Editorials
Friday, February 14, 1997


Term-limits proposal
deserved to be rejected

TWO years ago, term limits fell short in a House vote of the two-thirds majority needed to amend the Constitution. On Wednesday another vote was held, with the same result. In fact, the 217-211 vote for the proposal was 10 fewer in favor than in the 1995 voting.

The measure would have limited members of both houses of Congress to 12 years of service - six two-year terms for House members and two six-year terms for senators.

Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla., a nine-term congressman and the main sponsor of the bill, said it was needed to end "the tendency of too many of our members to vote for every special interest that comes along because they want to be re-elected."

But Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., a 12-term member of the House and one of its most respected members, argued that term limits would unfairly restrict the right of the voters to elect whomever they wanted. "This may be the end of term limits," he said after the vote, placing his palms together as if praying while gazing toward the ceiling.

Term limits were part of the Republican's "Contract With America," which helped them win control of Congress in the 1994 elections. But the Contract has faded as a GOP program blueprint since last November's elections.

Moreover, the Senate was never as supportive of term limits as the House and is unlikely to resurrect the issue. In the last Congress the Senate never voted on it directly, but defeated a non-binding resolution putting senators on record favoring term limits. A spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said there was no indication that the Senate would consider term limits again.

We hope Hyde is right about the end of term limits. It's a poorly conceived idea, and an unnecessary one. Opponents point to the rapid turnover in House membership in recent elections through attrition without a term-limits amendment.

The right way to limit legislators' terms is to vote the undesirable ones out of office. It makes no sense to force outstanding legislators to leave because they have reached an arbitrary limit. Does Hawaii want Daniel Inouye to be forced to leave the Senate?

In addition, term limits are undemocratic. They restrict the voters' choice of candidates. They imply that the voters can't be trusted to choose their representatives wisely. The nation already has term limits without amending the Constitution. They're called elections.

Campaign lending

STATE legislators seem to recognize that campaign loans may have been used to skirt limits on outright contributions to candidates but are reluctant to take measures that would most effectively curb abuses. Merely requiring such loans to be repaid leaves too much room for shenanigans.

Minimum wage hike

THE proposed increase in the state minimum wage, which is already higher than the federal minimum wage, is the wrong medicine for Hawaii's ailing economy. At a time when the unemployment rate in the islands is higher than the national average, this measure would make it more expensive, consequently more difficult, for employers to hire unskilled workers.




Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO


John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher


David Shapiro, Managing Editor


Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor


Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors


A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor




Text Site Directory:
[News] [Business] [Features] [Sports] [Editorial] [Community]
[Info] [Letter to Editor] [Stylebook] [Feedback]



© 1997 Honolulu Star-Bulletin
http://starbulletin.com