What do you think about term limits?

[Andy823]

As I watch some of the debates today in congress, I realize that some of these members have been in congress for years and years. They get elected over and over, and the longer they are in congress the more it seems they are bought and paid for by the big money that pretty much "owns" our country!

It has always amazed me that the president is limited to two terms, if they can get elected that is, and yet the members of congress have no limits! I have seen many members of congress in the past run on "term limits", yet once they get in office, they seem to forget they were for term limits! When reminded about their view on term limits, they make all kinds of excuses why "they" have to keep on running election after election!

So my question is what do you think about term limits, and if you agree there should be limits, how long do you think they should serve before they "have" to step down?

[Dimwitted Fool]

I have mixed feelings. Rather than term limits for legislators, I would like to see some serious campaign finance reform, although I doubt we'll ever see much of either. We have seen some districting reform, which is a good sign.

Limiting legislators means not only kicking out dead wood and overly powerful crooks, but also means kicking out the good guys who learn on the job and carry institutional memory. It means kicking out the people we like, or at least can get along with, to be replaced with unknowns.

The geniuses who wrote the Constitution understood this and designed the House for quick turnover according to the current popular fads and the Senate to be more deliberative and less prone to the politics of immediate emotion.

(It's just too bad they didn't have a good enough crystal ball to see how it would turn out.)

The President is term limited largely because of Roosevelt. Republicans started the 22nd amendment process after being shocked at FDR's ability to get re-elected beyond the customary two terms Washington set. Too bad for them ratification came just in time for Eisenhower, who could probably have easily slid into at least a third term.

I can't say I have a problem with executives being term limited. Legislatures are mobs and members come and go, but having most of them stay around lends a certain organization and continuity to the mess. Executives, though, have managed to amass far too much power to themselves, and Mayors, Governors, and Presidents should have the constraints of term limits.

[Arkana]

Two for the Senate, four for the House.

That would mean Senators could serve a maximum of 12 years and House members a maximum of 8.

[jaxx]

I'm torn on term limits. Some people I'd like to see go, but at the same time we have legislators who have done a tremendous amount of good over their years. Plus the idea of a big turnover means we lose the experience that holds the congress together. Today we got an infusion of teabaggers...they won't be good for the process. It will take the old guard to keep them in line and the country moving forward.

[Capn Sunshine]

The main problem with term limits is that is empowers lobbyists. If you're a newbie in DC, the lobbyists do everything for you. Including hooking you up with donors and writing bills for you. It's no coincidence that 90% of the new staffers to tea party newbies in congress are ex lobbyists.

[sandnsea]

I believe it's currently unconstitutional. Someone would have to run on changing the constitution it seems to me. And yes, they pretty much forget all about term limtis when the terms they proposed are up. From what I see, if the newest people made all the laws, we'd have a bunch of reactionary shit implemented, with no regard to the opposing views, and a never-ending civil war.

I also question whether everybody is bought. You could say Mary Landrieu is bought, but then look at how a large number of Louisianans flipped out over the oil drilling moratorium. Is Max Baucus bought by mining and timber and coal and gas? Or are those unions pushing for jobs just as much as the corporates are pushing for natural resource rights. No doubt there are some people who are bought. I just don't think it's the driving force behind every politician.

[LoZoccolo]

(01-05-2011 04:10 PM)Andy823 Wrote:  It has always amazed me that the president is limited to two terms, if they can get elected that is, and yet the members of congress have no limits!

I think that this may be because an individual member of the legislative branch has less power to use their position to commandeer resources toward getting themselves re-elected; their power is diluted because they have to get consensus from others to use their power. The resources available to the executive branch can be more readily utilized by the person in charge, and I think that their term limits disincentivize those kinds of maneuvers. I live in Chicago where there is no term limit for mayor, and you see the mayor's name on all sorts of signs related to government facilities and programs, implying that he is responsible for bringing you and/or maintaining all of these things you find useful; it comes very close to using taxpayer money for constant campaigning. It's harder to do that as a legislator.

