Monopoly Money?

We've heard this song before. Once again Trump is promising to send people money. 

The latest, $500 to people supposedly overcharged on "Obamacare" user fees during, you guessed it, the Biden administration. The first thing I asked myself when I heard this was "What's an Obamacare User Fee?". I briefly had subsidized insurance through the ACA Marketplace in 2016 and was never charged a fee. Mainly because there wasn't one, not on individuals anyway. Insurance companies were charged a fee based on a percentage of the premiums that were collected. The fees were supposed to be used to defray the costs of running the program. Theoretically the costs of these fees could (and probably were) passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums, but I doubt any detailed forensic accounting has been done to determine how much each individual was overcharged, if it all. 

"Obamacare", The ACA, despite popular misconceptions, is not a health plan, is not an insurance plan, but is a matrix of connected laws regulating the health and health insurance industries. You can't but "Obamacare Insurance". Some insurance companies offer individual health insurance to individuals through a government-regulated "marketplace". Premiums are subsidized based on reported income. When filing their federal income tax return, an adjustment is made based on the reported income's deviation from the reported income. The purpose of the promised $500 checks is twofold: (1) To serve as a bribe to wavering voters and (2) To undermine the effectiveness of the ACA — an ongoing Republican and Trumpist goal. The second point ties into the announcement last week that a half million people would lose their ACA subsidized insurance due to murky claims of fraud (by insurance brokers, not individuals) with no public accounting of how this figure was arrived at. 

This isn't the first promise of free money that Trump promised to distribute. The $5,000 "DOGE Dividend" never materialized. Despite promises of the inaccurately named "Department of Government Efficiency" to root out waste, corruption, and fraud, it managed to achieve little more than chaos. It illegally eliminated programs and fired thousands of government employees. It's money saving efforts, when not completely fictional, were miniscule. We never got those checks.

Next was the "Trump Dividend" ostensibly a $2,000 rebate (or $5,000, depending on his mood) that supposedly represented all the extra billions (sometimes trillions) of dollars that the Treasury was raking in due to Trump's tariff hallucinations. The Supreme Court ruled that some of his tariffs were illegal and companies that paid them received refunds. But not individuals. Now we get another promise of free money — this time predicated upon the assumption that Republicans retain control of Congress — $5,000 to every adult. As much as my household could use another $10,000, I'd rather see the Republicans lose power in November. 

What's the authority for these dividends and rebates? The stimulus checks that went out at the end of the first Trump and in the Biden administration were debated and eventually approved by Congress. The Tariff Divided was debated by Congress, but went nowhere. Trump gets to claim he's for giving us money while blaming Congress for not doing it. 

Aside from authority, where is this money coming from? As of the end of August the annual deficit was close to $2 Trillion, with one month left to be calculated in the fiscal year 2026. Here's the annual deficits through the Trump and Biden years in trillions of dollars. 

• 2016 0.59
• 2017 0.67
• 2018 0.78
• 2019 0.98
• 2020 3.13 (Covid)
• 2021 2.77 (Covid)
• 2022 1.38
• 2023 1.70
• 2024 1.83
• 2025 1.78

A deficit means that we're spending more than we take in. Interest payments make up around half of that annual deficit. If we're in such dire shape fiscally, why not divert some of that we vacuumed up in tariffs and saved through DOGE into reducing the deficit. Maybe because it's not as much as we were told and the almost $2 trillion shortfall already takes into account these supposed tariff trillions and DOGE savings. 

What a bunch of bullshit.

Billy Bob And The Winning Team

“Billy Bob in f**king Red Cloud, Nebraska, who lives next door to the f**king Trump store as you pull into town and is waving the Trump flag … all he knows is he’s like on the winning team...He’s been so effective at taking Billy Bob and his wife Mary Jane or Mary Jo and telling them, look we’re winning. You’re on the winning team. And that’s all they care about, because their lives probably suck so f**king...”

This is a recording purportedly by Independent Senate candidate Dan Osborn. Sure, it sounds bad. It sounds like it's another "basket of deplorables" moment. But is it? Where's the lie? 

Politics these days isn't about who has the better ideas, about who is better prepared to lead, who better represents their constituents, it's about which team is "winning". That's right. The debate over who is best suited to lead is about as nuanced as which college football team you root for on Saturday. And just as a true football fan will support their team no matter what, partisan "fans" will vote for their "team" no matter what. It doesn't matter how wide the gap between campaign promises and reality is, how bad their personal circumstances are, the partisan "fans" will ignore the evidence of their own eyes and convince themselves that they are "winning" even when, by any objective measurement, they are losing. 

