Two strong reforms are sitting idle because the bosses in the Michigan House of Representatives won’t take action.
That’s the charge levied by two leaders of the House Freshman Bipartisan Caucus.
In a March 3 letter to leadership, State Reps Bill Rogers, R-Brighton, and Tim Bledsoe, D-Grosse Pointe, demand attention to their joint proposals to extend term limits and force legislators to accept payless pay days if they don’t pass a budget by July 1.
“We challenge the leadership of our chamber to overcome the inertia resulting from partisanship and timidity and immediately begin moving these Resolutions through the House,” according to the Rogers-Bledsoe letter. “These are modest but vital reforms that should be presented to the voters at the earliest opportunity, on the August ballot this year. To succeed, our reforms must be divorced from partisan politics, but they must be divorced from rivalries for higher office as well. Having these efforts closely associated with one party or the other, or one statewide office candidate or another, would surely doom them to failure.”
This is the latest example of the Freshman Bipartisan Caucus rising up in unison to attack slow-moving leadership. During last fall’s budget stalemate, the freshman called out leaders for lack of action and for declining to give the freshmen a seat at the table in negotiations.
Rogers’ budget deadline resolution establishes a deadline of July 1st for the Legislature to submit a balanced budget or lose its pay for each day thereafter. Bledsoe’s resolution reforms legislative term limits so that members must leave the legislature after 14 years and may not return, but may spend those 14 years in either chamber. Both resolutions require constitutional amendments that could be placed on the ballot as early as August — if leadership moves forward with hearings and votes to do so. No such committee hearings have been publicly scheduled in the week since the freshmen sent their letter.
But the freshmen have won the support of the state’s last three governors. In her state of the state, Gov. Jennifer Granholm endorsed the freshmen no-budget, no pay plan. And in a joint speech in February, former governors James Blanchard and John Engler identified term limits as a major barrier to effective leadership in Lansing.
Term limits’ destructive impacts — most notably the erosion of institutional knowledge, policy expertise, and trust in the Capitol — are of deep concern to just about any interest group with any regular contact with legislators. Even the lobbyists who arguably profit most from the constant changeover in Lansing acknowledge they lose because they can rarely accomplish anything for their clients. Likewise, the more than 10,000 citizens participating in the Center for Michigan’s “Community Conversations” list term limits reform as a chief concern.
11 Comments
We have terms limits. It is called an election. Terms limits are unnessecary.
Here in the Capitol we know submissions such as this are sorted out, but here goes: the problem w/ coverage such as this is the inherent hypocrisy. First, Engler championed ‘term limits’–and the exception language preserving them at the state level despite the Federal rollback–in an effort to take back the House. Once he did, he ran into new Leadership he couldn’t control…and flipped. You can editorialize all you wish, but that is precisely what happened. Second, the business community (of which this publication is a part) still hasn’t figured out that to triumph over term limits one must first focus on the true implications and NOT simply bash those currently serving…and already suffering the consequences. Finally, the lobbyists and the bureaucrats. This editorial is so ill-informed it misses the ramifications created by each of these cess pools. ‘Term Limits’ is a problem, but they’re a problem because of the warped lobby/bureaucratic culture operationg outside the lines. This ‘fix’ won’t happen until the (real) story is reported accurately…and not the version the business and lobby community would have you believe.
Its not term limits that are the problem.Its jerrymandering the districts so there is no realalistic way a district can have a fair election.We need to put these districts into real competitive races so that all voters can feel that their vote makes a difference.
Until some one can describe in a measurable way what special knowledge and skills that the Legislators learn and develop only by being in their legislative office, then will I look at reconsider my support for the current term limits.
The real significance of this isn’t extending term limits (which I favor)–it’s having bi-partisan proposals come forward! We need to encourage these folks and re-elect them so they can assume leadership roles.
Term limits were enacted due to entrenched legislatures working for reelection instead of their constituents. It was felt that term limits would eliminate that. It has not, and now inexperienced legislators parrot the party mantra instead of doing any real problem solving. Is the solution a part time legislature without term limits?
