Dodd And Other ‘Retiring’ Democrats Show Why Term Limits Are A Bad Idea
by Andrew MarcusI don’t like life long politicians any more than the next guy, but the suggested remedy to the problem, term limits, are a bad idea.
First of all, term limits strike me as a smack in the face to the idea that we should be allowed to choose whomever we want to represent us, for as long as we want them to represent us. Much like the disgustingly offensive campaign finance “reform” where politicians decided to punish the average voter because elected officials are too greedy and corrupt to keep their hands out of the cookie jar, term limits seem equally offensive in a similar way.
Why should the voters of one state have to say goodbye to a good legislator simply because the voters of another state repeatedly elect a creep?
Voters in Colorado might not like the fact that voters in Massachusetts continually reelected a hypocritical, drunk, manslaughtering, liar to term after term after term, but that is their right. Massachusetts voters clearly have no shame, but under the constitution, they have the right to be greedy scum buckets interested only in the pork their clout can achieve. (Our apologies to anyone in Mass who had the dignity and ethics to vote against Kennedy before death finally drove him from office)
Voters in Florida might not like the fact that voters in West Virginia are okay with one of their elected officials being a Klansman, but too bad. Unfortunately, that’s freedom. (Sure, some people insist that Sen. Byrd isn’t a Klansman anymore, but can you ever really be a former Klansman without doing jail time? Is there such a thing as a former Nazi?)
It would be great if there was some way for the nation to eject criminals from office when the Congress or local voters refuse to do so on their own, but that sword can cut both ways, driving out good politicians too early.
More importantly though, the reason term limits are a flawed idea is being illustrated by the freshly announced retirement of corrupt legislators like Chris Dodd.
Just how restrained will elected officials like Dodd be when they have no need to worry about voter reaction to their legislation? Term limits will actually serve to make the party system even more dictatorial than it is now, forcing exiting politicians to vote the party line out of fear of a lack of crony provided job opportunities at party aligned think tanks and similar institutions. For proof of this thesis, keep an eye on where old Dodd lands after exiting his seat.
My guess is that reckless politicians like Chris Dodd, who hopefully will one day face jail time, act more belligerent toward voter sentiment when they know they are leaving their office. It doesn’t seem wise to institutionalize that phenomenon.
A better answer would be to limit the elected officials power in the first place, by eliminating the tax code as we know it. Right now, corruptocrats like Dodd derive most of their power by acting as gatekeepers of the loopholes in the tax system. eliminate their ability to dole out loopholes, and you will eliminate their ability to create mini fiefdoms for themselves and their greedy supporters.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
307 Comments
Mr. Marcus, you make some interesting points. Good Post.
The tax code is the only thing the keeps Democrats in power. Republicans (read: Conservatives) would have to have 75% of both houses for such a thing to happen.
One term describes Chris Dodd: "POS."
That sums him up quite succinctly.
I'm for term limits combined with a law which prevents former politicians from going to work as lobbyists or working on behalf of special interests for a minimum of 6 years. Just dreaming, I guess.
If you can step back and dial it down a notch, you'll find there are good arguments to be made for and against term limits.
None of these guys have any more good ideas after 10 or 12 years. As for the right to choose a candidate, it also makes sense that states can vote to limit the tenure of their elected officials if they choose. We are a democratic republic and our system was designed to allow states to set their own agendas based on majority rule.
Regional differences cause all of us to get tired of the other guy's senator. I don't like James Inhofe any more than you like Barney Frank. But the people of Oklahoma have chosen him so we all get to live with him. There is a good case to be made that they should be allowed to keep him until he expires.
I don't want to see a federal law restricting congressional terms, but if the states want it it should be their right.
I have to admit I didn't think of some of these arguments. Very good points.
I've always been an advocate of "CAMPAIGN LIMITS FOR INCUMBENTS" that in my opinion takes the "big" money out of the election process and makes it more affordable for the average "Joe the Plumber" or "Josey the Plumber" citizens to participate in government. Allow only challenging candidates to an incumbents seat to raise campaign money. After tha, incumbents can (if the people think they are worthy) be re-elected by their voting record!
This post would have been better with the addition of ending the practise of government self-policing. That has never worked. Furthermore, the penalties for transgressions must be severe and enforced.
Politicians should take the George Washington approach. Get out of office after your term is up and you should get paid very little if anything. If you are called to service the public then do so, but remember its public service not a career. Then exit resume your life this will set your base again and serve as a reminder to why you ran for office in the first place. Oh and you don't get any benefits after you leave office. Thats just nonsense.