When voters treat politics like a sports competition, partisan identification becomes part of one's personality, similar to religious faith and just as immune to being talked out of it. Partisans will believe any horrible thing that they're told about the other team and reflexively disbelieve anything negative about their guys. This is why political ads lack any substance and are usually little more than mud slinging. 

This is why I don't find this quote, allegedly by Osborn, to be shocking at all. He's going down he same road that many of us go down when we identify Trumpism as a cult. Prices are going up, and with gas and diesel prices likely to keep going up, it's going to get worse. Tariffs are screwing Nebraska's farmers even more than the rest of us. We're in a war that is causing prices to escalate even further. Amid all of this, Billy Bob and Mary Jo, who railed against the inflation that spiked during the Biden administration, who insisted that high gas prices (and eggs too I guess) were the reason they were voting for Trump, who cheered his declaration that he wouldn't start any wars, are now making excuses for all the failures. They have changed their priorities because Trump told them to. They have redefined "winning" to mean whatever Trump says it is. And will change what they think is important the next time Trump does. 

Were Osborn's remarks crude? Sure they were, but they were honest. 

I thought that was what MAGA valued in a politician.

The President of Peace

Trump campaigned on keeping us out of "forever wars" and was a harsh critic of our involvement in foreign conflicts. I agreed with him  — one of the few areas where I thought he got it right. One of the recurring problems with American military adventurism is mission creep. We go in with a stated goal: overthrow a dictator who we see as a threat (Iraq) or his harboring factions that attacked us (Afghanistan — even tough Bin Laden turned out to be hiding in Pakistan, our ostensible ally), achieve that goal relatively quickly, and then stumble around without a clear plan on what to do next. We ended up spending 10 years in Iraq and 20 years in Afghanistan propping up corrupt and ineffective governments. Iraq has become a virtual ally of Iran and the government we overthrew in 2001 is back in power in Afghanistan. 

Trump, jealous that President Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, wanted one of his own. He has been lobbying public opinion and the government of Norway since he was re-elected, inserting himself in conflicts around the world, claiming that he has ended eight wars — spoiler alert — he has not! He has even created an organization called the Board of Peace, although it appears to be just another grift, collecting billions while accomplishing nothing. So we could all be forgiven for thinking that, despite all the other harmful things Trump is doing and will do, getting us into another war wasn't among them. 

Surprise!

Let's not delude ourselves about Iran. They are not the good guys. They are a theocracy. There are elections for civil officials, but the real power is held by the religious leaders and the paramilitary Revolutionary Guards. (And guess what? They're republic! It's right in the name" The Islamic Republic of Iran. What makes them a republic? The fact that they're not a monarchy. Which they were when they were our allies.) They assert dictatorial control over their own people and do not hesitate to throw them in prison or shoot them in the streets for protesting. Sure, that's terrible, but it's hardly unique. I'd venture to say that a significant percentage of nations abuse their own people in a similar fashion. Our own ally, Israel, arguably treats its Palestinian population much worse. An early justification for attacking Iran was regime change: overthrowing its leadership and encouraging the people to rise up and take over the government. Why is it our business and if it is, why aren't we doing the same to North Korea? We don't hear too much about that these days. 

Iran doesn't confine its depredations just to its own territory. They bankroll a network of allies in neighboring countries; Hamas in the Occupied Territories, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, as well as militias in Iraq and Syria. Our military fought against some of these proxies in Iraq. They stir up trouble in every country where they have a presence. An argument could be made that their actions destabilize the region, but our allies in the region seem perfectly capable of defending themselves. Why is it our job to personally fix the problem? I don't think it is, but it's probably the strongest argument for any kind of intervention.

Finally there's the issue that gets talked about the most: the possibility of Iran building its own nuclear weapons. Iran maintains that it doesn't want to build nuclear weapons. Maybe they're lying, but what if they did? Do we imagine that they would initiate mutually assured destruction by using a nuclear weapon against Israel or Saudi Arabia? How do we treat problem nations who have nuclear weapons versus those who don't? Libya was bombed, their dictator killed and the country left in an ungovernable shambles after they gave up their nuclear ambitions. North Korea, on the other hand, has nuclear weapons, demonstrates their ability to use them, and is belligerent toward adversaries. Why? Because they have nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't Iran want that level of security? 

