Congressional term limits: good or bad idea

[TimmySmith]

Aren't term limits a good idea for any profession that has the ability to give itself an annual raise using other people's money? Term limits may also inspire politicians to try to get more done, instead of spending half of each term trying to get re-elected.

[DjTj]

While being a legislator is a very important job, so is getting a job done. If you can't get barely anything done in 2 years on a job, your gonna get fired. Just look at the NFL head coaches or any other job. Not so in Congress. Some of these guys have been around so long and only done like 1 remarkable thing is my point.

Take Sen. Sarbanes for instance. Serving in the Senate since 1976. That was when Carter was coming into the white house for goodness sake! What has he accomplished besides Sarbanes-Oxley?

Or the aforementioned Steny Hoyer. Serving his 13th term. He's been in Congress since 1981.

What's the limit? 3 terms, 5 terms?

I guess I just feel it's ridiculous. And they get an 80% pension when they retire or lose an election.

Being a public servant is not like being a football coach. We want our coaches to win games and championships every year, but I don't think that's what we want out of our Senators.

Imagine if all 100 Senators did something "remarkable" every year. Our laws would be constantly changing, and the government would grow at an astronomical rate. If every one of our elected representatives started a major government program every year, imagine how much they would have to raise taxes.

The job of our representatives is to represent us; not to chase headlines by getting their names on major bills. Sometimes the best way to represent your constituents is to prevent things from happenning, and sometimes it is to work with other people to reach compromise.

Public service is not like every other job. They aren't assigned tasks they have to complete, and there is no simple measure of sucess; they are paid to represent us, and every 2, 4, or 6 years we get to conduct our own performance review.

[Chopper Dave]

I dunno. See, my gut tells me that it's a good idea, just because I see guys like Strom Thurmond, Zel Miller, hell, Ted Kennedy for that matter. But people do bring up some good points against it in this thread.

Basically, there needs to be some type of system for limiting terms. Maybe a majority system, that after a certain term you must be elected by a certain % or else it is your last term. Something convoluted. Our government seems to be good at that.

[Burgold]

You're awful quick to kick people hat you don't know out of their jobs. Politicians usually have made a good deal of money in some other sector - not so with staffers, who jumo from office to office because that is their job. Also, if there were going to be term limits, there would have to be veteran staffers around, otherwise all of Capitol Hil would be running aound like chickens with their heads cut off every new session.

What is going unsaid, however, is that the mutliple term Senators and Representatives who are heading their respective committees have spent, in many cases, their entire careers dedicating themselves to one area of policy. Would you rather policy concerning, for example, the maintainence of the Interstate Highway System be under the control of someone who had spent the better part of 25 years studying the issues involved and knew them inside and out, or someone who arrived yesterday and all he knew was that there were potholes outside of Bumphuque, MN?

Washington wears on you. While expertise is important. The longer you work in Washington the more cynical you get and the more compromises you get. There are some staffers who have become so corrupted by the advantages they receive that they don't even feel the strings anymore. Staffers are more often bought than Senators, because they're more accessible and very often it is the staffers who actually read, summarize, and write the bills for the Senators and Congresmen. I'm probably overgeneralizing a bit, but there should be some kind of review or limit for these guys.

What I find interesting is how everyone nearly says Washington is broken, but no one wants to change anything.

[The Fox]

Term Limits a Must,

Two four year terms is plenty. whatever they can contribute can be done in 8 years, or they are not very effective. We could pay off the national debt with the amount most of these guys are going to,get in pensions for the rest of their lives.

It's like G.M. and the medical ins they pay that's in the BILLIONS, in the long run it is goung to bring them down, the same with the congress as was just shown

in the Abramoff case. Greed gets in the way of effective caring for the country.

Term limits gets my vote.!!!!:cool:

[Kilmer17]

How much money will need to be raised by new politicians every couple of years? How much influence do you think Lobbyists will have with the guys starting with nothing in the bank?

Guys like Frank Wolf dont need to raise alot of money (does he even run ads?) so is less likely to fall under the influence of shady lobbyists.

[Prosperity]

There's also a downside to term limits - just look at California, which has had term limits in its legislature longer than any other state.

Now Sacramento is plagued with constant turnover and representatives that don't know how to write a budget. Major decisions are increasingly passed on to voters through referenda, special interests have enormous power, and the state's financial situation is among the worst in the nation.

When the elected representatives are the least-experienced players, the lobbyists and career staffers have more power.

Good point, but can't that be fixed by having longer limits or set up the elections in such a way that a smaller percent of the legislator is up for election?

[DCRunner]

I'm not very supportive of laws which limit who someone can vote for. I also appreciate greatly the expertise some elected officials bring to the table.