What needs to happen is to repeal the 17th amendment and return to having the state houses elect the U S Senators, this would make them beholden to the states rather than themselves. This would also slow down or even stop the power grabs in washington
The problem with your argument is that it has been clearly demonstrated over the past two years that "free choice" means nothing in the context of big bucks, media control, welfare state motivations, and party goons. A lot of people aren't thinking or acting so clearly in that case. And dead voters don't count, darn it!
The problem with term limits is that if there are consecutive terms allowed and then it's over forever, the office holder spends all his time getting elected for the maximum stretch, and in the last term can feel free to do whatever because, hey, he/she is out of there with a fat pension, no worries about having to justify a bad record.
My solution would be to have time-outs between tenure. Then people can spend their off years campaigning, not the years on the job. They have to behave while in office because they could get reelected in the future. Voter bases in their states can have the cooling-off interim to reconsider how much they want to reelect someone.
I'm against term limits for much the same reason as the author.
Seems to me he spent a lot of time behind bars with his old drinking buddy Ted.
If we cannot have term limits, then we need a LAW that requires that the ones in office, be held accountable and prosecuted for criminal activities …that includes THE PRESIDENT!!! If we cannot have THIS , then term limits are the only way to prevent constant fraud…also, their LIFELONG pensions should STOP when they leave office!!! Our tax dollars should NOT be used to keeps these people in better shape financial shape the the rest of us!!!
I second CajunHighlander's comments.
As a Massachusetts voter with a brain, apology accepted. However, you have NO idea how frustrating it is to live in this state! I'm praying we make a long overdue statement by electing Scott Brown to Teddy's seat!
Voters in Colorado might not like the fact that voters in Massachusetts continually reelected a hypocritical, drunk, manslaughtering, liar to term after term after term, but that is their right.
And if Colorado voters didnt have to suffer the effects of the senator from Massachusetts I'd agree with you.
Andrew, your last paragraph belies the whole piece. It's the career politicians that, via legislation, change the laws of our country, not the people! And the career politicians will make only the changes that will fill their pockets, bank accounts and campaign funds. Remember, the most important issue to a politican is getting reelected, and the campaign starts on day one (that's PolSci 101).
As to individual states limiting terms for their congressional delegations, forget it. Any state that would do such a thing would be slitting its own throat by giving the states that didn't so limit their delegations ALL the seniority and all the important internal postions in the Congress.
We need a 28th Ammendment to the Constitution, and we need it yesterday; three 2-yr terms for members of the House and two 6-year terms for Senators. No person can run again once they've reached those limits.
I disagree, though you make good points. Congresscritters begin running for reelection the minute they step in office. I am disgusted by idiots like John Dingell (D, MI) who has been in the House since 1958. Same goes for Republicans who don't know when to go home. I would be happy if we fired every single member of the congress and started over. Pick names out of a hat. Or the phone book.
Term limits are better than any of these alternative scenarios, for all the good sentiment proposed. The ins will never heed any constitutional power-limits until they themselves are power-limited by term limits.
Honestly, I can certainly see the disadvantages to having term limits, but the system is clearly broken and having term limits in place is one way that might address this. I guess it comes down to whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
Yes, we need to control the mother's milk of political corruption…the money. Either flat tax or Fair Tax. We need iron-clad laws, or amendments, to prevent rate changes. The budget must be balanced. Existing federal entitlements such as Social Security and Mediscare must be separated out from the general revenues and stand on their own (yes, I'd rather we didn't have them, but in the interim we need to do something). These are just a few suggestions.
Okay, NO term limits but NO PAY or PENSIONS for them. Just reimbursements for expenses. THAT should encourage them to find employment ELSEWHERE as well as keeping them in session LESS!
http://noliberalspin.blogtownhall.com/
The Anti Liberal Zone
Let's start by repealing the 17th Amendment to the Constitution and get back to the original intent. Senators have become 6-year Congressmen. They no longer represent the states.
How are YOU helping Brown? I live in VA and sent him 50 bucks! Have YOU volunteered to HELP HIM?
All very good points to ponder. Thanks for that perspective.
Pat has the right of it. When it's statistically more likely for a Senator to die in office than be defeated for re-election, there's a systemic problem which goes beyond mere elections.