Previous presidents, ones who actually listened to their advisors, knew that war with Iran was a hopeless endeavor. Whatever perceived threats exist today have existed for 50 years. The best course of action was diplomacy, which is what was accomplished during the Obama Administration. Iran agreed to abandon any nuclear ambitions (which they may not have even had) in exchange for a loosening of sanctions and the release of frozen funds. China, Russia, Germany, The United Kingdom and the European Union in addition to the United States and Iran were signatories to the agreement. There was no sign that Iran was reneging in the agreement. Trump, in his first term, unilaterally reneged on it however, reinstating economic sanctions. It is quite probable that any action that Iran took to move toward building nuclear weapons can be traced to Trump's breaking the agreement. 

So, the possibility of an Iranian nuke, which it was unlikely to use became an emergency that had to be addressed by assassinating its Supreme Leader and others in leadership positions as well as extensive bombing of the country's infrastructure. This is where having advisors who weren't yes-men would have been handy. Or having a president who made decisions based on facts and intelligence rather than gut feelings. Why shock and awe didn't work is that Iran's leaders just don't give a damn how much their people suffer in a war and are so fanatical that they just keep on hitting back. They're like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, biting away as his arms and legs are sliced off. And of course it didn't take the world's largest army to close the Strait of Hormuz, strangling the world's oil supply (and now the Houthis are cutting off the Mandab Strait on the other side of the Arabian peninsula). After all this, we have accomplished nothing and have caused energy prices to spike. 

A discussion of Trump's actions wouldn't be complete without reference to the cultish behavior of his supporters. The very people who were up in arms about inflation and high gas prices during Biden's presidency and claimed that was why they were voting for Trump were now leading the cheers for this unnecessary war and saying that high gas prices were worth it in order to keep a nuke out of the hands of our enemy, Iran. Oh yeah, they were against war back then too. 

But hey, Trump is definitely focussed on the right priorities: destroying the Kennedy Center if he can't have his name on it, building a ballroom and an arch, and kicking reporters out of the White House. 

Nebraska Tax Incentives in Political Ads

Governor Pillen is accusing Candidate Walz of supporting giving data centers millions of tax dollars in handouts. The ad references LB 1107 from 2020. LB 1107, also called the ImagiNE Act, was the major statute authorizing Nebraska tax incentives after the previous statute expired.

There are several tax incentives programs in Nebraska. The largest are the Nebraska Advantage Act (NAA) and ImagiNE (a relatively new program). There are a also smaller programs like Microenterprise (for businesses with five or fewer full-time equivalent employees) and Nebraska Historic Tax Credits (NHTC),for rehabilitating and renovating buildings on the National Register of Historic Places, but the bulk of tax incentives go to companies participating in NAA and ImagiNE. Before I retired from the Department of Revenue in 2025 I worked with tax incentives. From 2016-2022 I was an initial reviewer on NAA tax refund claims as well as doing preliminary audit work for new applicants. From 2023-2025 I also reviewed the work of the initial examiners and approved claims for payment. I had little to with ImagiNE, since claims were just starting to come in a few months before I retired, but I was familiar with the basics of the program. 

The goal of NAA is to reward companies who do two things: (1) Increase employment compensation in Nebraska and (2) Increase investment in Nebraska. There are multiple tiers within the program — each tier has a different benchmark for how much additional employment (measured by total compensation) and investment is required. For example, Tier 1 projects require $1 million in additional investment and 10 additional Full Time Equivalents (FTE's); Tier 2 requires $3 million in additional investment and 30 additional FTE's. The requirements increase with each tier. There are sub-tiers for large data centers and a tier for investment only. 

The year that a company applies is called "the base year". The applicant must show increases in compensation and investment compared to the base year. In order to determine what is an the increase a "qualification audit" is done to determine what the increase in compensation and investment actually is. A preliminary review of the applicant's calculations is done by an examiner. The applicant provides a list of employees and investment in the base year as well as the years that they believe they have met the requirements of the tier in which they are applying. The examiner is basically checking the math. If it adds up, an auditor takes over and examines the applicant's books to determine whether they have met the requirements for an incentive project. Once the auditor approves the project, the applicant can now begin earning credits.

For most tiers, the entitlement period (the number of years in which the project owner can earn and use tax credits) is seven years. The amount of the tax credits available for use is calculated using a standard formula. The incentives company can then use the tax credits earned to receive a tax refund. The refund is most commonly used for a refund of sales and use taxes, but also can be used to refund payroll taxes or corporate income taxes. For sales and use taxes, the refund can only be for tax paid at the location listed in their incentives application (for example sales tax paid for a corporate retreat at a hotel, or tax paid at an out-of-state location are not eligible). Once the seven-year entitlement period ends the incentives company no longer earns credits, but there is a "carryover period" of varying length when they can continue to use credits. 