But I would like to see an end to any pensions for elected officials. If they want to have a retirement from their elected service they can invest in their own retirement - especially those who want to privatize social security - let them take a portion of their salaries and invest in the market.

[Zguy28]

How much money will need to be raised by new politicians every couple of years? How much influence do you think Lobbyists will have with the guys starting with nothing in the bank?

Guys like Frank Wolf dont need to raise alot of money (does he even run ads?) so is less likely to fall under the influence of shady lobbyists.

War chests are becoming outrageous for any Congressional office. Paul Ryan from Wisconsin was running for the House in 2004 and had over $1,000,000 in his campaign account at one point to spend on his campaign to be re-elected to his 5th term. Disgusting. It doesn't matter what his party is to me.

[Zguy28]

I'm not very supportive of laws which limit who someone can vote for. I also appreciate greatly the expertise some elected officials bring to the table.

But I would like to see an end to any pensions for elected officials. If they want to have a retirement from their elected service they can invest in their own retirement - especially those who want to privatize social security - let them take a portion of their salaries and invest in the market.

Actually they do pay into SS and their pension, but its like 1%. Their pension is about $50,000 a year on average. It depends largely on how long they are in Congress.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp

Doen't mean its right though. I feel they should eliminate them too. That's one of the things I like about the Constitution Party.http://www.constitutionparty.com/

[rictus58]

I figured I'd bump an old thread and ask this question instead of starting a new one...

I think we can all pretty much agree we'll never see congress vote for term limits for themselves. But i was wonder if this would be possible...

Could a state, Maryland for example, pass a law that states an official running for congress cannot appear on the state ballot X number times?

[MattFancy]

I wouldn't say its a bad idea, but we vote for Congress every 2 years, if they are doing a bad job, vote them out. It's that simple.

[TimmySmith]

A more transient congress would probably not create a complicated (expensive) government. It is not about doing a good or bad job, it is about doing the proper job. By today's rule, if it gets to the point that any of these guys actually gets voted out, it probably means that they have been doing a poor job for a while. 3 terms is enough to serve your country. We all know congress has been broke for a while, but no one really wants to fix it.

[Kilmer17]

My stance is the same.

Term limits would only change the people in the big seats. The staffers and lobbyists would end up having even more power.

[mcsluggo]

We already have term limits. They're called elections. Everyone wants term limits for OTHER peoples Congressman and Senators. Yet they re-elect their own in staggering numbers. If people TRULY felt like a change was needed, they would vote that way.

/QED

(I agreed completely)

[PokerPacker]

what we really need to do is fix campaign financing and lobbying.

[Wrong Direction]

If I ever run for office, my platform will start with:

1. Term limits

2. Campaign finance reform

3. Congressional audits and income rules

4. Balanced Budget Amendment, if it can be worded right and implemented right (e.g., give the government several years to do it)

---------- Post added July-13th-2011 at 11:23 AM ----------

Re: lobbyists.

They only lobby what government controls. You want less lobbyists? Take the government out of helth care, energy, retirement security, etc. Or at least minimize the government's role in them.

[rictus58]

I figured I'd bump an old thread and ask this question instead of starting a new one...

I think we can all pretty much agree we'll never see congress vote for term limits for themselves. But i was wonder if this would be possible...

Could a state, Maryland for example, pass a law that states an official running for congress cannot appear on the state ballot X number times?

Any one know the answer to this?

[Hubbs]

Sorry, I just don't buy the argument that "term limits would mean the government would be completely controlled by staffers!"

Um, no. That's an argument to never have elections. Moreover, I reject the notion that freshmen Reps or Senators are mindless drones for years after they're first elected, doing whatever the career bureaucrats in Washington tell them to do. I would think the actions of the Tea Party Republicans would be ample evidence against that theory. And I can't believe that California is being brought up yet again as the only possible way that a certain system could function. This already happens enough with arguments about direct democracy—I can't even count the number of times I've seen people say, "The proposition system doesn't work! I'm going to point to one very specific proposition in California—one, Proposition 13 and only Proposition 13—as my evidence!"

I absolutely support Congressional term limits. The arguments against them are completely unrealistic, IMO.

---------- Post added July-13th-2011 at 03:05 PM ----------

what we really need to do is fix campaign financing and lobbying.

Agreed.

[techboy]

"The proposition system doesn't work! I'm going to point to one very specific proposition in California—one, Proposition 13 and only Proposition 13—as my evidence!".

How about: "The proposition system doesn't work! I'm going to point to the entire state of California as my evidence!"?

[Hubbs]

How about: "The proposition system doesn't work! I'm going to point to the entire state of California as my evidence!"?