The worst of the current legislator-for-life system is that the longer they stay, the more detached from reality they become; the more they become inured to Beltway Think and divorced from the world their constituents inhabit. And the longer they stay the more accepting of ind inured to the corrupt Washington Way, the mentality when campaign contributions and kickbacks and pork are just fine, nothing wrong with any of it. They accept logrolling, backscratching, and buying each other and voters with tax money. Twelve years on the Hill turns Mr Smith into "Bribe Me" Ben Nelson
I don't think it's an accident that Virginia, consistently rated as the #1 best-run state government, and Texas, the engine of economic growth and job creation, have part-time legislators who have to work real jobs most of the year.
"A better answer would be to limit the elected officials power in the first place"
That's what the constitution is supposed to do. But the facists in control right now would rather piss on it and set it on fire than honor it.
exactly — why does it have to be either/or? term limit 'em, curtail their perks & benefits, AND throw their butts in jail the moment they abuse their power! having a "permanent political class" [h/t mark steyn] is part of why europe is so screwed up, we must put into place any and all mechanisms to not repeat that here — the founders used the term "citizen legislator" for a reason — as with so much of their ideas we've strayed and need a significant course correction …
/j, of course, mo …
Amen.
In theory, I agree with you. In actual practice, with so much vote fraud, I'm not sure.
Let him come back into the private sector. No telling what might happen to him. Maybe he'll find the bottom of a lake if he rats out his pals.
i have yet to see ANY piece of writing [with all due respect, including the above] to convince me that the disadvantages come anywhere CLOSE to outweighing the advantage of having folks get in and GET OUT. I applaud every state who has term limited their legislators, and hope that we get to the point where 40+ states do so to get enough momentum to force it at the federal level.
/it always amuses me that nearly EVERY jurisdiction term limits their executives, but yet thinks their legislators don't need the exact same thing. wtf?!
6 years? nope permanently in MHO….
That's why I humbly disagree with you (apology accepted) How do you think I felt those many years?
At least with term limits I could have seen the end was in sight and I would have at least a new Senator!
while we're at it take out most of the 14th or at least clarify it to exclude citizenship for the children of illegal aliens!
I support the idea of term limits if for no other reason than to get rid of the sweetheart deals made to the more veteran of congress. The fact they've spent more time in a position qualifies them to grant themselves sweetheart deals? Find a better way of limiting that type of power and I'd probably be all for it but until we can limit that kind of mentality the corruption will keep going. It's been like an endless battle to see who can keep the oldest horse in the race and the perks that might bring to your home state.
Let me state up front that I think the whole Congressional pension thing is wrong. That being said, maybe the solution is that congressmen and women are eligible for pensions until they take another job–if they want to live off that pension alone, so be it, but if they decide to collect on their markers with lobbying groups, their pension goes bye-bye. Why should my tax dollars go to support the Tom Daschles of the world when he's raking in dough from a lobbying organization as a result of his Congressional connections?
I think I know what "POS" is but in retail it is also "Point of Sale". That fits just as well, don't you think?
add to that the ability of congress to vote themselves raises while excluding other government employees! Their constituents should be the only ones able to give them a raise….or better yet throw them into the civil service structure at a says GS-12/13 level and limit their pay and raises…most of them are independently wealthy to begin with…
what a bogus argument if term limits were enacted government would again be run by ordinary citizens not career politicians. upperclass society would think twice about leaving their cozy little mansions if they knew they could only have power for 2 terms. no longer would there be power brokers sitting on important commitees. no long would politicians owe each other favors. no longer would these people be so out of touch with whats happening in their districts. washington corrupts the good ole boy network corrupts.
Mr. Marcus: I believe you are wrong two counts. Term limitation does and has been working. Consider the Presidency. Second you suggest that because of term limits that the politician will not be held accountable towards the end of their term. Exactly how is that any different from announcing their retirement just before the next election? You have the same set of circumstance in either case. Our government and the elected officials have transformed from wanting to serve as being a patriotic duty to where it is now about the gain of power and greed. The only other way to correct the situation is to make the offices not so lucrative. Take away the high salaries and percs.
rckmom
Taking away their Life Time Benefits, is the great place to start. Having the States decide if Congress gets a raise is a good second. (or tie it to the GDP)
Most important..Congress shall make NO Law that they are exempt from. Social Security, Medicare, new supposed Health Care, etc.
With things like these in place…Term Limit Laws will not be necessary.
