Tim, you forget the most important part

Tim Skubick has a new column out. I don't fully disagree with all of it when it comes to term limits, but the reasoning for repealing it makes it harder for me to support repealing it.  I don't have the shared opinion of his when it comes to "experts"

From Mlive

If you are a schlub about repairing your car, you logically would go to your favorite mechanic for help. Finding an expert is the only sensible thing to do.

So when it comes to governmental issues, why do common folks willfully ignore and even berate the "experts" when it comes to knotty issues that frankly the common folks don't understand?
Not only do they ignore the advice of those on the inside, it gets even worse. When those experts declare this or that, the public says, "Well if they are for it, there must be something wrong with it and therefore, I'm against it."

The bigger question is WHY the common people don't trust the supposed experts on government. There's a reason for it.  Politicians aren't trusted. Too many of them don't do a good job. If I have a bad mechanic, I do elsewhere.

Clint Eastwood's speech at the RNC convention wasn't that good IMO, but he had the best line of the night. "Politicians are our employees." They are not our leaders. They are not our statesmen. They are our employees. We are the shareholders of this company, called the State of Michigan.  We choose a board of directors as well as some of the officers of this company. If they do not obtain the right results, they can be fired, just as our bosses can fire us. 

Just maybe these so called "experts" aren't the experts they and their echo chamber think they are. Here's my message to the "experts." You give me your case and your reasons, and I'll make up my own mind. That's what my clients do when they inquire about my services. They make up their own mind. 

Two exhibits sit out there today.

A battle over how to raise taxes may be in the offing. The Michigan Alliance for Prosperity, incorrectly identified here last week as the Americans for Prosperity, is suggesting that all future tax hikes be passed with a two-thirds, rather than a simple majority vote.
All of official Lansing has come unglued with the prospects of this passing, but the louder the opponents cry out, the bigger the smiles get from the Alliance. It knows this is going to pass if it gets on the ballot.

I signed the 2/3rds petition. If it is on the ballot, I will vote for it. Easily. Government too often screws up and asks the taxpayers to bail them out instead of making the tough choices needed. I opposed the pension taxes awhile back. I still have the same complaint. Too many of these budget fights are over 9 Billion of the 45 Billion or so that is part of the actual budget. 36 Billion supposedly can't be touched.  That's unacceptable.

This 2/3 petition would have stopped the pension tax. Joe Hune was right. We didn't need it. It hurt us. Badly.  

Exhibit B is term limits.

Ever since the voters said yes to that in 1992, official Lansing has groaned a collective ""ugh." You've heard all the arguments against term limits, so no need to regurgitate them here, but regardless, the polls suggest the general public still loves the law as much as the insiders detest it.
Now to the latest wrinkle in trying to change it.
.........
 Former GOP House Speaker Rick Johnson in 2004 came "this" close to launching such a move. He had a GOP lawmaker, former Rep. Larry Julian (R-Owosso) and former Detroit Democrat Rep. Ken Daniels, more than interested, but Johnson reports, they concluded "they did not want the hassle."
Yet Johnson, now a multi-client lobbyist, says he's talked to lots of "friends" and they agree, the courts are the only path to repeal.
Mr. Johnson says you would need three or four former lawmakers from each party and from all corners of the state to make it work. He also thinks you need conservatives, liberals, and independents to give it more voter appeal. And he thinks he can find the recruits among former lawmakers and perhaps some current folks who are on their way out the door in December.

Frankly, Rick Johnson is not the posterboy I'd like to see doing this. I don't think he did all that good of a job and gave Granholm almost everything she wanted during his term as speaker. I agree on repealing term limits, but not so someone like Johnson gets another term. I agree with repealing them so there aren't lame ducks for two years. Term limits did have their good points. Joe Schwarz is gone. Harry Gast is gone. Laura Baird is gone as a state rep. They open up seats for good people like Tom Leonard (although Opsommer's a good guy who was termed out), and Joe Hune.  Unfortunately, some good folks were or will be termed out as well. Leon Drolet, Paul Opsommer, Bruce Caswell, Joe Hune, and Cindy Denby are reasons to oppose term limits. One of the biggest reasons why the GOP took over in the 90's was due to term limits. It's also a reason we lost a lot of spots in 2006/2008.