The incentives company is required to meet the benchmarks for their tier every year within the entitlement period. If they do not meet the requirements in any of the seven years they will be charged back 1/7 of the refunds previously received; future refund claims will be reduced by 1/7 for each year the benchmarks are not achieved. 

For example: Company XYZ has an incentive project with an entitlement period of 2012-2018. They have a carryover period from 2019-2023. This means that they are earning credits from 2012-2018. They can use the credits if the tax was accrued any time from 2012-2023, even if they submit their claim after December 31, 2023. (There is a three-year statute of limitations for filing sales tax refunds, unless a request for extension is filed — these extensions are routinely granted)

A common criticism of tax incentives is that we're simply giving away money. I personally worked many claims for several million dollars each in sales tax refunds. The Tyson plant in Lexington received close to $16 million in benefits over the life of their project. (this is publicly available information). The goal, however, is to attract businesses to the state, and to encourage businesses already here to expand their operations. In many cases, if we didn't have a generous incentive program, these corporations would locate elsewhere. The tax refunds are viewed as taxes that the state wouldn't have collected anyway if there had been no incentive program. Of course it's not perfect. It's no secret that companies which benefitted from years of huge tax refunds left the state after their ability to claim refunds ended. (Tyson again) A certain amount of gaming the system occurred as well. Since credits were calculated based on an increase in compensation and investment from a base year, sometimes the base year that was chosen was an unusually slow year where the "increase" was just a return to normal. 

When the Nebraska Advantage Act expired there was no doubt that something was going to take its place. At the time the Unicameral was debating what would go into the bill, the public resistance to large data centers had not yet surfaced. The Nebraska Advantage Act had a tier for large data centers, and there were already several that were receiving credits. Millions of dollars in credits. The new incentives bill, LB 1107, would continue the ability of large data centers to receive tax refunds as part of incentives programs. Unlike the culture war issues that so often distract our elected officials, this was a largely bipartisan bill. It passed with 41 votes and with Governor Ricketts' signature. Then Senator Lynne Walz was one of the "yes" votes. *

While it's true that Lynne Walz supported a bill that could result in millions of dollars in tax dollars to be refunded to large data centers, this was merely a continuation of the status quo. It had broad support. It's reasonable to assume that had Pillen been governor at the time, and not Ricketts, he would have signed the bill as well. Pillen is attempting to project current outrage against data centers six years into the past, when such outrage had not reached a boiling point. His ad his dishonest. No surprise there.

* One of the biggest changes in 2020 LB 1107 was that it was jointly administered by the Department of Revenue (DOR) and the Department of Economic Development (DED) instead of wholly by DOR as with previous incentives programs. This change meant that initial approval of a company to participate in an incentives program bypassed DOR's rigorous preliminary audit process. Applicants were able to begin receiving benefits before an initial full audit was completed. 

 

Lincoln Ballot Measures For This November

Since I wrote this the Lincoln City Council determined that these measures did not meet the deadline for putting the measures on the November ballot; they would be on the May 2027 ballot instead. The Nebraska Attorney General filed suit to compel the City Council to place the measures on the ballot in November. A Nebraska Supreme Court judge (not the whole court) gave Lincoln until Monday August 31st to respond or to agree to place it on the November ballot. 

Last week I wrote an article about term limits where I lay out my opposition to them, despite the visceral appeal that they have for most people. Republican operatives just got a petition certified that would limit the terms of Lincoln City Council members, setting the stage for it to appear on the ballot in November. In all likelihood, it will pass, just as the mayoral term limits passed a few years ago. As is my habit, I asked myself "why?" when I saw this come up. 

The first thing to understand is that isn't an effort by a group of citizens who want to improve the functioning of local government. On the contrary, it's sponsored by right wing partisans frustrated by their inability to elect Republicans in Nebraska's second-largest city. Republicans in the legislature have gotten a constitutional amendment on the ballot to increase their term limit from two terms to three. 

The sponsors of Lincoln's term limit petition have also gotten one other change approved for a vote of the people: a change in when Lincoln holds its elections. Currently Lincoln votes in odd numbered years, when statewide lections occur in even numbered years. As part of that change, the mayor and district city councilors elected in 2027 will only serve for one year, which will count as a term for term limit purposes. At-large councilors elected in 2025 will have their term extended one year to 2030. How this is supposed to make for better government I fail to comprehend. Maybe they think that there is more Republican turnout in years when there is a presidential election, which the mayoral and district city council elections will align with if this passes. 