WATCH OUT
The libs know the country is furious with the Democratic party cap and trade, health care, homeland security. This is the Democratic parties way of re-branding. Have the high profile leaders retire so the party can run new pristine liberals who are clear of this negative branding of this congress.
The strategy will fail but that is what is going on.
Really Dodd going now after 30 years shows why term limits are a BAD idea??? There's probably no better example than Chris Dodd. He inherited his seat from his father– the shamed Thomas Dodd– because of the special interests he was able to build up and pass along to his son.
Does anyone really believe that Dodd being gone 18 years ago wouldn't have been better for Connecticut and the rest of the country? And that taxpayers facing a new non-entrenched senator every 12 years is a bad thing?
This is just typical beltway "wisdom" from some guy that covers around politicians for a career. Life would be harder for his "profession" if each politician didn't really matter that much.
I am for term limits, outlawing lobbyists and campaign finance reform. Allow only private citizens (absolutely no large corporations or unions or special interests) to contribute to political candidates and no more than say five hundred dollars. Some are against term limnits but I believe no politician has the ability or backbone to stay uncorrupt or honest if he or she is in office long enough. Also all politicians in office live by the laws We The People live by. They pay social security and are on the same healthcare plan and same retirement plans as the private sector. The days of the golden parachute benefit plans must come to an end.
My problem with term limits is that outgoing politicians won't have to worry about how their constituents feel on an issue and can vote the way their party bribes them to vote.
You make some good points but the right way is for term limits. I agree that if a Congressman thinks that he can't be re-elected then he will not care about the people back home. How is that different now? The gerrymandering in most states is so bad that most districts are rock solid and will always offer the same type pol. If you want to clean up Congress and have term limits then make much tougher laws on lobbying and any hint of personal gain while in office. Make the job a privilege to serve not a spoon for the gravy bowl.
I have to disagree rather strongly with the author's position. If I can be so bold as to summarize, what he's saying is that there's only ONE guy/gal capable of representing his district/state and if we kick them out, the entire house of cards falls down.
Bullpucky.
Term limits are the easiest, most equitable way to force change. All these other solutions that are being proposed would have to be designed and enacted by the same group that they would be effecting. What do you think that would look like?
Expecting that Congress is going to altruistically implement a set of laws that are somehow going to be more effective than just limiting their terms is naive.
If we didn't have to deal with human nature, the world would already be in a better place.
well just as i expected,dodd is calling it quits,but do you think he is GONE,like hell.the news is that geitner is out and dodd is in.isnt this a great country.replace one crook with a worst one.and while we are onthe subject of crooks,there is a thing going on about obama.he wants the terriost to be tried in a civil court because if they try them in a military court the pres. has to sign the death warrant.and we know that obama is a muslim and does not want to insite his compadres into more destruction.again what a great country.they blow us up and we try them,give thm maranda rights as a U.S. citizen.from now on it should be shoot them all,give them the same rights as they give our boys.
I disagree. Term limits should be put in place. 2 terms and your out. No job in the public sector or private sector that works with or for the feds. You have to admit that there is something seriously wrong when someone spends millions of dollars to get a job that pays only 150k. We have heard that the wisdom of these idiots would be lost if they were pushed out or that the issues aare too complicated for us to grasp. Thats total bull. We now have families that feel that the post belongs to them as if we need an oligarchy in the US.
I do not live in MA — but also sent Brown a donation. . . .
Hopefully, the Unions, ACORN, and SEIU will not control the outcome of this election. I wonder if any car trunks are being stuffed with 'emergency' ballots.
Another point the guys that have the most power like Dodd are the ones that have no competition in their state. Dodd's chairmanship of Banking and Health care made him more powerful than some guy from a swing state where elections are competitive.
Instead of term limits "penalizing the rest of us" it would even the field and make "the rest us" more represented.
Best argument I've heard against term limits, but still not good enough. If an elected official is truly honest and sincere about representing the people that voted for him, then he will find a way to serve the best interest of the people in or out of office. Even if he was all these things going in, it's like sending a preacher in to a strip bar every day, day after day. Eventually his human frailties will succumb 99.9% of the time.
Bingo! You hit the nail on the head there rckmom…!
Seems so simple doesn't it? Just force them to follow their own rules? We should start with treason, and work our way down to the mirade of tax cheats. The only problem is, who will we have left???
We need term limits and not professional politicians. Incumbents always have the advantage over new candidates. The Constitution originally called for citizen legislators NOT PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS! There are many candidates that are available to serve in Congress, lets bring them aboard and go back to a Constitutional government as our Founding fathers meant it to be.