Congratulations to the Bipartison Caucus for bringing these two important issues into focus. Bill Rogers and Tim Bledsoe are showing real leadership skills that reflect the feelings of the public. We are tired of the bickering and expect the legislature to work together to solve problems!
Term limits need to go. Legislators don’t understand the legislative process well enough until their last years in office, when it is too late to fix all of our other institutional flaws. Get it on the ballot!
Here we go again, every time a group like the bi-partisah freshmen try to move an issue forward out come the flag wavers bawling about ‘well you started it’. Doesn’t matter WHO started what, the thing that matters is the we END it. Anyone with half a brain can see the entirely detrimental effect that term limits has had on the state and it’s not really the institutional memory loss that’s the biggest factor. It’s the total lack of CONTINUITY! No business or corporation looking to settle is going to stay when they realize that any law made this year, can and likely will be tossed out next year when a third new members walk in thru the chamber doors. If you want a better economy, stabilize the government! AND don’t even consider a Con-Con until the state’s on a firmer footing or we’ll all be living in wooden shacks by the middle of the next decade. As for what special skills and knowledge are needed” – go back to government 1.01. It takes at least two years to even begin to understand the budget process and probably 20 years to understand the whole thing. If you don’t understand that, you understand zilch.
Term limits are one of the sources of the problems faced in Lansing?
Why don’t we see what has happened in a place where there are no term limits: Washington D.C.
In Washington D.C., where elected officials aren’t constrained by term limits, our elected “representatives” have given out bailouts to the banks and other financial entities, effectively nationalized a majority of the American Automobile Industry, and are intent on passing a health care bill that not only a majority of Americans do not favor, but want to do it without actually voting on it!
In Washington D.C., where elected officials aren’t constrained by term limits, we have people in charge of writing our tax laws who fail to properly pay their taxes (along with their numerous successors including Rep. Sander Levin), engage in inappropriate behavior with their subordinates, and treat the amenities of their offices as personal perks?
Oh, and did I forget to mention that under the exceptional stewardship of our “representatives”, we owe over $12.553-trillion dollars (or if you look at the total unfunded liabilities: $107.834-trillion).
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
What is Michigan looking at currently?
$1.8-billion?
Nice try.
Public office is supposed to be an brief interruption in ones career, not a career unto itself.
If elected officials aren’t aware of what’s involved in running Lansing, then maybe they shouldn’t have considered running for office in the first place.
What would your reaction be if the professional that you went to to get something done (i.e. doctor, mechanic, dentist, etc.) told you that what you needed done was hard and that they haven’t tried to it before you came to them?
People don’t get hired into a job in the private sector to learn what is involved to actually perform their job. The same should hold true for publicly elected officials!
I agree with KG-1.
My conclusion is that No politician of any political persuasion who really really want to help the people would be, by their deeds, continually delaying action to help Americans in need at any level, federal state or local.
The politicians we have are more worried about their Luxurious jobs, perks, power, prestige, and ridiculous wages/benefits.
These people are not performing to their wages anymore than the Corporate execs who destroy a company and leave with millions in golden parachutes or Bankers who have put their companies and many others in such poor shape, they need our taxpayer money to fund their illicit enterprises.
Politically Elected jobs should be Sparse in payment and benefits.
Average benefits for the state they live in.
Average employee costs.
Lower wages.
There are plenty of Unemployed individuals in this state who would love to take every single elected persons job in our state for half the pay & benefits.
And they’d pry do a better job, not owing to political pandering, taking corporate bribes, and campaign donations from entities with immoral and criminal intentions.
Instead of taking the Richest and highest levels of Class society to make the rules, we should seriously consider placing like Jury Duty, Americans with real life problems and difficulties that represent 80% of the Populace instead of representing the top 5% every election.
Then those new people would be motivated by having a good job and decent wages, and a self experienced Basis for doing what needs doing in our state instead of pandering to the elite that support both parties.
One Trackback
[...] Concerned Consumer: I agree with KG-1. My conclusion is that No politician of any political persuasion who really… [...]