Consequences of Term Limits
- Share via
Dan Rostenkowski’s attempt to justify his opposition to limited terms in office does just the opposite. Rostenkowski maintains that members of Congress with longevity had the “courage” to vote in favor of the latest budget, while newer members voted against it.
The old-timers simply know the ropes better. They know that the budget actually increased spending while being promoted as a reduction. They know that all of their favorite pork barrel items are included. They know that, regardless of what budget is passed, they can (and probably will) revise and further increase it at will. And they are no more interested in a fair and affordable budget than they are in fair and equitable taxation.
Knowing, for years, that constant deficit spending weakens the country and hurts both current and future citizens, the “Good Old Boys” vote was not courageous, it was cowardly. And it proves without a doubt that limiting congressional terms is now a vital necessity.
FREDERICK H. HACK
Torrance
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox twice per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
