Arnold, Term Limits, and the failed Republican Revolution

I should have posted this last week to keep current with class content, but since I need a break from figuring out how to cut 171 words from my global policy paper, here goes an old thought.

Arnold's framework ran a lot more true to me than the other things we've read because you can see his theory in action every day. As much as we'd like to believe that Congressmen and women are in Washington to make a positive change for all, it isn't true a lot of the time. Why else do we not have any serious attempts being made to fix our deficit, debt, and unsustainable entitlements spending. Whether you come from the left or the right, this is one of the top problems our country faces and it can be solved if a consensus could be built in the middle. But no politician wants to be the middle guy who either cuts programs or increases taxes (lets face it, we need to do one or the other) because they will have to face re-election. This is where Arnold is 100% correct (and the poitical scientists who he built off of are as well) - politicians think about re-election first and foremost.

One case study where this rings true is the 1994 Republican Revolution. Without going into the history of it, the Republicans finally had the Congress and Clinton, being the master politician that he is, saw the writing on the wall and worked with Newt Gingrich to balance the budget. All of a sudden we were running government surpluses and had an economic boom. Then Clinton decided to lie and the Republicans decided they were more concerned with playing impeachment than fixing America's problems. Soon enough, Bush was in office and the Republican government was spending away and racking up debt. So how did the party of less become liberal-like in their spending habits while still playing the tax cutting game? It's simple - the Republicans got comfortable in DC and wanted to stay in power. So they spent money and cut taxes to please their constituents back home and ensure re-election.

Not all Republicans were like this. If you examine when this spendaholism happened to the GOP, you'll see that it coincides with many young hawks leaving office because the term limits they set for themselves in 1994 were up. So these part time politicians left government for their homes, a la Cincinnatus, while the ones who didn't take term limits fell in love with power and did everything to stay. So are term limits the answer for Washington?

Think of it; politicians only have a shelf life of 6 or 8 years in the House, and 12 in the Senate, then time's up and you go back home. With a short period of time to do something, you'll feel the push to make a positive difference. Also, since you can only spend a limited time in government, you hopefully won't be as concerned with re-election, so instead of spending money America doesn't have to please your constituents, you'll try to do the right thing (WOW!!!).

I'm not saying this is the answer, but it's an idea, and we need something to fix DC because the people up there right now sure aren't doing the right thing for the people of this nation.

-Matt Vigeant