Interesting study by the Cato group - Good reason for term limits?

[Stylerod]

The CATO group ranked all the governors based on if they raised or lowered taxes and increased or decreased spending. Governors that lowered taxes and cut spending got higher grades than Governors that raised taxes and increased spending. It actually comes out to be a good mix of R and D in all parts of this study. No one party owns the bad or good grades.




Top 10

Governor State Score Grade
Matt Blunt (R)* Missouri 63 A
Rick Perry(R) Texas 61 B
Mark Sanford (R) South Carolina 60 B
Phil Bredesen (D) Tennessee 60 B
Mike Rounds (R) South Dakota 59 B
John Huntsman (R)* Utah 59 B
John Lynch (D) New Hampshire 58 B
Sonny Perdue (R) Georgia 56 C
Bill Richardson (D) New Mexico 56 C
Brad Henry (D) Oklahoma 56 C

Bottom 10

Dave Freudenthal (D) Wyoming 49 D
Brian Schweitzer (D)* Montana 47 F
Bob Riley (R) Alabama 47 F
Christine Gregoire (D)* Washington 47 F
Mike Huckabee (R) Arkansas 46 F
Kenny Guinn (R) Nevada 46 F
Ruth Ann Minner (D)* Delaware 44 F
Michael Easley (D)* North Carolina 44 F
Janet Napolitano (D) Arizona 43 F
Kathleen Blanco (D)* Louisiana 43 F

The longer a governor stays in office, the more prone he or she is to becoming less fiscally disciplined. Once elected on the promise of cutting taxes or spending, governors usually have a good year or two for which they receive praise in this report card. Then those same governors
begin to make peace with the big government programs they once vowed to terminate or cut. Soon, taxpayers find that the governors have been seduced by the power of the office. Thus, the real standouts—the best governors
from a fiscal policy perspective—are usually those who do not succumb to this temptation over a multiyear grading cycle, such as Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina. There are, however, a few governors
who have received praise in previous report cards but deserve a reprimand this year.

Some prominent governors who received a high midterm grade but a lower nd-of-term grade this year are discussed below.

• Arnold Schwarzenegger: He received
accolades for his first two years on the job
when he received an A in the 2004 edition
of this report card. This year, however, his
grade has dropped to a D. It seems that
the California governor has changed his
stripes completely. After one year of
aggressive budget cutting, he has let the
big spenders in Sacramento get to him.
Today, California state government is 12
percent bigger in real per capita terms
than it was after his hard-fought battle to
eliminate the massive $15 billion deficit.
Now his efforts are geared toward expanding
government, not scaling it back.
It’s likely many voters no longer recognize
the Arnold Schwarzenegger they elected
in 2003.

I think this makes perfect sense. The longer an official is in office, the more likely they are going to be wooed, or even beholden, to special interest groups. The more time goes by, the more friendly they are with these special interest groups and the more money they will get from them and spend FOR them.

Complete PDF doc of the study is here

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa581.pdf

[Stylerod]

I'm going to bump this up. I thought it was an interesting study but maybe I posted it at a bad time. If not, well

[Publius]

I read this a few days ago on the LPTX yahoo group... It's very interesting.

[6SpeedTA95]

Thats a pretty interesting study and something I'd say makes perfect sense.

[Scrum]

I'm all for term limits, but we also need to address the lobbyists otherwise we just have a revolving door of corrupt officials moving through.

[DosEquis]

I do support term limits to prevent corruption and the like, but i'd have questions for those doing the study.

Things like where there special circumstances after the first few years that required a spending increase? Are they just paying back their 'special interest' group that donated generously so they could be elected? I would be curious to see a more indepth study which includes the why and where. Why has the spending increased and where did the money go? Then we should compare where the money is going in comparison to where the money came in for campaign contributions.

[kinggovernor]

I think term limits are a great idea

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I do support term limits to prevent corruption and the like, but i'd have questions for those doing the study.

Things like where there special circumstances after the first few years that required a spending increase? Are they just paying back their 'special interest' group that donated generously so they could be elected? I would be curious to see a more indepth study which includes the why and where. Why has the spending increased and where did the money go? Then we should compare where the money is going in comparison to where the money came in for campaign contributions.

If this is the same study I'm thinking of, I think its about a 50 page study, its pretty detailed.

