COLDNews Editorial: Term Limits Have Taken Your Vote Away

[XLFD]

In the Thursday, January 15, 2015 edition of the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews), the editorial page actually had their editor, Steve Begnoche, give his opinion on a slightly controversial topic: term limits.  Two guesses as to whether the editor that's let the Ludington Daily News become a tool of the local officials (and a shadow of what it once was) is for term limits or not.  I present his editorial in full, and an analysis of key points of it.

 

"Term limits in Michigan are a taboo topic for state lawmakers":  A rather odd statement when he quotes Ray Franz later on in the piece talking openly about term limits and its potential effects, and when Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville talked about revisiting the topic in the lame duck period recently.

Term limits in Michigan have been around for over twenty years, so each legislator in state office now have known about these limitations and accept them as part of the job.  So even if they wish the limits were gone, coming out against them as a legislator would make them look as if they want to stagnate in their job as a career politician, particularly if they're in their last term.  It is less taboo, but more smart politics, that make politicians not come out against the limits.

"Voters apparently really like term limits.  Or possibly, those responding to polls say they like term limits.":  Whereas I don't get the point that a voter would somehow change how he really feels about the subject just because he is being polled, a pollster can sometimes ask questions with a bias one way or the other to influence an answer.  The best poll is the anonymous poll taken at the ballot boxes, where Michigan enacted term limits in 1992 with 59% of the vote. 

For local elections, the ballot polls are for term limits as well.  Best example is Ludington in 2012, where an attempt to relax term limits for mayor failed by a two to one margin, despite a supposedly popular mayor set to benefit from the change, and a whole lot of money spent by his friends, and no organized effort against. 

"Off the record, many will say Michigan's term limits need to be changed but they won't advocate for change because they fear voter backlash.":  The pronoun 'many' used in this sentence has only 'voters' to use as its antecedent that it refers to in the previous sentence in that paragraph.  But voters do not fear voter backlash.  Steve needs another editor, because he is referring to legislators as the ones going off the record and fearing for their political lives. 

Let's assume these unnamed legislators exist, then why in the twenty-two years where we have had many legislators term limited out, have they not said or attempted anything to change the status quo in their post-legislative life?   Like little kids that are told they cannot ride the roller coaster more than three times, they may cry about not being allowed that fourth ride, but they get over it.

"...Michigan's term limits only work in the sense they move people out of office quickly.":  That's a very limiting statement about what term limits actually do.  Michigan is the only state that had every single legislative seat up for re-election in 2014 be contested, due in large parts to term limits.  When Ludington's mayor was recently term-limited out after winning uncontested in the two previous elections, six people took out petitions for the position.  It bolsters participation in democracy. 

As the felon mega-lobbyist Jack Abramoff admitted, lobbyists hate term limits because they're forced to work harder under such a system. "When you finally 'purchase' an office, you don't want to have to repurchase it in six years," he said.  If you want more reasons they are popular among the people read more here and the several articles in the Torch that were written during our local proposal in 2012.

"They have not improved state government, they just got sacked people voters didn't vote out and maybe wouldn't have on their own.":  Proofreading was needed for this sentence once again, because it's not understandable as written.  The first phrase he leaves unsupported, so it's nothing more than his own opinion that he cares not to defend then, or for the rest of the editorial.

"Its kind of like having an automatic flusher...  That's a crude comparison, but accurate.":  Using the crude analogy, consider what would happen if the flusher was not automatic.  The nasty would stay in the toilet, fermenting and discoloring the vessel as it corrupts the whole area.  If we accept Steve's premise that it is an accurate comparison (which it isn't), we have to believe that he prefers to occasionally see a poopy toilet rather than the clean toilet guaranteed by the automatic flusher when his fellow bathroom-users become lazy.

"Franz was intimating that the senators weren't doing what the voters wanted because they cannot seek reelection.":  Begnoche fails to tell us what the voters want, and intimates his own beliefs in Franz's words, even though Franz seems to not be in favor of limits, a position which has become evident only as he has entered his last term:

I would be inclined to believe that the more experienced legislators decided to push the sales tax increase rather than make a more innovative path to cut funding elsewhere or up their revenue.  Even though Franz voted against this idea and against the recent state sales tax on internet purchases (a definite commerce killer for the state), career politicians are more likely to seek extra revenue rather than be content with what they have. 

"Term limits, in this case, mean we have no vote to hold over any of our elected state official's heads.  Is that really what voters want?":  If a politician decides to change their stripes in their last term, then they do face some repercussions to their legacy and their post-legislative life.  If Franz believes that some of his fellow Republicans want to raise taxes now because they don't have to face the voters again, take a look again at the votes for the internet sales tax and the state sales tax hike and you will see a lot of non-limited members of both parties.  In the history of 22 years of term limits, there has been no indication that legislators behave badly on their last term as a rule.

