Rand Paul supports Congressional term limits

~
is also endorsing Chuck De Vore, running against Barbara Boxer here in CA ... speaking of needing to term limit someone. sheesh.

We often use analogies about 'freedom of choice" regarding elections as if elections were sort a market where we all go and make our choice of who we want to be represented by. The analogy is useful to an extent, but we musn't take it too far.

In reality, unlike a market, we are not all choosing what we want for ourselves in an election. We are choosing FOR EVERYBODY ELSE. When three people go into a store to buy a cola, one may choose Pepsi, one may choose Coke and one may choose RC. But in an election, the three would vote and the majority would have its choice forced upon the loser. That is because an election is a coercive government program -- a legitimate one, like the military, the police and the courts -- but a government program nonetheless.

Limited government is an essential part of freedom. Just because the military, police, courts and elections are important and legitimate government functions, doesn't mean that soldiers, cops, judges and politicians can do whatever they want. We need rules to limit government and protect the individual freedom.

Like Washington warned, government can be both a faithful servant and a fearful master. It is limitations on it that make it more of the former than the latter.

>>What we need is intelligent voters to vote the bad ones out.<<

What you are saying sounds good in theory, but the truth is that in practice it is not possible. The fact is that our incumbent friendly system has got to a point where the likelihood of a incumbent Congress member rewinning his or her own seat is a near certainty. Reelection in the House in 2006 and 2008 -- years of 'change' -- remained right in line with the long-term average of about 95%.

With incumbent reelection almost assured (except in cases of death or indictment) parties reserve resources for open seats, where both parties have an opportunity to win. The parties do not recruit or fund serious opponents to incumbents except in special circumstances. In 2008 there were 55 unopposed seats where elections were simply not held. Many more were challenged, but only by grossly underfunded candidates and gadflies.

Look at where most of our liberty candidates are and you'll see what I mean.

Term limits mandate open, competitive seats every 8 years, or whatever the term limit is on the seat. It gives citizens more opportunities to run, give voters more meaningful choices to vote for, reduces the importance of seniority, broadens the pool of people with intimate government experience, and improves the incentives faced by politicians.

Right now, long-term incumbents are undefeatable and run all the committees. Our Founders valued rotation in office and we got it for our first century or so. We didn't have today's certain incumbent reelection in this country until the 1950s.

The Pauls and Jim DeMint are right about term limits. We need them in Washington DC if real change is to be possible.

You are so right. Here's Rand Paul speaking to that point from his campaign website:

"Some pundits like to remark that we already have term limits they’re called “elections.” This glib response ignores the fact that incumbent U.S. Senators start each election cycle with an average of $8 million dollars in the bank. The average US Representative starts with over $1 million in the bank.

"Most of this incumbent cash comes in the form of $5000 checks from special interest groups that want federal contracts or federal favors. The challenger must raise his or her contributions largely from individuals, typically averaging under $100 per check.

"Is it any wonder that incumbents win almost every election?"

For his full position on term limits, see:
http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/q-z/term-limits/