Term Limits?

During the 1990's here in Michigan, the people passed a constitutional amendment forcing term limits on all elected state offices, except those of the judiciary, and state university boards of education. The Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State are limited to two, four year terms. The state representatives are limited to three, two year terms, and the state senate is limited to two, four year terms.

Currently, our state, which was up until technically December of 2007, suffering from a single state recession for the last seven years. Our state is facing for the third consecutive year in a row, a budget deficit. Unemployment is over 10%.

Now, what does this have to do with term limits? Well, for starters because of the limit on how many years someone can serve, which leads to a high turnover rate, the experience is lacking in Lansing. It is understandable looking back why the idea of term limits was desirable. At the time there were people who had been in office for 10, 15 or even 20 years. The members of the opposite party of those long serving elected officials saw term limits as a way to bring in new blood, and possibly blood of their party. If you can't beat your opponent in a fair fight, take him out of the game completely.

Yes, when someone has been in office for decades, the "good ole boy" system comes to the mind of many people. However, what is lost in the effort to rid the system of the "good ole boys" is that experience gained, political alliances and political capital are lost. Sure, nobody likes the "backroom" deals, but they get things done. There should be an open process, but there is nothing wrong with "politicking".

Overturning term limits, also helps to create more bipartisan cooperation whereas now because of the high turnover rate, the partisanship can become extremely virulent. While the idea of "fresh, new blood" is appealing, should not the choice be up to the voters of each individual district?