Term Limits for Congress

[LaraK]

Is it time yet? These Representatives and Senators for life have gotten to the point where they are so entrenched they do nothing but think of ways to stay in office. After this latest debacle where politics seems to be more important than the people's will, is it time to demand term limits?

 

[bsnyder]

Is it time yet? These Representatives and Senators for life have gotten to the point where they are so entrenched they do nothing but think of ways to stay in office. After this latest debacle where politics seems to be more important than the people's will, is it time to demand term limits?

Are you refering to today's vote as the latest debacle?

Because the people's will seems to be very mixed, from the poll numbers I've seen, about this particular bailout plan. So, I don't know that individual House members can be blamed for going against "the people's will".

That said, I'd love to see almost all of them thrown out, and just start over. But we will never get term limits passed on a national level. It's one of those things like tax reform. It makes a lot of sense, and most people support it, but it will never happen.

 

[ntsammy5]

Yup - limits would be good, but change the house to three 4 year terms so they wouldn't have to run for reelection every 2 years

 

[LaraK]

Not just today, but the corruption that has been going on with the financial markets for years. Today was just kinda the icing on the cake of the silliness.

I don't want to be on the hook for 700 Billion, but I would like my representatives to have spent more time fixing this several years ago than running for office.

 

[bsnyder]

Regarding the people's "will" on the matter of the bailout, I saw this at the National Review blog:

A colleague here at the Hoover Institution spoke recently with a senior, and Democratic, member of the California congressional delegation. In the last week, she said, her office had received roughly 15,000 telephone calls, letters, and emails. How many favored the bailout?

Ten.

That's an astoundingly lopsided number.

Democracy in action?

 

[JB111107]

I am a firm believer that our founding fathers did NOT intend for Congress to be a place for someone to have a life-long career.

I'm all in favor of voting them all out and starting over from scratch.

www.blowoutcongress.com

 

[JimB.]

Nope.

An elected official's constituency can fire their senator or representative anytime they want to.

If they are too lazy to do so, then oh well.

 

[MrsNick]

No, we don't need formal legislated term limits. We already have them, and they are called Elections. We have the duty to vote for another person if we believe the incumbent is not doing a good job. And if (as seems to be the case a lot of the time) we like the alternative even less, then I don't see how term limits would help us anyhow.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Nope.

An elected official's constituency can fire their senator or representative anytime they want to.

If they are too lazy to do so, then oh well.

ditto that.... we already have term limits. It's called an election. If you don't like what they are doing, vote them out. If the people act too much like sheeple and just vote for the name the recognize without thinking about it, then shame on them.

 

[CowboyCO]

This would require a constitutional amendment.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Nope.

An elected official's constituency can fire their senator or representative anytime they want to.

If they are too lazy to do so, then oh well.

Yes, but how many of them stay in office based on the pork that they bring back to their district?? The voters can be hypocrites as well.

 

[Kathi OD]

This would require a constitutional amendment.

I can just see them all voting themselves to the unemployment line.......


















































I guess it's still ok to dream...they haven't taxed that yet, or have they?

 

[Obi-Wan Pinobi]

There are two problems I have with Congressional term limits.

First, too often it seems like it's a matter of people objecting to someone else's representative or senator. For example, people in Mississippi may think Ted Kennedy's been there for too long (going on 46 years) but have no problem with reelecting Thad Cochran (going on 30 years).

Second, and this is the real biggie -- any term limits that would pass Congress would grandfather in the incumbents. In other words, term limits on all future members but not on the bums we'd like to see go. For term limits to have any real change they would have to be retroactive.

I would say 5 or 6 terms for US House members and 2 terms or 15 years max for Senators (similar to the 2 terms/10 years max limit for presidents). Heck, I'd even say repeal the 17th amendment and allow the individual states to decide how to select their senators. If some want to have the state legislatures choose them, then let them. If anything, that would help give more focus on the state legislature elections.

A couple of little tidbits of trivia --

Here's a list of US Senators by seniority. 31 Senators have been in office for over 18 years. That means they have been in office longer than a first time voter this year has been alive. 43 have been in office over 12 years.

Here's a list of US House of Representatives by seniority. 71 (16%) have been in office over 18 years, 166 (38%) over 12 years, and 214 (49%) over 10 years.

 

[bicker]

And beyond that, members of Congress with seniority are asset to their state. Folks want their representatives to have such seniority.

The reality is that we put them there; we keep sending them back; we are to blame for the impact of having them serve long terms.

 

[LaraK]

My district just ousted the incumbent in the primary....but that doesn't happen very often. He's now endorsed the guy from the other party out of spite.

Politics makes me so frustrated.

 

[golfgal]

The other issue I see with Congressional term limits is that they will no longer care about re-election. In a perfect world that would mean they would vote the way their constituents want, in our world that means they will vote the way which ever friend offers them more money in their retirement wants and to heck with trying to get money into their state for whatever. At least with elections you have the option to vote them out.

 

[bicker]

Good point: Term limits just provide incentive to pander to a different set of special interests.

 

[ntsammy5]

Good grief. I never thought of that!

 

[Charade]

Nope.

An elected official's constituency can fire their senator or representative anytime they want to.

If they are too lazy to do so, then oh well.

But but but...

Doesn't government have the responsibility to protect the stupid and lazy from themselves?

 

[Charade]

No, we don't need formal legislated term limits. We already have them, and they are called Elections. We have the duty to vote for another person if we believe the incumbent is not doing a good job. And if (as seems to be the case a lot of the time) we like the alternative even less, then I don't see how term limits would help us anyhow.

Then why do we limit the President to two terms?