I made a pledge when I ran for city council that I would only serve one term.  Is that taking anybody's vote away?   Did I deprive the voters of holding their vote over my head? 

Because I planned to keep that pledge, I was going to have an ambitious schedule to correct what I thought was wrong, and hope that a like-minded individual would take over afterwards.  My legacy (hopefully) and beliefs would afford me the ability to come back later if I felt that was needed, or to pursue other political offices where I felt I could make a positive difference.

You will notice in the upper corner of the newspaper page a quote from Martin Luther King's acceptance speech for the Noble Peace Prize just over 50 years ago in December 1964 about 'is-ness' and 'oughtness' that reflects more of what I believe term limits exist for. 

Someone who holds a position in politics as a career should be reaching out for more, as every year they serve they become further removed from the real world, and become more misguided about their worth and their humility. With few exceptions, their priorities become more geared towards their own job security and re-election, rather than the interests of the public, and whether what they are doing is correct.  They ought to move on, perhaps to another public position where they think improvement is needed. 

There are some valid reasons to oppose term limits, but Editor Steve never actually makes the case relying on poor analogies, inferences from a politician about to be term-limited out, and odd claims about them taking your vote away, all of which are specious arguments at best.  Begnoche should perhaps admit the reason he personally dislikes term limits is because his sensibilities are more like Jack Abramoff's.

[Willy]

One of your best articles X. You need to send this in to the LDN for the editorial page. Begonche's argument against term limits answers it's own question regarding lame duck legislation. If they legislatures care not about the citizens and vote against what they were sent to do because they are not up for reelection then why haven't they voted to rescind term limits during these lame duck sessions. They have nothing to fear from the voters at the ballot box because they will not be on it. It's obvious Begonche thinks the citizens are to stupid to understand what term limits mean and how it affects elected officials. One thing I would like to see is the House's term limits changed from 2 years to 4 to match the Senate's term length. There are 15 states that have term limits for Legislatures, all of which also, have limits for their Governors. 20 more states, as well, have term limits for Governors. Some legislatures leave after so long on the job they need to be removed via wheel chair.

https://termlimits.org/term-limits/state-term-limits/state-legislat...

State	Year	Limited: terms (total years allowed)	Year law takes effect	Percent Voting Yes
Arizona	1992	House: 4 terms (8 y*ears) Senate: 4 terms (8 years)	House: 2000 Senate: 2000	74%
Arkansas	1992	House: 3 terms (6 years) Senate: 2 terms (8 years)	House: 1998 Senate: 2000	60%
California****	1990	Assembly: 3 terms (6 years) Senate: 2 terms (8 years)	House: 1996 Senate: 1998	52%
Colorado	1990	House: 4 terms (8 years) Senate: 2 terms (8 years)	House: 1998 Senate: 1998	71%
Florida	1992	House: 4 terms (8 years) Senate: 2 terms (8 years)	House: 2000 Senate: 2000	77%
Louisiana **	1995	House: 3 terms (12 years) Senate: 3 terms (12 years)	House: 2007 Senate: 2007	76%
Maine *	1993	House: 4 terms (8 years) Senate: 4 terms (8 years)	House: 1996 Senate: 1996	68%
Michigan	1992	House: 3 terms (6 years) Senate: 2 terms (8 years)	House: 1998 Senate: 2002	59%
Missouri	1992	House: 4 terms (8 years) Senate: 2 terms (8 years)	House: 2002 Senate: 2002	75%
Montana	1992	House: 4 terms (8 years) Senate: 2 terms (8 years)	House: 2000 Senate: 2000	67%
Nebraska	2000	Unicameral: 2 terms (8 years)	Senate: 2008	56%
Nevada	1996	Assembly: 6 terms (12 years) Senate: 3 terms (12 years)	House: 2010 Senate: 2010	70%
Ohio	1992	House: 4 terms (8 years) Senate: 2 terms (8 years)	House: 2000 Senate: 2000	66%
Oklahoma	1990	12 year combined total for both houses	State Legislature: 2004	67%
South Dakota	1992	House: 4 terms (8 years) Senate: 2 terms (8 years)	House: 2000 Senate: 2000	64%
AVERAGE % of Vote				67

[XLFD]

The article could only be so good because Begnoche's editorial was so bad, but thanks Willy.

Only Michigan, Arkansas, and California have different lengths for their house and senate term limits, so you have a good point about raising the house limit from six years to eight years, but I doubt I'd vote for it.  I like having some differences between the senate and house just like they have at the national level (where we should also have term limits).