentials become a liability.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 12/9/2016 @ 5:10 pmMan: Oh look, this isn’t an argument.
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn’t. It’s just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn’t.
Man: It is!
Mr. Vibrating: It is not.
Man: Look, you just contradicted me.
Mr. Vibrating: I did not.
Man: Oh you did!!
Mr. Vibrating: No, no, no.
Man: You did just then.
Mr. Vibrating: Nonsense!
Man: Oh, this is futile!
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn’t.
Man: I came here for a good argument.
Mr. Vibrating: No you didn’t; no, you came here for an argument.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 12/9/2016 @ 5:11 pmHey, these Trump appearances are a riot!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 12/9/2016 @ 5:12 pmWe have more than a few posters who’d qualify for the Minister of Silly Walks position.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 12/9/2016 @ 5:15 pm56… Long Live Country Dick!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 12/9/2016 @ 5:16 pmMay he Rest In Peace.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 12/9/2016 @ 5:17 pmOr as close as he’d ever get to it.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 12/9/2016 @ 5:17 pmDick Montana rocked!
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 12/9/2016 @ 5:18 pmI get it, Gabriel. You aren’t interested in talking to me.
DRJ (15874d) — 12/9/2016 @ 5:48 pmGabriel would never make it as a Picard: “Engage!”
Staff wrote Obamacare. Remember we’ll know what it is when we see it? They also wrote all the laws allowing for Indian-lands gaming – directly contravening handshake agreements made by the Senators for whom they worked. The problem with term limits is that staff will take over even more of the basic functions of the elected.
DJT is the closest thing to Andrew Jackson since Teddy Roosevelt. No question. We are all in for a rough ride.
Ted has an easy out on the seeming term limit hypocrisy. Unless and until both sides abide by such, it is suicide to have the best on one side leave the field. Also, I bet he is a SCOTUS Justice before the end of his next term, anyway. McConnell is reeeeeeeally gonna want him gone.
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 12/9/2016 @ 6:18 pmYes jacksonians were broadly populist, they were free traders vs the tariff addicted wigs, believed in decisive military engagement, his protege Polk shared that notion, saw institutions
narciso (d1f714) — 12/9/2016 @ 6:37 pmIkethe bank of the united states as a problem.
Pace yourselves, #NeverTrump. Save those 0-rings.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 12/9/2016 @ 6:50 pm@DRJ:You aren’t interested in talking to me.
Not really true. More that I am not interested in this form of discussion, where we argue about labels. Any definition, to be useful, has to exclude something, and any definition of “populist” broad enough to include both Jackson and Trump would not exclude much.
For example, as narcisco points out, Jackson encouraged foreign trade. If that was “populist” then, then Trump isn’t a populist.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 12/9/2016 @ 9:23 pm@Ed from SFV:Gabriel would never make it as a Picard:
Any real fan of Star Trek would prefer to be a Kirk. I’m not a fan of Star Trek. There are people who want to boldly go, and people who want to stay back home and pinch the bar maids.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 12/9/2016 @ 9:25 pm4. Leviticus (efada1) — 12/9/2016 @ 10:41 am
Not just first-past-the post, although systems where people who can’t win can still get in would be of some use.
It’s also camoaign finance “reform” and public financing which means that only professional politicians, people connected to professional policticians, rich people, and people making their second try can get elected.
The method of public financing is all wrong. It should not be collect aminimum amount of small contributions – it should be dollar for dollar tax credits, or perhaps giving every voera contribution account which is eventually depleted if not used. Some limited number of large contributionsshould be allowed – a level which any srious candidate is sure to reach withut compromise. It should be possible for all accounting to be done by banks, and the candidate relieved of all other rssponsibilities if everything is run through the bank.
Transportation if there is no marginal cost, and some other in-kind contributions should not count, at least if limited, or should count among the limited number of large contributions.
It must be possible to draft people.
We gain nothing from all the rules.
Sammy Finkelman (fbd892) — 12/11/2016 @ 7:13 amThe line item veto concentrates power.
Sammy Finkelman (fbd892) — 12/11/2016 @ 7:15 amI don’t think term limits will fix DC.
I do think term limits will change things around in DC and may result in some short-term improvements.
Then the usual crooks will find ways to work around them.
Dan S (e312ac) — 12/11/2016 @ 5:02 pm