This is B.S. Term limits are the only way to kill the beast our founding fathers overlooked. I say overlooked because people like George Washinton and Thomas Jefferson were honest/noble/Brave men who not only believed in America they risked their lives to create and defend it. The Yo-Yo's in D.C. only see as far as the next election and the laws they have passed and are trying to pass are sterling examples of their short sightedness. Nancy and Harry's idea of defending America have more to do with keeping their party in power no matter what it takes with what seems like blatant disregard for America. Term limits 2 and gone!
>we should be allowed to choose whomever we want to represent us, for as long as we want them to represent >us.
Having the choice between tweedledumb and tweedledumber is not exactly what anyone wants. Since when have "we" ever had any real choice in who we will have to vote for? As far as I can tell that choice is made long before the vast majority of people have even heard the names of the "choices." Now, if you are going to require that no one can work for or donate to a candidate who cannot legally vote for that candidate we can talk.
>Why should the voters of one state have to say goodbye to a good legislator simply because the voters of another >state repeatedly elect a creep?
The claim that voters should be allowed to elect the same person in perpetuity is absurd, I give you Robert Byrd as exhibit A. It is an insult to the people of this nation to suggest that good people are so few and far between that, once we find one, we have to hold on to him for dear life. And don't forget that those "creeps" cast votes that affect every single American, regardless of state, that gives all of us a right to have our say.
>Voters in Colorado might not like the fact that voters in Massachusetts continually reelected a hypocritical, drunk, >manslaughtering, liar to term after term after term, but that is their right.
If they are electing such a person to a State office I agree, if they are electing such a person to an office where he has the power to impose his corruption on the entire nation (as Kennedy certainly did) then you are making an idiotic argument. Would you allow your neighbor to destroy your property value by filling his lawn with old refrigerators and junk cars? It's his property, right? Of course you wouldn't. So why make the absurd argument that Massachusetts voters have the right to elect in perpetuity someone who has demonstrated that he is hell bent on doing the moral equivalent to the nation?
>Massachusetts voters clearly have no shame, but under the constitution, they have the right to be greedy scum >buckets interested only in the pork their clout can achieve.
No they don't. Not when that pork is paid for by people who don't have the right to vote against said pork. And, by the way, since when did the first (and arguably only) job of a Senator become "bringing home the pork"?
>Just how restrained will elected officials like Dodd be when they have no need to worry about voter reaction to >their legislation? Term limits will actually serve to make the party system even more dictatorial than it is now, >forcing exiting politicians to vote the party line out of fear of a lack of crony provided job opportunities at party >aligned think tanks and similar institutions. For proof of this thesis, keep an eye on where old Dodd lands after >exiting his seat.
This may be the shallowest and least convincing argument in an essay filled with shallow and unconvincing arguments. Pray tell, how "restrained" has Dodd been up to this point? The claim that corrupt people will be even more corrupt if we make them mad by imposing term limits is ridiculous. Corrupt people will always engage in whatever corruption they can, allowing them unlimited amounts of time to do so will not cause them to restrain themselves.
In conclusion, your essay is little more that the "Incumbent's Manual For Deflecting Arguments For Term Limits." The only true check on corrupt politicians is an informed and engaged voting public. Given that we don't have such a public it is entirely reasonable to impose what rules we can to try to limit the damage they can do via their uninformed and emotionally driven voting habits. In the meantime those of use who like to consider ourselves reasonably informed must work to remedy the root problem, namely the lack of knowledge and the ignorance of history on the part of far too many voters. Term limits is one way of doing that. After all, it works pretty well for the presidency, doesn't it? Or would you have been happy with a third (and probably fourth) Clinton term?
That's why I humbly disagree with you (apology accepted) How do you think I felt those many years?
We already have term limits. They're called elections. If you think politicians are going to legislate against their own interests, think again. It is up to you and only you. Vote out incumbents, all incumbents, every election, forever. If they are doing a good job they can run again for some other office.
Theoretically, we could have all new people in the House this year. Some of the newbies might even "read the bills". A freshly minted House would scare hell out of the Senate, the White House, etc., etc.
Mr Marcus,
you made a great case and gave some points to contemplate — I have sent links out to acquaintences thinking term limit establishment is their life mission. I especially agree with the 'lame duck' aspect. I firmly believe the 17th amendment should be repealed.
