This article examines the effect of state legislative term limits on government debt levels. Past research has shown the influence of term limits on spending, but the effect of term limits on state debt is arguably more important in considering their desirability. We explain the relation between term limits and debt using the expected impact of changes in the composition, institutional dynamics, and behavior of state legislatures after term limits take effect. The hypothesis is that term limits will increase state government debt. Using regressions with panel corrected standard errors on data from the states between 1993 and 2008, the results empirically support the expectation that term-limited states have significantly higher debt than nonterm limited states. Term-limited states greatly increase spending while not increasing revenue levels and thus substantially increase debt. Since states with term limits have higher debt, we advise caution in adopting them.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00347.x/full

I also don’t understand why the lawmakers in Wisconsin are taking away collective bargaining?  Reforming the pension system has a direct impact on the budget and you can make a legitimate argument for reform.  But why would they propose to remove collective bargaining on everything except for pay and benefits?  There does not seem to be a legitimate argument for this type of reform.
.
On another note, what happened to CNN’s stance on political correctness?They did away with crosshairs and targets, but they are okay with the word “kill”?   This was a picture from CNN’s coverage of Wisconsin today.
.

.

I am pretty sure this violates CNN’s standards on political correctness.  Posting the phrase “Kill the Bill” – using a violent term to describe a political process.  True, this was a chant by teachers in Wisconsin, but I didn’t hear CNN criticize the teachers for chanting this.

There are problems with this promise. Barack Obama can’t effectively veto these bills. If a bill comes to his desk that is entitled “Saving Our Children From Disease” and it has an earmark in it – how can he veto this? The American people would not understand why the president vetoed legislation to save children just because it had an earmark.

Second, what if a bill comes to his desk chalk full of earmarks. He can veto this, but it won’t matter because Congress will just override his veto. Bush vetoed an earmarked bill in 2007 and it was overridden.

Third, there is a loophole to this promise. An earmark is a specific way that congresspersons can bring home the pork (or to others – waste money).   Lettermarking and phonemarking are two ways congresspersons can get around this earmark ban.

How many days until this promise of not signing a bill with an earmark is broken? Time will tell. But even if the letter of the promise is kept, wasteful spending will definitely continue.