I truly believe that if all of the other changes I’ve discussed are implemented, then there should never be a need for term limits whatsoever, on any elected official, be they executive, legislative, or judicial, particularly if there are functional methods to remove them from office should the need arise (which there are in many cases but not all).
I totally understand why the 22nd Amendment was passed in the aftermath of FDR being elected to 4 consecutive terms of office, and if I had lived through those times I might very well have supported it. In theory I agree that any President should only serve 2 terms in keeping with the great tradition that President Washington set.
However, it is my belief in the long view of things, that the 22nd Amendment has weakened the executive branch of the government and thereby upset the system of checks and balances between itself and the legislative and judicial branches of government.
As it stands today, a two term president only really has the first two years of their first term to get anything done of any significance. History has shown that the mid-term election during a first term usually results in the opposition party gaining seats if not power in Congress.
During the second half of the first term a president still has the looming threat over the head of Congress that he or she could be re-elected, so they better try and work with him or her to some degree.
But once the president gains a second term, particularly if they do not have a majority in Congress supporting them, they are for all intents and purposes a lame duck already, and 4 years is far too long of a time period for one whole third of our government’s leadership to be essentially “knee capped”.
If the threat of a President running for re-election were to still exist, the same scenario would be in effect for their entire term in office….that Congress better work with and treat the occupant as an equal because he or she potentially isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
History is replete with examples over the last 50+ years of members of Congress essentially telling the president to their face that they will still be around in 2, 4, or 8 years, but he won’t be. And you know what? They get away with it and were right. That is unacceptable.
Now, personally, like I said I don’t think any sane person would want more than 2 terms in the modern day office, but you never know what kind of special persons we are potentially limiting our use of their services as a nation.
Furthermore, as President Lincoln pointed out during the election of 1864, with the Civil War still raging on, you don’t want to change horses in mid-stream. There is something to be said for staying the course in times of war. On the other hand I also believe that our democracy is strong enough to handle a peaceful transition of power during a war, as it showed it was capable of during both the Korean War and the Vietnam War.
If there are going to be term limits on anyone, they should apply equally to all elected legislative and executive officials, and they should be performance based. Let that sink in for a minute. Not a set number of terms or years in office, but rather based on whether they are getting the job done for the American people.
Politicians are so keen to try and meddle in the world of education and how teachers are doing and holding them accountable by the performance of their students (which as anyone who has ever taught for even a few days knows they have very little control over in the end). I say it is high time that politicians be held to performance based metrics as well.
I came across a few years ago a suggested plan for this that Warren Buffett whipped up off the cuff, and I loved it and tweaked it a little bit:
All current Federal elected officials (Congress and President) are permanently barred from running for re-election if:
a) the Federal Budget Deficit exceeds 3% of GDP for 12 consecutive months,
b) and/or the National Debt exceeds the GDP for 12 consecutive months,
c) and/or the % of the national debt that is foreign debt exceeds 33% for 12 consecutive months
For those without an economics background let me explain in more detail.
At the end of the day when you get right down to it, the core fundamental trust that each elected official has is to be a good steward of our tax dollars. If they cannot handle that function, then they do not belong in office, period.
Gross Domestic Product is the total economic output of a country. The US economy is currently about $20.25 trillion dollars. The federal budget is currently about $6.5 trillion dollars. The federal budget deficit (how much of that $6.5 trillion dollars we don’t have enough revenue to pay for), is about $1.5 trillion dollars. So currently the deficit is 7.4% of the overall size of our economy.
What happens when the government has a budget deficit of over 3% for more than 12 months? Basically what it means is that the whole lot of them cannot or are unwilling to put their heads together to close the budget gap, and if that’s the case, then we do not need them in office the next time their office comes up for re-election if they can waste a whole year with a budget shortfall that big.
The only times our budget deficit has been greater than 3% historically has been because of wars and depressions, and even then it rapidly returned to below 3% soon after. We simply do not want to go down the road of our government being such a large part of our economic engine as a country and becoming reliant on that unless absolutely necessary, like would be the case during a depression.
Would it be unfair to a President and/or Congress to be barred from running for re-election if a depression happened on their watch? I don’t think so. If they were not able to recognize, avoid, or fix the depression’s causes in the run up to the depression, and they couldn’t fix it within 12 months once it happened, then we would absolutely need new blood in office as soon as possible to fix the problem.
As for the second criteria regarding the national debt not exceeding GDP for 12 consecutive months, once I explain it, it should also be a no brainer.
Currently our national debt is $31.4 trillion dollars and rising. But our economy (GDP) is only $20.25 trillion as was mentioned earlier. We are already in a situation where we technically owe more total money than our entire economy produces in a year!!
Now before you run out into the street screaming and tearing at your clothes and collapsing in tears, our saving grace as a country is that A) the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency of choice (for now), and B) that most of that debt we owe to ourselves through treasury bonds, etc.
However, if we were to have a major economic depression, it would not be good, and we would have to make sure we could at least pay off the portion of the national debt that is foreign debt, and thankfully right now that amount is $7.3 trillion, or about 23% of the total national debt.
So let’s say a new Great Depression started today with a stock market crash, and our economy shrinks. During the Great Depression beginning in 1929, the economy shrank by 50% in the first 5 years alone. So what if we had one today and our economy shrank from $20.25 trillion down to $9 trillion? Or worst down to $5 trillion? Uh oh, suddenly we owe foreign countries more money ($7 trillion dollars) than the entire size of our economy!!
Now thankfully such a scenario as the above is pretty remote, but you never know. The worldwide financial crisis of 2007-2008 could have very easily turned into a severe global depression rivaling that of the 1930’s if we had not done the government bailouts.
The bottom line, if our elected officials are doing their jobs properly, our financial house should always be in order, and using the above worst case criteria, if they cannot fix any of the 3 in 12 months straight, then we can and should do better in terms of who can run for their offices the next time they are up for election. Remember this is all about building a more perfect union…..not allowing a mediocre one to continue limping along.
Perry Waag 