RationalMadman

1. C>D>B>E>A
   
2. Y
   
3. Y
   
4. N
   
5. N - less bad than 4
   
6. Y
   

1. C>D>B>E>A
   
2. Y
   
3. Y
   
4. N
   
5. N - less bad than 4
   
6. Y
   

1. Plan C
   
2. Y
   
3. Y
   
4. Y
   
5. N - too lenient
6. Y

Many humans are truly a sub species underdeveloped form

Really, the best argument I can use to checkmate you is the fact that the only government branch that seems to be able to get anything done in the last 30 years is the president...who has...you guessed it...term limits!!

Nothing wrong with term limits there.

1. Take power away from voters:

Total bullshit claim.

You can't seriously claim that

You can't seriously claim that existing congressmen are not replaceable and are the best people possible in the districts that they serve. If that was the case, why even have periodic elections?

2. Severely decrease congressional capacity:

Another bullshit claim. You have people in Congress for 30 years as it is that don't even read the legislation they vote on, but they sure can hold a proper fundraiser...

3. Limit incentives for gaining policy expertise:

See #2.. We have people in Congress for 30 years who don't even read the legislation they vote on because they won't suffer any consequences for it. The expertise that matters most in Congress is fundraising and reading poll numbers, and that's it.

4. Automatically kick out effective lawmakers:

See #1. The idea in a Nation of millions that you can not find anyone equally competent is ludicrous. Unlimited terms destroys competition and alternatives and promotes an unresponsive Congress.

5. Do little to minimize corruptive behavior or slow the revolving door:

Quite the opposite. If a person has to go back and return to a world they created with crap policies, then you can be assured that they will give a damn about the policies they are making because it will affect them personally.

As it is now, you have career politicians that can go to the grave without ever personally feeling the effect of any policy decision.

That's not how you run a responsible Congress. You literally have career politicians like Chuck Schumer on TV with a shit eating grin while discussing things that affect people who don't live in the Congress. They don't care. Not on a personal level. Not when there are fundraisers, foreign trips, and parties to attend.

Limiting the number of terms members can serve would:

1. Take power away from voters:

Perhaps the most obvious consequence of establishing congressional term limits is that it would severely curtail the choices of voters. A fundamental principle in our system of government is that voters get to choose their representatives. Voter choices are restricted when a candidate is barred from being on the ballot.

2. Severely decrease congressional capacity:

Policymaking is a profession in and of itself. Our system tasks lawmakers with creating solutions to pressing societal problems, often with no simple answers and huge likelihoods for unintended consequences. Crafting legislative proposals is a learned skill; as in other professions, experience matters. In fact, as expert analysis has shown with the recently passed Senate tax bill, policy crafted by even the most experienced of lawmakers is likely to have ambiguous provisions and loopholes that undermine the intended effects of the legislation. The public is not best served if inexperienced members are making policy choices with widespread, lasting effects.

Being on the job allows members an opportunity to learn and navigate the labyrinth of rules, precedents and procedures unique to each chamber. Term limits would result in large swaths of lawmakers forfeiting their hard-earned experience while simultaneously requiring that freshman members make up for the training and legislative acumen that was just forced out of the door.

Plus, even with term limits, freshman members would still likely defer to more experienced lawmakers—even those with just one or two terms of service—who are further along the congressional learning curve or who have amassed some level of institutional clout. Much as we see today, this deference would effectively consolidate power in members that have experience in the art of making laws. In other words, a new, though less-experienced, Washington “establishment” would still wield a disproportionate degree of power over policymaking.

Even in instances where staffers, rather than members, lead the charge in crafting policies, it is often the member-to-member interactions that solidify a measure’s final details, build coaltions, and ultimately get legislation passed. Take, for example, the recent Sen. Graham-Sen. Durbin alliance that has recently proposed a bipartisan immigration compromise. Such a partnership is due in no small part to the pair’s long history—Graham and Durbin served two years together in the House and the Senate for 21 years and counting. Term limits would severely hamper the opportunity for these necessary relationships to develop. Strangers in a new environment are in a far worse position to readily trust and rely on their colleagues, particularly from across the aisle.

3. Limit incentives for gaining policy expertise: 
Members who know their time in Congress is limited will face less pressure to develop expertise on specific issues simply because, in most cases, the knowledge accrued won’t be nearly as valuable in a few short years.

We have seen a semblance of this effect after Republicans limited House committee chairs to six years at the helm. The incentives for chairs to dive deep into the policy details of their committee’s jurisdiction are now limited, given that chairs know they will soon be forced to give up the gavel. (In the 115th Congress alone, an alarming seven House Chairs have announced their retirements from Congress.)

Thus, term limits would impose a tremendous brain drain on the institution. Fewer experienced policymakers in Congress results in increased influence of special interests that are ready and willing to fill the issue-specific information voids. Additionally, a decrease in the number of seasoned lawmakers would result in greater deference to the executive branch and its agencies that administer the laws on a daily basis, given their greater expertise and longer tenure.

4. Automatically kick out effective lawmakers: 
No matter how knowledgeable or effectual a member may be in the arduous tasks of writing and advancing legislation, term limits would ensure that his or her talents will run up against a strict time horizon. In what other profession do we force the best employees into retirement with no consideration as to their abilities or effectiveness on the job? Doesn’t it make more sense to capitalize on their skills, talents and experience, rather than forcing them to the sidelines where they will do their constituents, the public and the institution far less good? Kicking out popular and competent lawmakers simply because their time runs out ultimately results in a bad return on the investment of time spent learning and mastering the ins and outs of policymaking in Congress.