From The Eagle Tribune
by: Taylor Armerding

It is time for term limits — not just on the presidency, but on elective offices at every level.

Past time, actually. I know it’s an idea that has been floated — in some cases adopted — over the decades. I know that in California, one of the few states where it exists, it is not held in universally high regard.

I know its chances in Massachusetts are slim and none, since it is almost always promoted by those who are seeking office, not those holding it.

It was, after all, the Merrimack Valley’s own Martin Meehan who famously said he’d limit himself to eight years as a congressman, and then move either up or out. But that was before he got elected. Once he cleared that hurdle, he “grew,” “evolved” and had an epiphany: He would be cheating his constituents of his experience, expertise and influence if he kept his promise.

Ironically, he didn’t seem all that worried a few years later about cheating his constituents when he got the chance for the big bucks with no heavy lifting, as president of UMass Lowell.

But at least term limits is once again a gleam in somebody’s eye — even that of an elected official.

The Massachusetts Republican Party is considering an initiative petition calling for it, and a sitting legislator — Rep. Karyn Polito, R-Shrewsbury — has filed a bill to amend the state constitution to set a limit of 12 years for a given office.

Like I said, its chances are slim and none.

But it ought to be a layup. Not because term limits will magically fix everything that is wrong with government. But government is really, truly broken. And curbing the entrenched political career is one substantive step toward bringing back representative government.

Right now, elected officials rarely represent the people. They represent their people, which is to say, government employees.

And because of that symbiotic relationship, the powers of incumbency are virtually insurmountable. Elected officials roll over for the public employee unions — the recent focus on unconscionable perks for those in the public sector is proof of that — and the unions in turn make sure those officials stay in office.

Public employees are the ones, after all, who have enough time off to knock on doors, hold signs on street corners, lobby at the Statehouse and get the loyalist troops to the polls.

The rest of us are too busy trying to make a living so we can pay for all this.

This has turned the “career in public service” into a career of being served by the public. The “servant” has become the master.

Things are upside down, broken by any logical measure.

If elected officials knew there was a limit on their time in office, there is at least a chance that they would think more about what is best for the entire state, because they would know they would be rejoining the private sector at some point.

Of course, there are arguments against term limits. I’ve heard them all, and they are persuasive only to those who want a broken system to stay broken.

One is Meehan’s theory, that it would be foolish to throw out all the experience and expertise.

The reality is that it doesn’t take long for a new legislator to get up to speed. What is more significant is that most newly elected officials storm into office vowing to change the system, and then the system changes them.

Longevity rarely makes legislators better. It just makes them more entrenched. Regular turnover would counter that a bit.

The majority of the private sector recognizes this. It is rare, except in cases where a business is family owned, for the same CEO to remain for life, or even for a decade. Change is good — new blood means new, fresh thinking — and nobody thinks a new person coming in is going to need four years to be able to do the job effectively.

Look at the most powerful elective office in the country. In the view of President Barack Obama’s adoring supporters, he’s done a brilliant job just in his first six months. No need for the continued experience and expertise of George W. Bush.

Then there’s the argument that it would be undemocratic to block citizens from electing their rep or senator as many times as they want.

No, it wouldn’t. Not if the people vote for term limits. That’s perfectly democratic.

If term limits are so bad, why do we have them on the president? If lifetime legislators are so good for us, why not a lifetime president? We can elect somebody different anytime we want, right?

Fortunately, that delusion was exposed by the tenure of FDR. It would lead to an imperial presidency. At the lower levels, it has delivered a “political class” that is both more powerful and wealthier than its servants in the private sector.

At the least, term limits would give us more diversity in government. And all we hear from our legislators is how much they favor diversity, right?

When it comes to them, not so much, I’m afraid.

Taylor Armerding is associate editorial page editor of The Eagle-Tribune. He may be reached at 978-946-2213 or at tarmerding@eagletribune.com. Read him daily at The Soapbox, the Eagle-Tribune blog at blogs.eagletribune.com/soapbox