A third petition that has not yet had its signatures certified allows Lancaster County residents in the 3 mile buffer around city limits to vote in Lincoln elections. (They are already affected by Lincoln zoning regulations, but pay no Lincoln taxes). If I had to guess, I'd wager that many of these voters are Republicans. It has since been certified.

I'm against term limits in principle, but I'm really against this one. Don't let your gut opposition to perpetual office holders lead you to support this Republican con job. 

We're A Constitutional Republic, Not A...

It doesn't matter what the subject is, the right wing likes to remind us that we're a constitutional republic. The problem isn't that we're not a constitutional republic, we are. We're a republic and we have a constitution. It's that they don't seem to truly understand what makes a republic a republic, or that some of the features of how our government is set up are not requirements of a republic, nor is our constitution the only way a constitution can be written. 

A response to any mention of our nation as a democracy is probably the most common scenario where we hear "constitutional republic". Of course the two are not mutually exclusive, and "democracy" is shorthand for "democratic republic". But what is a republic?

Simply put, a republic is "not a monarchy". Republics can take many forms, as long as they aren't monarchies. Not every republic, however, is a democracy. The People's Republic of China, for example, certainly isn't a democracy. On the other hand, the United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy, but isn't a republic — it's a constitutional monarchy. A republic may or may not have a constitution, it may be a federal republic, or a unitary nation. The United States of America is a democracy because we vote, a representative democracy because we vote for our leaders. Rightists tend to conflate democracy with direct democracy, where there aren't any representatives — they call this "mob rule", not inaccurately. 

The United States of America is also a federal republic, i.e. composed of subnational units, the states, that retain a level of sovereignty. American states are not simply administrative divisions, but derive from our pre-independence days when every colony was a distinct entity. During the Articles of Confederation era the thirteen states were closer to independent countries, bound together by treaty obligations, than parts of a common nation. I've heard people argue that our federal structure is a necessary part of our status as a constitutional republic. France, for example, is a unitary nation. The French provinces are simply administrative units, not unlike the counties in an American state, and do not have subnational sovereignty. Federalism is an attribute of our constitutional structure, but is by no means a requirement for a constitutional republic. The origins of the founding states as distinct colonies with their own unique histories was recognized as the Constitution was drafted, with the various state representatives still viewing themselves as representing sovereign states with varying interests and priorities. This led to a framework that included equal legislative representation for states in parallel to representation by population, which in turn influenced how the president was chosen. 

Speaking of how the president is chosen, I often hear Electoral College proponents cite the fact that we're a constitutional republic as a reason to have a method of presidential election like the electoral college. Of course our constitution requires the Electoral College, but that was the choice of the members of the Constitutional Convention, not an inevitable path that constrained them to create it. There are other ways that nations choose their chief executive. 

Although I have heard people claim that we're a republic and not a democracy for 40 years, it's definitely picked up in the last ten years or so. An ignorance of what the terms mean is part of it, but why the vehemence in the way they state them? My theory is that the those who most vociferously defend that position are part of a demographic has been seeing their dominance steadily erode. The same people who are making it harder to vote and gerrymandering their way to permanent power. They are embracing the anti-democratic aspects of the Constitution in an effort to hold onto to power and influence. To them "democracy" means letting people that they feel are inferior rule over them. 

It's more than just an ignorant slogan.

Term Limits

I don't think it's controversial to state that most people, at least in theory, support term limits. We look at superannuated Senators, the last two presidents, and many other elected officials, hanging on to power year after year, term after term, and think it would be a good idea to rotate in some fresh blood. It seems like a no-brainer! But it's my contention that the problem of elected office as a career is caused not by a  lack of term limits, but by an ignorant electorate. 

How often do we hear a political ad without questioning what we're hearing? Sure, we may dismiss what a candidate for the "other" party is saying simply because they're the "other guys", but do we ever question our candidate's ads? Do we ever dig into the claims and determine whether there is any truth to them? Recently ads for Republican Governor Jim Pillen have been claiming that his opponent, Democrat Lynne Walz, has a plan to automatically raise property taxes every year. When I first heard this, my bullshit detector was in the red — I couldn't imagine that any candidate for office in Nebraska, where property taxes are the hot button issue, would have any such plan. After I watched the ad a few times I noticed that there were several legislative bills and a Nebraska Examiner article listed in small type in the corner as the source of the claims in the ad. I found the text of the bills and the article and was not surprised to find that they did not support the assertion that Walz had a plan to raise property taxes. Walz was the chairperson of the legislature's Education Committee. The bills the ad referenced changed the formula for state aid to school districts. She was quoted in the article as opposing the 3% cap on school district budget increases as too low. Doing that research required nothing more than an internet connection and about 20 minutes of my time. 

