Are dollars more democratic than votes? (follow-up on term limits)

Two points. First, regular readers will notice that the letters Ppb now appear after MedicaidFrontPage. No, that is not a new form of business entity – rather, it is a tagline of sorts. A wise man (thanks AV) once told me that those letters should drive decision-making in government programs. What do they mean? Well, they mean “good Policy should drive good politics which in turn, should lead to good budgets.” Wise man, indeed.

The problem with many states is that they have it backwards – budgeteers (kind of like mouseketeers but not as much fun) drive politics which in turn churns out short-sighted policies that are often no better than the private sector’s focus on quarterly targets. Case in point, [insert your state name here]’s recent legislative session.

Secondly, in an earlier post on Lessons Learned from Wellcare, I promised a follow-up on term limits but over the weekend, I read a nice column “Four Reforms for a Better Legislature” by Howard Troxler of the St. Petersburg Times that will save me the effort. The entire column is interesting but specific to term-limits, he states:

More experience

This is hard to admit because I was a strong supporter of the "Eight is Enough" term-limits movement in 1992. Like the 77 percent of Floridians who voted yes, I wanted to see those politicians kept on a short leash.

But time has proven that an eight-year limit has failed to make the Legislature more responsive to the people — just the opposite. It has made the Legislature much worse.

The eight-year term limit has only accelerated the race for power in Tallahassee, and made those seeking that power more susceptible to special-interest money than ever. It also has created a crop of young, brittle legislators with little sense of history, balance or experience.

The House is especially awful — callow, partisan, superficial, intemperate and secretive. The House is controlled by an almost Soviet-style inner circle whose power is locked down years in advance (a textbook example being the recently indicted former speaker, Ray Sansom). That inner circle dictates to House members from the day they are elected, and they go along. When former Speaker Johnnie Byrd (2002-2004) famously referred to his House members as "sheep," he was being unwisely blunt — but accurate.

It's no coincidence that our Senate usually is a moderating influence on the House. The Senate is less willing to jump off the cliff into untested policy, more sensitive to Florida's competing interests, and more likely to find common ground between its Republicans and Democrats.

Your typical senator is older, more experienced and tempered, often because he or she went through an "apprenticeship" in the House first. And the typical senator is much less likely to be bossed around by an inner power circle, as in the House. Each senator is more of an "independent contractor," with his or her own sphere of influence.

We probably shouldn't repeal term limits outright; there have been plenty of lawmakers over the years who needed to go. But a 12-year limit seems more reasonable, giving even House members a little more time to grow into statesmanship, slowing the all-consuming race for power, and raising up a crop of senior members with more judgment and independence.

One important caveat:

There's a good reason that I list longer term limits in third place, after fair voting districts and honest money. It would be a horrible idea to give 'em a longer leash without fair competition in their district, and without an honest reporting of their money.

Yes, many of us thought that term-limits would minimize some of the more outrageous shenanigans but it was kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Or more applicably, reducing Medicaid payments across the board even though most providers are “doing the right thing,” so to speak.

One thing about term-limits that is interesting is that courts have held that campaign contributions are an expression of free speech and even though direct contributions can be restricted, there is no limit to what persons can provide indirectly. I guess the same can be said about legislators…even though terms can be limited, there is no limit to what former legislators can provide indirectly through lobbying, positions in the executive branch, service on organizational boards, etc.

Whereas U.S. Senators Baucus and Grassley know as much about Medicare and Medicaid as many of the executives at Federal CMS, it would be nice for that type of policy depth to exist in state legislatures. This is especially true given the pace of reform coming from Washington. Thus, it may be a good time for states to re-examine term-limits so that they discourage the bad apples from serving indefinitely while also allowing additional leaders with depth and gravitas to grow into their roles.

After all, they do not call them “statesmen” (and women) for nothing. ~BAA