Dodd's resignation? I believe he was forced out as his seat had a plausible chance of becoming an R. The Left wants to replace him, and any other Dem 'stepping down' with a candidate who will appear centrist to get elected and then take off their mask — once in office. We may witness some of the most radicals ever elected in the next couple of elections.
What a passive, self-defeatest piece. If they don't worry about being reelected, they will do more harm? Maybe they will do more good!
Now this is one dillusional writer. I agree to limit the power of these politicians but to say limit terms would make them MORE corrupt !! 1) How could Dodd have been any more corrupt? If his term would have been limited, he would have long been out of office before he could have caused the housing crisis. 2) My town mayor has term limits, my governor has term limits, and my President has term limits. Why are the House members excluded?
I'm not a big fan of changing the Constitution every we get upset over a political issue. It has served us well and the amendment process has been used judiciously, as was intended by the founding fathers.
As for the 17th, I'm a big fan of popular vote. The idea of letting state legislatures choose senators strikes me as a bit undemocratic.
[...] and Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Execs Get Up to $6 Million in Pay Andrew Marcus, Big Government: Dodd And Other ‘Retiring’ Democrats Show Why Term Limits Are A Bad Idea The Lonely Conservative: And Another One Down! Dodd to Retire – Is this Good News? Scared [...]
What was it…? 40% or so of congressional democrats inherited their fortunes?
I agree with you that the tax code needs to be thrown out and something much more simple put in place. In addition, I believe that an elected official should be able to serve as long as they are elected to represent us, but that while they are in office, they cannot spend any time campaigning. They are in office to serve and represent the people who elected them, and that is the job they should be doing full time. Let their job as a servant of the people be their campaign. Let their past actions be their promises for the future. Let their voting record stand as the symbol of the choices they will make in the future. If after all that the people like the job he is doing, then good on him for doing the will of the people, and he will likely be elected again.
I'm for modified term limits. For the first 2 terms they only need a majority of the vote, 50.1%. After those two terms however they need more and more percentage of the vote, 60.0% then 70.0% then 80.0% then 90%. Obviusly they can't get 100% of the vote so it could either be held at 90% or start increasing by 2% or something. Basically they can keep running but they will really need the support of the people to continue.
Congress was never meant to be a job for life. Why have term limits for President and not for Congress? Is he more apt to be corrupt than a congressman? Terms limits are a lot like winter, each spring everything starts fresh. Everyone whats to point out all the disadvantages caused by term limits. I say, these are minor in comparison to a continuation of corruption with no end. Congress needs to live by the same laws that they select for the people. Remove Congressional pensions. Why should Congress be allowed to vote themselves raises? When was the last time you voted yourself a raise? Stop the lobbyist. Why should one group be able to push their ideas with more force than average joe? When they commit a crime, the punishment is the same as you or I. No white collar prison, Welcome to the Big House. No investigations that take a life time to complete, before charges are brought against Mr or Mrs Congressman. Would you let someone in your own home get away with what Congress is doing? Then why give them immunity because they are in Washington? Sorry, I ended up on my soapbox.
Exactly. A number of people talk about how term limits would also hurt us by pushing out good members.
To them I ask, name off all the members that are still doing good work after 3 terms for the house or 2 for the senate. And are those members combined worth having to deal with another Ted Kennedy, plus Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid and all other slime?
Are the few members that can keep their steam working for the American people worth all the rest that have driven this country into the ground?
I'd rather lose one or two good people if it would keep the disgusting trash from gaining a stranglehold like they have right now.
And you'll get that done…, how?
That is the crux … the position is too comfy. What do they get paid … $174K or something like that, plus unimaginable benies for life … ridiculous!
The problem is that strife between state legislatures could postpone picking a Senator for a proplonged period of time. Not that that would ever happen here in Arizona…sheesh.
Precisely – what America has done is limit the power of the Presidency with term limits and thus increase the horsepower of the legislature. They BOTH need to have limits in place, and for the same reason!
Yes, fix the "born in the United States" loophole immediately!
And you think they don't do that now! Sorry James, but this argument is a non-starter.
Unfortunately, I don't just disagree, but find this article to be misleading and fairly dumb. If you wanted to really make your point, you'd cite all the reasons people want (and should want) term limits, then explain why you think the negatives outweigh the positives. Instead you pretended the real arguments didn't exist and tried to use spin to sound like you are the voice of reason.
