4. Term Limits

[The 99 Declaration]

Members of the United States House of Representatives shall be limited to serving no more than four two-year terms in their lifetime. Members of the United States Senate shall be limited to serving no more than two six-year terms in their lifetime. The two-term limit for President shall remain unchanged. Serving as a member of Congress or as the President of the United States is one of the highest honors and privileges our culture can bestow. These positions of power and prominence in our society should be sought to serve one’s country and not provide a lifetime career designed to increase personal wealth and power.

“If a due participation of office is a matter of right, how are vacancies to be obtained? Those by death are few. By resignation none.” Thomas Jefferson, 1801

[tdrivertom]

Combine this grievance with grievance #3.

[blake]

I would disagree with this grievance. My first fear is that we would end up with “amateur legislators”. This would lead to the bureaucrats running large portions of the government, thus reducing the power of our votes. If term limits were to be enforced, someway of limiting the bureaucrats power would be needed. Transparency would be the first line of defense. We wouldn’t want to elect a congress who’s only engaging in “over site” activities. This would give them the perfect escape goat. My next fear is a permanent class of bureaucrats mixed with a permanent presents of lobbyist will lead to corruption. On the pro side of the argument, term limits would make the corporations that are trying to buy a congress member with election donations to spend a lot more money. It takes more money to get a new person elected to office vs. an incumbent.

[robdinsmore]

The people who think longevity brings the sort of experience that leads to some sort of legislative expertise are woefully ignorant of how congress works.

Congresspeople do not write laws, they merely support laws that are written by lobbyists. The often do not even read the complete bill or study it's implications in any detail. This is one of their fundamental roles, though most think they actually write the laws. The lobbyists can be both "good" or "bad" lobbyists and it does not take any great expertise for a congressperson to know how to interact with these people.

Longevity in congress grants that person a lot of power with his/her party. This means that their desires are more likely to be enacted than those of "newbies" and it also means that the districts they represent have an advantage over other districts. Elder officials are heads of committees, and they really get to decide which legislature to bring to the floor.

I will concede that longevity in a committee will give someone a certain expertise, however many believe that these committees and the power they each have are the main reason that congress has not functioned very well in the last half century or so. The real power in congress comes from the heads of committees and these people are always elder members.

And why do these people win repeatedly? Sure a combination of gerrymandering and money have a significant impact, but one of the biggest contributors is their incumbency. Incumbents win more elections due to nothing more than brand recognition. It's a subtle psychological phenomenon that is completely independent of any real meaning. It's basically an advertising trick that skews independents towards the recognized face. So why should congress be controlled by people who are chosen in large part because they are recognized?

Another problem is that nobody runs against an incumbent and if they do, even fewer people vote in primaries than in real elections. We absolutely need some sort of mechanism to break up the power that committees have over Congress and term limits are a good candidate for this. The suggested limits, are just a suggestion. They were not deliberated over in any detail.

Everyone in the country except for maybe 535 people think that Congress is completely broken. With the average term at about 12 years and 40% serving over 20 years, doesn't it stand to reason that longevity might very well play a role in how broken congress is?


I just found a group from 2010 which has some info worth reading.
www.blowoutcongress.com/aboutus/index.php

[robdinsmore]

Feb 3, 2012 23:30:26 GMT -5 @tdrivertom said:

Combine this grievance with grievance #3.

Agreed. I also think 1&2 should be combined.

Nothing will ever change until we can eliminate the influence of money and remove any mechanism for the concentration of power within congress.

[blake]

Though I still disagree with this grievance I do agree with robdinsmore and tdrivertom that this grievance should be combined with the 3rd and also the 1st and 2nd grievances should be combined.

I also agree with robdinsmore's concerns over committee chairman's control over their own committees. I would like to see the committee chairman's power reduce to mainly a ceremonial position. Each congress person elected has the same power of one vote and seniority should not increase this power. Seniority currently allows long standing congress people to gain power that was not due them. This can be cured by removing their seniority altogether. A new way way of assigning committee seats will need to be constructed. The committees should also be required to operate in a strictly up or down fashion.

I also find gerrymandering to be major problem too. I would propose putting any congressional redistricting plan before the voters of the state. They have to live with their representation so they should have the finial call on any redistricting plan. I would also require redistricting plans to be draw up by a public committee and not the political parties. This is who draws them up now in most states.

I would have to think that if I were a "Temporary" legislator that would not increase the chances of me writing my own legislation or even read it. Some legislation takes years to pass, if your term ends before your legislation is passed it falls to the bureaucrats to carry on. The next Temporary legislator usually has their own bills to pass and they also have a limed time to do it. Their interest in past business would need to be limited. Also if you are a temporary legislator the lobbyist and bureaucrats can simply wait you out and perhaps they will have better luck with next temporary legislator. If term limits are used the terms would need to be long enough to pass major legislation.

I'm curious on how term limit would affect the congress' pension plan. I would hope it would be dissolved as unnecessary.

Weather we have term limits or not there still a lot common ground we can cover. There is a lot of reform issues that we can agree upon.

[christophercarney]

I think we might be ignoring something very important here. There is no mention of term limits for Supreme Court Justices. I guess the better term would be "length of term" since a term is for life, so term limit doesn't really mean anything.

It has been said that these nine individuals collectively hold more power than all of Congress and the President combined.

Does anyone see an issue with keeping them as life appointments?

[blake]

I would agree with christophercarney on this. I'm still not in favor term limits for congress, I would fully endorse term limits for Supreme court. I would say one 12 year term would be appropriate. Though the major problem with the Supreme Court is the nomination process. If term limits were applied to the Supreme Court will have to go the nomination more often. It would be nice to have a nomination process that didn't embarrass us so much.