We Need Term Limits Precisely Because So Many Like Their Congressman

A frequent response from skeptics of term limits is that the fix for excessive, economy-sapping government isn’t taking away their right to vote for whom they prefer in Congress, it’s to simply shrink government. Except that the legislators voters prefer, including those who rhetorically favor limited government, are paradoxically the big government problem.

To see why, consider Peter Baker and Susan Glasser’s 2021 biography of James A. Baker, The Man Who Ran Washington. Among other posts, Baker served Ronald Reagan as his chief of staff and Treasury secretary. Writing about Reagan’s first term, Baker and Glasser observed that while the 40^th president had a vision for limiting the size of the federal government, “it proved harder than Reagan’s team had imagined – every program they wanted to cut had a constituency, it seemed, often including Republicans.” There’s a lot of information in the previous passage.

It arguably explains a seeming contradiction: while Americans overwhelmingly disdain Congress, they also overwhelmingly think highly of their representative in Congress. Except that there’s no contradiction. Since all politics is local, politicians wisely talk – and even vote – a good game about being parsimonious stewards of taxpayer money, but they trade votes just enough to keep the funds flowing to what their constituents value.

The cruel reward for localized government practiced on a national level is a massive, $6 trillion+ federal government. Every program once again has a constituency in Washington, which means every member of Congress plays a role in expanding the federal footprint. This is true no matter their ideological stance about the size and scope of government.

The burden of a national government of the size previously mentioned is staggering. Congress doesn’t just stare lovingly at the trillions in its care, rather its members use the funds to substitute themselves for the private sector when it comes to moving $6 trillion worth of goods, service, and labor to politicized uses. Imagine how much freer, and more prosperous we would be if Congress spent quite a bit less annually.

Except that it’s not going to happen. Not given the local popularity of the members of Congress. Which is why term limits are so necessary.

Never forget that as opposed to a democracy, the U.S. is a constitutional republic. Congress exists not to please us, but to protect our freedom. And our freedom is best protected when time spent in Washington is limited by law.

If not, we have what he have today. Democrat or Republican, they all talk about prudence with taxpayer money (Republicans especially), only for the size of government to continue to grow. That it does is a statement of the obvious in a legislative body that lacks term limits. Think about it. If you’re in government, you’re there to “do something,” and the longer you serve in government, the more expert you become at “doing something.”

Worse, the more you “do something” however small, the more that your constituents become reliant on the power you’ve amassed. Same with friends, family members and former staffers who profit in Washington from the power of certain representatives in Congress.

It brings up a scandal that’s sadly not yet one: members of Congress make a career out of it despite pay that comes in at $174,000/year? Readers, please wake up to the flashing red light here. $174,000 affords not much of a lifestyle at all in Washington, D.C. Which is the point, and the scandal. Congressmen (and Senators) frequently serve until they’re infirm, and they do because when you’re able to “do something,” money well beyond your congressional pay finds you. Frequently it’s family members, friends, and former staffers, but find you money does.

Which is why we need term limits. Precisely because voters like their representatives, we need to limit their time in office. Voter worship is intoxicating, as are the myriad monetary and non-monetary forms of remuneration that emerge from voter love. If politicians aren’t in office long they won’t have time to perfect the art of politics, nor will their voters get the chance to fall for them. An ineffective Washington wouldn’t redound to politicians, which means it would redound to all of us.