[Thorgrim]

The big flaw here is that term limits are something the people must desire, and a lot of the people you ranked at the bottom are EXTREMELY popular

At the state level, I can see, but at the federal level, people like Senators and Representatives can't just go in as freshman and really do the people's bidding effectively as someone who has been there for a long time

It may sound cool to constantly be seeing new faces, but when we are dissecting medicare, who do you want, some 25 year old fresh out of law school, or a 55 year old incumbent who has spent 20 years learning every aspect of medicare

In probably more pressing matters to you, Do you want a 35 year old business person who just quit his company on the intelligence committee, or do you want a 60 year old Senator who spent 18 years working with closed hearings with the CIA, NSA, Pentagon, etc and knows the geopolitical situation like the back of his hand

People don't want to elect a 1-issue candidate, who only knows his one issue and will be prepared to enter Congress, they want someone who will represent the district...the NATION wants a diverse group who each have their own specialities, they want someone like a charismatic returning veteran or so forth...those people need MANY terms to find time to master important issues when they are completely overcome with answering to their district, getting their districts needs addressed, getting money to their district, running for re-election basically the day they walk in, etc

[Stylerod]

I think people would be pretty damn good at what they do after a few years. Limiting senators to 12 years and congress to 10 years would be great. Once out they can still get positions in the government in other areas if the want it.

I just think a lot of these people, and I'm sure you would agree with this, get in a rut. They get beholden to special interest groups. Find out who they can ignore and who they need to listen to so they can get financing to win that next election.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I think people would be pretty damn good at what they do after a few years. Limiting senators to 12 years and congress to 10 years would be great. Once out they can still get positions in the government in other areas if the want it.

I just think a lot of these people, and I'm sure you would agree with this, get in a rut. They get beholden to special interest groups. Find out who they can ignore and who they need to listen to so they can get financing to win that next election.

I agree. Limits should be up over the decade time frame.
I don't think anyone really support anything like a 1 or 2 term limit for anything other than the president.

Something is wrong when these bastards are spending more time campaigning than actually doing their work.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The big flaw here is that term limits are something the people must desire, and a lot of the people you ranked at the bottom are EXTREMELY popular

At the state level, I can see, but at the federal level, people like Senators and Representatives can't just go in as freshman and really do the people's bidding effectively as someone who has been there for a long time

It may sound cool to constantly be seeing new faces, but when we are dissecting medicare, who do you want, some 25 year old fresh out of law school, or a 55 year old incumbent who has spent 20 years learning every aspect of medicare

In probably more pressing matters to you, Do you want a 35 year old business person who just quit his company on the intelligence committee, or do you want a 60 year old Senator who spent 18 years working with closed hearings with the CIA, NSA, Pentagon, etc and knows the geopolitical situation like the back of his hand

People don't want to elect a 1-issue candidate, who only knows his one issue and will be prepared to enter Congress, they want someone who will represent the district...the NATION wants a diverse group who each have their own specialities, they want someone like a charismatic returning veteran or so forth...those people need MANY terms to find time to master important issues when they are completely overcome with answering to their district, getting their districts needs addressed, getting money to their district, running for re-election basically the day they walk in, etc

I would like term limits for the house but no the senate

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I would like term limits for the house but no the senate

problem with that is the senate can't be gerrymandered, the house can

in 2011, you may see a situation like CA where no matter how a pro-GOP wave goes (2002) or a pro-Dem wave goes (2006) basically no one loses their seat

The blue states with gerrymander all their seats so a Dem wins everytime, the red states will do the same, only personal corruption like Mark Foley or Tom DeLay will cause a seat to change, and like in Tom DeLay's case, the Dem will probably lose in 2008

term limits lose their bite when its just a new member of the same party coming in, learning all the corrupt tricks, and carrying on just like the old member did...only this time he's a complete partisan hack instead of having any knowledge of any situation

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

problem with that is the senate can't be gerrymandered, the house can

in 2011, you may see a situation like CA where no matter how a pro-GOP wave goes (2002) or a pro-Dem wave goes (2006) basically no one loses their seat

The blue states with gerrymander all their seats so a Dem wins everytime, the red states will do the same, only personal corruption like Mark Foley or Tom DeLay will cause a seat to change, and like in Tom DeLay's case, the Dem will probably lose in 2008

term limits lose their bite when its just a new member of the same party coming in, learning all the corrupt tricks, and carrying on just like the old member did...only this time he's a complete partisan hack instead of having any knowledge of any situation

But if average Joe that thinks he can get in and make a difference and not have to compete against a behemoth like a Kennedy or Spector we might have some new blood that isn't a member of the old boys club and is more concerned about how he can make a difference than how he can keep that job the rest of his life.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It may sound cool to constantly be seeing new faces, but when we are dissecting medicare, who do you want, some 25 year old fresh out of law school, or a 55 year old incumbent who has spent 20 years learning every aspect of medicare

In probably more pressing matters to you, Do you want a 35 year old business person who just quit his company on the intelligence committee, or do you want a 60 year old Senator who spent 18 years working with closed hearings with the CIA, NSA, Pentagon, etc and knows the geopolitical situation like the back of his hand

do you seriously think Congressmen themselves draft any of the bills they present? Not likely. It's those 25 y/o kids right out of law school that draft the bills and tell the Congressmen what should and should not be included and why. The same goes for court opinions as well...