Of the states which have term limits, the credit ratings are all over the board. 3 states which have term limits, Florida, Missouri and Nebraska, have a AAA credit rating. Three states, Arizona, California and Michigan, which have term limits have an AA- credit rating or worse. Among those without term limits, only New Jersey and Illinois have poor credit ratings
Wall Street 24/7 has listed the best managed states, based up results like unemployment and cost of living. And they also use debt per-capita as a measure. None of the states in the top 20%, or top 10 states, have term limits. Only Maine and Nebraska are in the 2nd 20% and have term limits. Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan and Nevada, who have term limits, are in the bottom 20%.
No states that have term limits have both a good credit rating and are considered well-managed. Of states without term limits, only Illinois has a poor credit rating and is considered one of the worst-managed states.
Can we make any conclusions based upon this data? The main conclusion is that term limits, at best, have no effect on the quality of government. Based on the data, we can conclude that term limits would also be ineffective at the federal level as most states, except for Nebraska, have the same division of powers that the Federal Government has. (Nebraska has a uni-cameral legislature or no House of Representatives.) At the same time, this could also be an argument for the states that have term limits to repeal them.
But I am not the only one who feels that term limits are not so great.
Why would this be the case. Isn't a good thing to get rid of career politicians? Look at this from the point of view of someone wanting to contribute to the election after a representative has reach the limit of his term. If you are benefiting from the direction of government, do you want to see a change? Do you want to risk electing a reformer? Probably not. You want a clone. And if you can't find a clone, you find a twin. And if you can't find a twin, you find a sibling. If you benefit from the current direction of politics, you will do everything in your power to ensure that nothing changes.
The second problem is experience. We value experience when filling just about any job, why is experience a bad thing when it comes to politicians? If you want change and reform, you need someone new. But that does not mean you will get a reformer who can be effective. One thing that a manager must consider before terminating an employee for cause is who can he hire to replace him. That replacement will have to learn the job and will, perhaps, at least at first, be worse than the person that was fired. This is why marginal performers at your work site are usually never fired. When your legislature has term limits, it's almost all learning curve. And lack of experience in the legislature may even tip the balance of power toward unelected bureaucrats.
California is the prime example of term limits not working. It is considered one of the worst-managed states in the US, and it has the lowest credit rating. Sometime well-meaning but inexperienced legislators just don't know where or how to pull the right strings. They don't know how to say no, or when to say yes. They don't know when voting against the party line is a good thing, and almost always vote with it instead. I must emphasize this one point...term limits in California have done nothing to improve the quality of their state government, and have probably made it worse. Experienced legislators have moved on, and back to their old day jobs. When someone returns, it is as lobbyist...and when a lobbyist knows more about how the government works than the legislators, the lobbyist will usually have their way. Is that really a good thing?
Perhaps, instead of term limits, what is needed is another check on the system. Here in Utah, one of those checks is the caucus system. There are problems with the caucus system, and there was a ballot initiative to do away with it that never came to the voters. The caucus system was instead weakened by a compromise. For all it's faults, it did get 3-term Republican Robert Bennett out of office, which is something that proponents of term limits want. Many conservatives in the state liked him. Many wealthy people liked him, and that is what spurred the ballot initiative.
As a nation, we need systems that better hold incumbents feet to the fire. A system that keeps them honest and effective stewards. Often at the party level, incumbents are given a free pass, even if they have not been very effective. And in some cases, they get a free pass even if they have been corrupt and abusive of their power. Congressional districts are more often drawn to keep the same party in power than to be neutral. At least the Utah caucus system, for all of it's problems, creates an easier road for challengers, and a more challenging road for incumbents even if that power is now somewhat weakened. And look at where Utah is on this list. AAA credit rating and one of the best managed states. I think part of the reason for that has been the caucus system.
You might also argue that having a presidential term limit has been a good thing. But out of all of the two-term presidents after Harry Truman, only one has publicly said he would like a third term. That man's name is Barrack Obama. And look at what Obama has done with his second term. Many of his most controversial actions, that became law without the consent of Congress have happened in his second term. An example of this is the tightening EPA regulations on coal plants, which have shuttered coal mines in union country. If Obama was still worried about the Labor Union vote, would he have taken the same actions? It's debatable and something to think about.
Many of our two term presidents since the 22nd Amendment was ratified have shown at least some contempt for the voice of the people? Does the Iran/Contra Affair ring a bell? Watergate coverup? Hurricane Katrina? The 22nd Amendment didn't curb the President's power. If anything, it gives him more power, because in his second term, he can run unchecked by not having to run again.
What about the President's Party? Wouldn't the president be checked in power because he wants to be succeeded by someone in his own party? How many times has a two-term president been succeeded by someone from his own party? Since the 22nd Amendment was ratified, that has only happened once, when George HW Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan.
Doesn't history and the president's legacy curb his power? Has that stopped anyone in their second term? As for Richard Nixon, it only emboldened him.
It's plain that state without term limits are much better off than states with term limits. Term limits may sound like a good thing, but there is really no evidence to show that they will be effective at a national level. In the long run, it's just another feel-good idea, that won't do much. And if anything, may make problems worse.
Credit Rating Source.
Best Managed States.
| State | Term Limits | Credit Rating | Best Managed* |
| Arizona | y | AA- | Bottom 20% |
| Arkansas | y | AA | 2nd lowest 20% |
| California | y | A- | Bottom 20% |
| Colorado | y | AA | Middle 20% |
| Florida | y | AAA | Bottom 20% |
| Louisiana | y | AA | Bottom 20% |
| Maine | y | AA | 2nd 20% |
| Michigan | y | AA- | Bottom 20% |
| Missouri | y | AAA | Middle 20% |
| Montana | y | AA | Middle 20% |
| Nebraska | y | AAA | 2nd 20% |
| Nevada | y | AA | Bottom 20% |
| Ohio | y | AA+ | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Oklahoma | y | AA+ | 2nd lowest 20% |
| South Dakota | y | AA+ | 2nd 20% |
| Alabama | n | AA | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Alaska | n | AA+ | 2nd 20% |
| Connecticut | n | AA | 2nd 20% |
| Delaware | n | AAA | 2nd 20% |
| Georgia | n | AAA | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Hawaii | n | AA | Top 20% |
| Idaho | n | AA+ | Middle 20% |
| Illinois | n | A+ | Bottom 20% |
| Indiana | n | AAA | Middle 20% |
| Iowa | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| Kansas | n | AA+ | 2nd 20% |
| Kentucky | n | AA- | Bottom 20% |
| Maryland | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| Massachusetts | n | AA | 2nd 20% |
| Minnesota | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| Mississippi | n | AA | Bottom 20% |
| New Hampshire | n | AA | Top 20% |
| New Jersey | n | AA- | Middle 20% |
| New Mexico | n | AA+ | 2nd lowest 20% |
| New York | n | AA | Middle 20% |
| North Carolina | n | AAA | Middle 20% |
| North Dakota | n | AA+ | Top 20% |
| Oregon | n | AA+ | Middle 20% |
| Pennsylvania | n | AA | Middle 20% |
| Rhode Island | n | AA | 2nd lowest 20% |
| South Carolina | n | AA+ | Bottom 20% |
| Tennessee | n | AA+ | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Texas | n | AA+ | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Utah | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| Vermont | n | AA+ | Top 20% |
| Virginia | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| Washington | n | AA+ | 2nd 20% |
| West Virginia | n | AA | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Wisconsin | n | AA | 2nd 20% |
| Wyoming | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| *Based on Debt per-capita, Unemployment, Cost of Living and Median Household Income | |||
Posts
