Like the proverbial "bad penny," term limits have cropped up in the Illinois budget debate. Despite no evidence of benefit and some evidence of harm, term limits are proposed. Why?
The lure of term limits is seductive. We could end corruption and restore accountability. But states that have adopted term limits have not enjoyed better government. Why should they?
It takes time to learn any job. There is a learning curve. Performance is not enhanced by erasing that curve in mid-development. Instead of incentivizing legislators, term limits diminish accountability because legislators cannot be rewarded for continued performance.
Complex problems require protracted response. Term-limited legislators have less incentive to propose long-term policies because they won't be around to shepherd them.
Perhaps most damningly, term limits fall prey to the law of unintended consequences. Term limits shift power away from elected officials toward unelected legislative staff and bureaucrats. Legislators become temporary tourists; they come and go. Real power gravitates toward permanent staff and bureaucrats, who amass power and influence. States with term limits have generated less -- not more -- accountability.
Term limits offer no real prospect. Elections remain the truly democratic way to limit the terms of politicians.
I'm Bob Evans, and that is my perspective.