On the other side, there is an ad where it is alleged that Republican Senator Pete Ricketts, who is running for re-election, saw his net worth increase by 29%. Of course the conclusion that we are meant to reach is that he achieved this by nefarious means. A 12 second Google search reveals that he has benefitted from increased valuation of his Charles Schwab stock, which he received due to the sale of TDAmeritrade, which was owned by his father. He also has a stake in many family owned businesses and other assets. He's a rich guy. He owns stuff that increases in value. The fact that he's richer than he was last year doesn't make him a crook. 

As informed voters we should be investigating political claims to the best of our ability, not just accepting whatever the candidates or their campaigns say about themselves or their opponents. 

The influence of money in politics isn't a surprise. Every quarter we hear how many millions the candidates raised, and there's ongoing arguments about "dark money", political action committees (PACs), individual donations, and the source of all these dollars. The ability to convince people to give you money is one measure of how popular you are, how viable you candidacy. In large primary fields the candidates who can't bring in the big bucks usually drop out before the first votes are cast. But the importance of money connects to the importance of advertising, which depends on the indifference, apathy, and ignorance of the electorate. The propensity of the public to be manipulated is a crucial component of any political advertising strategy. 

A related issue is the influence of the institutional political parties. A constant refrain from supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders' run for the Democratic presidential nomination was how the DNC screwed him over and tipped the scales in favor of Secretary Clinton. If the DNC was indeed so powerful that their support could sway a majority of Democratic primary voters, what does that say about the credulousness of the primary election electorate? (The idea that "superdelegates" swung the nomination to Clinton is a myth. The convention votes of party leaders and Democratic office holders, the so-called superdelegates, only factored in if no candidate received a majority of delegate votes. Clinton received a majority without superdelegates). Yes, the party has influence, but mainly because voters are not doing their own vetting of candidates. 

So, how does all of this tie in to term limits? Term limits are nothing more than an attempt to protect us from our own indifference, apathy, and ignorance. There are regular elections where we can turn out the incumbents and elect new blood. Incumbents have an advantage you say? Other than name recognition, their main advantage is they have a record that you can look at and judge their fitness against. If the majority think a politician is doing a good job representing their constituents, why not keep electing them? If they are 90 years old and senile, don't vote for them! 

Term limits are often a species of voter suppression. The minority party is frustrated that they can't get elected, so they push a term limits petition in order to dilute the power of the majority. Currently Lincoln Republicans, irked at their inability to get a toehold in city politics, is sponsoring a term limits petition drive. The mayoralty was term limited a few years ago when the Democratic mayor announced his intention to run for a third term. Despite the drive's problems with fraudulent signatures, there's a good chance that term limits would pass if it was on the ballot — people will vote for term limits, decrying the career office holders while simultaneously voting in those same office holders. 

An issue that generally doesn't get considered in any discussion of term limits is the lack of institutional memory. A legislature with a core of experienced members knows how things work and how to get things done. When a legislature is filled with rookies, you end up with what we see in the current version of the Unicameral: people who don't know how to write legislation, who focus on culture war issues, and are reflexively partisan. During my ten years in state government I saw firsthand how newbie senators consistently did not think through the downstream consequences of legislation, or even how it would be implemented. In most cases lobbyists were writing bills, with senators having only a cursory understanding of what they were voting on. And let's not forget former Senator Ernie Chambers, who kept the Unicameral honest through his detailed knowledge of procedure. And of course presidential term limits exist because Republicans saw that the nation kept electing a liberal Democrat. 

One area where I believe term limits would be useful is the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices currently serve lifetime terms. Ideological majorities long outlast the whims of the electorate, and new appointments depend almost entirely on deaths in office. Whereas we can vote out a president, or a senator, or a member of the House after 4, 6, or 2 years, once a Justice is in, it's virtually impossible to remove them. I've seen various proposals for a rotating retirement, ensuring that each presidential term would see an equal number of appointments. Something like that would tie the makeup of the court more closely to what the majority of voters want to see. 

Term limits exist because voters are lazy. Lazy and illogical. They complain about politicians staying in office forever, yet pass up the opportunity to get rid of them in regular elections.