Either you are uninformed or naive. The biggest reason for term limits (and there are dozens of important ones) is that Congress votes things in place to ensure the incumbents have a permanent home court advantage. They redistrict, which ensures if they win their primary (which is such a given that often no one bothers to run against incumbents) that they will win the general election in perpetuity (since the only people allowed to vote for them have now been hand picked for maximum advantage). They set up the campaign laws to favor themselves. They use their office in their campaigning, giving themselves a permanent advantage when dealing with a mostly uninformed electorate.
If all factors were equal and it was a "best person wins" concept, then I'd agree that term limits could be argued as unnecessary. Since the people making the laws get to make laws that virtually ensure they'll continue to get elected unless they are caught voting in ways that shock their electorate into action (or just get caught being corrupt), term limits are absolutely necessary in order to check the power these politicians take over us.
Yeah, but they are doing that now, without term limits. It's only because of the current political atmosphere that they are being nailed for it by their constituents now. In the case of someone like Dodd, would it be better to have 6 years of corruption on the senator's part, or 30 years?
Way ta' go Ray! I saved your comment and will use it my efforts to convince people in Wisconsin that we need to have term limits. The unfortunate method by which this must happen however, is by a Constitutional Convention called for this purpose. Our esteemed rulers will never vote to remove themselves from office with term limits.
Jim DeMint has proposed a resolution that establishes term limits. As you can well imagine it's going nowhere.
Has anyone stopped to think how term limits would affect Foreign Policy? It's bad enough as it stands now. We have an obligation to the world to provide at least an appearance of continuity of leadership and policy.
The same argument can be made regarding world economics. One thing an economy does not tolerate well is uncertainty. If our National policies are apt to change every 2 – 6 years, don't you think that would have a chilling effect on world markets?
Our Constitution should not be lightly altered. There are always unforeseen consequences to any change of Laws. I won't bore you with history lessons. You all know this to be true. The answer to our problems is respect for and adherence to the laws we already have, not creating new laws to be ignored or circumnavigated. It's all about morality, people.
Dream on.
Please post their addresses so I can contact them to form a nationwide alliance to establish term limits! ):
term limits isn't the answer either…
Want to limit the time these losers spend in office? Here's our suggestions:
1) Cut their pay
2) Cut their benefits
3) End the pensions
4) Cut their staffs
5) Forbid direct contact with lobbyists- make them first appear to a rotating citizen appointed committee for vetting
6) Make US senators an appointed position (as it used to be)
Make sense?
I hold elected and appointed officials to a super high standard! If they get got caught committing any crime, the punishment is quadrupled as compared to the average citizen! If that bothers people who desire to run for office then don't run because it already sounds like you are unfit for office anyway if what I propose disturbs you! WE are WE THE PEOPLE, WE MAKE THE RULES!
Interesting take. My gut tells me to limit them to one term and make it so the House can only meet for one day a year.
I missed the newscast where they announced you had lost your right to vote… if you don't like the guys in office then vote for someone else. If your ideas don't prevail and your guy loses, well, that's just the democratic part of it.
When we vote there is an unspoken contract that we will accept the results of the election. And if you didn't vote and are still angry no one is going to have any sympathy. So go vote for your favorite guys and may the best ideas win.
While I certainly understand the original author's arguments, I really like this idea. Don't limit term, just prohibit anyone in office from campaigning while in office. Theoretically, they can stand on their record, but reality is that they would "skip" a term.
Also, presumably this could be done through Senate / House rules rather than amending the constitution and should therefore be easier to pass?
The Founders considered the idea of term limits and the rejected it. If, in the time of a severe national crisis, the people want stability, then they can vote the incumbent back into office. A war on American soil might be an example. This is all I need to know to be opposed to term limits.
But then there's Barack Obama, our first Marxist — I mean black — president. Even one term is too many!
How is foreign policy and world economics not screwed up now?
Both these things are important, but as a nation, our first duty should be to ourself. Our current system isn't working and we should work on fixing it before we go belly up, THEN worry about how the rest of the world will take it.
I'm hearing a LOT of people advocating throwing all incumbents out right now. What's that going to do for continuity?
As far as the world economy goes, you seem to advocate the current Administrations policy of \”Let's take a bad situation and make it 4 times worse than it was!\”.
That's why they call them \”unforeseen\” consequences. You obviously aren't seeing it.
Baloney!
Mayors, governors, presidents and state and local legislators have term limits.
The only people opposed to term limits are politicians who have used taxpayer money to fund lawyers to fight litigation for term limits and special interest groups such as the Teamsters Union who want to extract more money from the rest of us…
1.Long-term politicians are beholden to lobbyists to give them million for re-election.