I also fully realize that term limits aren't going away unless you have a superstar governor and legislature with the popularity of a George Washington. That's not likely going to happen. The best way to get them changed however is to the best job you can do, and have the voters mad that you're gone. Don't start feeling entitled, and getting a big head.

Elect the AG and Secretary of State

I don't often agree with Mark Meadows. He's the state rep representing East Lansing and was their mayor while I was at MSU. This is an exception. Even more rarer is that this is a constitutional amendment I support.

House Resolution WW. This would place on the ballot a vote for a constitutional amendment to make the Attorney General and Secretary of State a primary election race instead of a convention race. HB 5914 makes the procedures for those two races the same as for the other offices like Governor.

The problem right now with those two offices is that they are nominated by convention. The convention to nominate them is in September after the August primary. That gives them two months to get their name out to the voters. That's not an easy task, and puts them at a major disadvantage as the gubernatorial race gets all the attention.

Another Meadows bill in the elections mold would place on the ballot a constitutional amendment to lengthen house terms to four years and senate terms to six years. I don't support that one. I understand that as a way to lengthen term limits, which are popular with the people, although unpopular with a lot of insiders on both sides of the fence. (I also oppose term limits because it creates 4 year lame ducks to jam unpopular bills through  - like the 04 fee increases).

The election of AG and Secretary of State through primaries is something however I support 100%.

Term Limits Debate

Dawson Bell of the Free Press wrote a piece on term limits.

Michigan voters were in a surly mood in 1992 when they voted overwhelmingly to limit the terms of the state's elected officials.
The thinking went something like: If we can't get them to behave, let's make them leave.



Fifteen years later, voters appear surly again, in part because many people blamed the recent budget crisis on the chaotic performance of an inexperienced governor and legislators.


Consider that the top three leaders in the House today have less than 13 years of legislative experience among them, compared to 40 years for the same three positions in 1992.

Even though I generally do not support term limits on lower and middle levels of government, I don't there's a chance in hell of this passing. There's an old saying about the public's view on politicians. My rep's alright, but the rest of them suck.

I used to be 100% opposed to term limits. Much of that is due to long lame duck sessions. The reason we had the fee increases and tax shifts was influenced by term limits. Every Republican that voted for a tax increase I believe was termed out. Term limited reps do not worry about facing the people or an August primary. That's my main opposition to term limits - two and four year lame ducks.

The counterargument to that is the Peter Principle of US Politics - The US Senate. The Senate has been a joke as long as I remember it. It's also had most of the same people as long as I remember. Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Joe Biden, Carl Levin, Ted Stevens, Daniel Inouye, Max Baucus, Orrin Hatch, and Pat Leahy have been in their current office since before I was born. They all have about 30 or more years of experience, but they aren't as a whole doing a good job at all. The house has 440 members (including non voting), so it has a little more diversity than the Senate, although they have some Peter Principle problems of its own. We don't have federal term limits, and they have their 17% approval rating in Congress for a reason.

I'd probably vote to extend term limits in the state level, but unless I see some major concessions involving the pay or benefits of the legislature, I'd bet $100 that it won't have a chance in hell of passing despite my vote.

Personally, I'd like to see term limits at the federal level (goes double for the Senate) and abolished at the state level. 24 years at all levels of the federal government. That will get rid of the types like Byrd, Stevens, Kennedy, and most of the biggest problems. It would also get rid of both Levins, Kildee, Conyers, and Dingell (Although Dingell's replacement would be much worse). Reps would be limited to four terms in the senate or 12 terms in the house, or a combination of the two. We don't have them at the local level (at least in Livingston County), and don't need them here.

In the end, what is needed most of all is informed voters who take the time to learn who the candidates are and what they stand for in action as well as talk. Despite the name of this blog, I've never voted straight ticket. I go down each single race and make my decision based on the people running. Most of the time that's the republican. A couple of times, it was the Libertarian or I leave the spot blank.