by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
Okay, goo-goos, explain this one to me: why are term limits for committee chairs a good thing? Senators and Congressmen are busy people, and it can take a good 3-5 years to build up a lot of expertise in certain areas. I'm not sure if it was caused by term limits or seniority, but Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) was moved from some Health related committee to the Intelligence committee, and it's been ... challenging for him [though he seemed to get his footing in the months before the midterms]. And I'm sure the various Cali bloggers (Ezra, Kevin, et al.), as well as those from Colorado and perhaps other states, can attest to the damage term limits have caused in their state legislatures. Politically, it buys little with any major constituency, since the procedural reform movement died in about 1995. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) has forgotten more about tax policy than most Democrats people can ever hope to know. Why make him leave the chief Tax Writing committee? Why make Henry Waxman (D-CA) stop being the investigative bulldog that he is? Now, the few really senior chairs (Dingell, Rangel, Obey?, Waxman) can probably be expected to retire or find other interesting chairmanships, but it really seems odd to me to adopt Republican reforms that preceded the most insular, beholden-to-leadership Congress in the last century.
Reform is good; reform for reform's sake is just playing with one's navel lint. So enlighten me as to what outcomes would be helped by picking new committee chairs every six years.
Update: Ed Kilgore gives it the old college try.
