For example six terms as Congressperson and two terms as Senator would still result is someone being in Washington too long.
Not automatically. I'll agree with a the idea that longer periods in officer tend to result in people more comfortable with pork, or even corruption, but they don't automatically do so.
And if they are so corrupt they should be voted out. This applies even with no term limits, but it should be easier if they are forced to leave a specific officer and run for another one.
If a person can't achieve what they went to Washington to achieve in twelve years, they are unlikely to ever achieve it.
That would make sense if everyone had only one thing they go to Washington to achieve, and if achieving it is binary, either achieved or not. But people can have multiple useful goals (or new goals as the situation changes). Also if there is one goal, but its a big complex one, they can continue to make steps in the right direction.
For one a person who is already rich doesn't need to go native like Jim Traficant, Mel Reynolds, Duke Cunningham, and William Jefferson.
A lot of long term congressmen already are rich. Being rich might reduce the incentive for direct obvious illegal corruption (but even then it doesn't seem to totally eliminate it all the time), but it doesn't seem to have any effect on pork, and less direct corruption.
None of which means I don't buy the idea that politicians are more likely to become corrupt or to become big spenders, if they stay in Washington a real long time. I just think you exaggerate the extent of this issue, and exaggerate how much term limits would deal with the wider corruption problem. It might be beneficial, but it isn't a solution, or as I put it before its only a "marginal solution". |