How so? I literally can't remember reading an article or ES conversation about how the proposition system is a giant pile of fail that doesn't eventually lead to Prop 13. The budget, the schools, the politics... it always seems to come back to 13. What makes the proposition system a failure when it comes to, say, Prop 8? (And I'm someone who supports gay marriage, so I wasn't happy with that outcome. But that doesn't mean that I think it would somehow be inherently better if the issue was determined by the legislature, instead of by proposition.)

[techboy]

How so? I literally can't remember reading an article or ES conversation about how the proposition system is a giant pile of fail that doesn't eventually lead to Prop 13.

Prop 13 is a big part of it, but any time you let the voters act directly with no checks or consideration for how the legislation fits in the larger scheme of things, you get what you have in California: a series of untouchable mandates that cannot be altered, no matter how desperate the situation, creating a virtually unbalanceable budget.

Also, I think the idea of letting the Constitution be ammended by popular vote is a laughably bad idea.

Mainly, though, it comes down to this exchange from Men in Black:

Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

The Founding Fathers had it right when they put a layer between the voters and the law.

What can I say? I agree with Edmund Burke: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

[Hubbs]

Prop 13 is a big part of it, but any time you let the voters act directly with no checks or consideration for how the legislation fits in the larger scheme of things, you get what you have in California: a series of untouchable mandates that cannot be altered, no matter how desperate the situation, creating a virtually unbalanceable budget.

Also, I think the idea of letting the Constitution be ammended by popular vote is a laughably bad idea.

Oh, I wouldn't support amending the Constitution by popular vote. (Just like I wouldn't support making Supreme Court Justices subject to popular recall votes. I very much believe in the notion of making some things very hard to change on purpose.)

But again, with California, it seems like everyone at least claims that the biggest problem, by far, when it comes to the budget is Prop 13—that if Prop 13 were to be done away with tomorrow, then it might be possible to balance the budget, and even if it would take more than that one change, there at least wouldn't be any conversations around the country about how California is Exhibit A when it comes to state budget problems. I also have to quibble with the notion that it's truly the proposition system that's at fault for creating commitments that the state can't hope to meet. It seems like that's happened in quite a few states, and they don't have the same system as California. Now, without the proposition system, the commitments might be different, but if you're going to tell me that California's budget would be perfectly fine if only there weren't these damn popular referendums, I'm going to look around and say that I very much doubt you can make that case.

Mainly, though, it comes down to this exchange from Men in Black:

Well now you're just cheating by using one of my favorite lines of all time. :pfft:

The Founding Fathers had it right when they put a layer between the voters and the law.

What can I say? I agree with Edmund Burke: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

I'm not saying that I would do away with all aspects of a republic, I'm saying that when people claim that direct democracy "doesn't work," and they back this up by pointing at California and exclaiming, "Look how awful their budget is!," they seem to conveniently ignore the fact that there are lots of other awful budgets, especially the most important one of all, the federal budget, that aren't products of direct democracy.

[techboy]

Oh, I wouldn't support amending the Constitution by popular vote. (Just like I wouldn't support making Supreme Court Justices subject to popular recall votes. I very much believe in the notion of making some things very hard to change on purpose.)

That's part of California's proposition system, though.

I also have to quibble with the notion that it's truly the proposition system that's at fault for creating commitments that the state can't hope to meet.

I see what you're getting at, but the difference is that without the Proposition system, California's politicians could make changes to those commitments, should they have a sudden unexpected burst of responsibility. As it stands now, even if every legislator emerged from a meeting with the governor newly resolved to put politics aside, and solve the problems facing them in a reasonable manner (I know... go with it...), they couldn't, because they have no ability to touch any of the various (sometimes contradictory) programs set in stone by propositions.

[Hubbs]

That's part of California's proposition system, though.

I didn't say I thought California was perfect in every way.

I'm not really trying to take a pro-California stance here, although I'm sure it must seem like it, given the arguments I'm making. They're part of a larger point.

I see what you're getting at, but the difference is that without the Proposition system, California's politicians could make changes to those commitments, should they have a sudden unexpected burst of responsibility. As it stands now, even if every legislator emerged from a meeting with the governor newly resolved to put politics aside, and solve the problems facing them in a reasonable manner (I know... go with it...), they couldn't, because they have no ability to touch any of the various (sometimes contradictory) programs set in stone by propositions.

You realize you had to make multiple references to the fact that this would only happen in Imaginationland to make your case, right? I know that, in theory, a proposition system could get in the way of a nice political coalition in which all state legislators turn into saints. I also know that, in theory, a unicorn is more dangerous than a horse because a unicorn can both kick you and spear you with its horn. And I have a pretty good guess about what the ratio of Stanley Nickels to Schrute Bucks is, too.