2.They are beholden to their party for re-election funds.
3.Career politicians become too powerful.
4.The founders never wanted to create lifetime careers in politics. Originally congressmen saw their jobs as a civic duty, much like we see jury duty today.
Rand Paul states in his website he is against term limits.
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/11/rand-paul-for...
How is making it worse going to help fix anything? This country, for better or worse, abandoned isolationism as a National policy long ago. You can not ignore our present world relationships when formulating policy and expect it to end well.
As an alternative to term limits, I would suggest that elected officials who are voted out of office have been fired.
They should be treated as such.
NO pension!
NO healthcare coverage!
This should keep them interested in what their constituents think of pending legislation
OR
May be they will do better in their next career.
Jowl yours is the best post of the day.
Term limits solve one problem and create others, in that we surely wind up throwing out the good with the bad. A better idea might be to reform the way we finance congressional campaigns and try and drain the influence of private interests.
I would start by disallowing any political contribution from a non-person… no corporations or unions or clubs, or anyone else spending other people's money. I would take all the restrictions off of individual contributions to candidates but outlaw soft money. Then I would make every campaign document where each dime comes from, and where it is spent. This would all be public information that any of us can look up on the internet.
There is nothing magic about maintaining ties with the private sector. A good congressman accepts contributions from people who think like he/she does, then ignores the demands of private interests when they conflict with the public good.
We have term limits on the presidency, why not congress? Tenure or seniority among the congress and senate are the roots of evil here. Many states have elected some real lossers, and because they gain power thru their seniority, states are unlikely to put someone new in. It doesn't matter if they (voters) like the guy, if he has power the voters will most likely vote for him. The incumbants have a huge advantage to be re-elected.
Our forefathers never invisioned career politicians, and career politicians are not good for this country.
We send these guys to Congress to do six months of work but they sit around for the whole year and make up more laws we don't need and figure out ways to take more of our money. Take the power away and we won't have 535 prima donnas, just some men and women working like it's their last term in office.
How about taking the perks out of the office? Salary for life, pension benefits two to three times more generous than privately offered plans which are also inflation protected, health and life insurance subsidies, franking privledges, exemptions and immunities from tax, pension and other laws that burden the rest of us (created by the lawmakers themselves).
Congressional perks range in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year, all paid for by the US taxpayer. It may only be a drop in the federal bucket, but it keeps the process of corruption going.
So would this apply to the presidency as well? If your argument is that term limits prevent the people from being able to elect whomever they wish, then your reasoning would seem to mean we should do away with presidential term limits.
It all starts at the top with corruption, lobby groups with big money, and an American public, now dumb-downed by the public school system.. Let us highlight the ex-president Bill Clinton and his "Foundation". To make us think that all is above board with the appointment of his wife to secretary of state, his donor list is now made public. One of his big donors is the kingdom of Saudi Arabian House of Saud to the tune of $25 million. Does anyone really believe that those donations don't influence foreign policy in the middle east and oil supply? Hey, the regular American pays all that money for gasoline to travel to work and after one of the biggest transfers of wealth to Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries, the money arrives back in the pocket of Bill Clinton! Now, that is a transfer of wealth. We should close the door on any Government official reaping benefits after they leave office. Send them home with their pensions from the taxpayers! Hey, they haven't even earned that! Dodd, Kennedy, and the list goes on have corrupted the American government and that is because they, themselves, were personally corrupt. One cannot corrupt a honorable person with ethics.
I couldn't more respectfully disagree. Time in Washington corrupts, and good people need to be voted in and get out without staying in power becoming their primary objective.
Let me see if I understand this correctly, we should be against term limits because, barring the near guarantee of reelection, politicans will have little regard for the will of the voters. Brilliant analysis! (not)
The fact is that given jerrymandering and campaign finance rules that so heavily favor the guy who is already in office, we don't have a real functioning democracy as it stands. Things have to go way far out of line before we see a Dodd like retirement. Let's remember that this clown had a big part (front row) in the economic problems we now face, and has gotten caught with his hand in several cookie jars (countrywide, irish cottage, etc.), and now the author is concerned that since he isn't running for election, he may lack the motivation to be a "good" senator?
Perhaps we should parole all murderers right now – out of concern that they might not be good citizens when we do release them if they are upset about be locked up now.
You must be logged in to post a comment.