(01-05-2011 04:10 PM)Andy823 Wrote:  They get elected over and over, and the longer they are in congress the more it seems they are bought and paid for by the big money that pretty much "owns" our country!

I could see a situation where the opposite would be true: if a congressperson enjoys a good reputation that allows them to keep getting re-elected by their constituents, they might become less dependent on the ways that politicians are bought in exchange for re-election, but if there's more attrition, these newcomers with less of a reputation may be more hungry for payouts in the form of campaign contributions in order to establish themselves.

[NJMaverick]

As someone from a northerner state that has seen our federal tax dollars migrate south for decades (as a result of the generally longer seniority of Southern congress people) I am all for it.

[The Capitol Punisher]

Aside from executives (no one should have that much power for very long), I think term limits are a horrible idea. You basically deliver every ounce of power to non-elected officials, because the most powerful people would then become the staffers. Institutional knowledge is powerful and necessary, as is the experience of knowing how to get things done.

[Andy823]

Thanks for all the input.

I can see both side of the issue, for and against, and I really also agree with Dimwitted Fool about campaign finance reform, we really need it and if we could get the money out of politics, we may not need anything else.

I still feel that term limits would help. I really do think that the longer a person serves in congress, and the more power they get, the more likely they are to be corrupt, not all of them but a lot of them! Those in the leadership positions especially.

Sadly I don't see any kind of reform coming down the line, not term limits nor campaign finance reform.

[Treestar]

The problem I have with term limits is they are saying, we have the chance every 2/4/6 years to limit their term, but give in to the fact that we let the big money and their ads and the big media control us. It's like we are admitting they leave us helpless.

We have the primaries, too.

Too many people don't even know who their rep is. I'd say fight the ignorance, rather than just admit to it and try to control it from there.

There could be much to be said too, for the fact that having new legislators frequently would mean many inexperienced people in an increasingly complex job. Long term legislators know the history of the laws made before. It is bad enough as it is that there are idiots elected who don't know the basics.

[sandnsea]

(01-06-2011 01:49 PM)Treestar Wrote:  The problem I have with term limits is they are saying, we have the chance every 2/4/6 years to limit their term, but give in to the fact that we let the big money and their ads and the big media control us. It's like we are admitting they leave us helpless.

We have the primaries, too.

Too many people don't even know who their rep is. I'd say fight the ignorance, rather than just admit to it and try to control it from there.

There could be much to be said too, for the fact that having new legislators frequently would mean many inexperienced people in an increasingly complex job. Long term legislators know the history of the laws made before. It is bad enough as it is that there are idiots elected who don't know the basics.

And if we have to figure out new people every few years, that will give the big money even more control to spin candidates into anything they want them to be. When we have a good one and know it by their record, we need to be able to keep them and not risk losing them to an unknown that turns out to be a thoroughly bought entity.

[Shea]

I don't like term limits. Good people tend to get even better as they learn the ropes. Would you have wanted a U.S. Senate with only the young Ted Kennedy? Or do you think we all gained by having the wisdom and experience of the older Ted Kennedy? Or the older Joe Biden? Or the older Barney Frank? If I have a good Senator, as I do now with Murray or Cantwell, I don't want to replace them with some newbie with no seniority. If I don't like my Congressperson, then I'll work against his reelection.

[Andy823]

(01-06-2011 02:03 PM)Shea Wrote:  I don't like term limits. Good people tend to get even better as they learn the ropes. Would you have wanted a U.S. Senate with only the young Ted Kennedy? Or do you think we all gained by having the wisdom and experience of the older Ted Kennedy? Or the older Joe Biden? Or the older Barney Frank? If I have a good Senator, as I do now with Murray or Cantwell, I don't want to replace them with some newbie with no seniority. If I don't like my Congressperson, then I'll work against his reelection.

I understand your point, and I have the same two senators as you do, Murray and Cantwell, but I also think that 3 terms, 18 years is a long time and new faces might be a good idea. I know there are always exceptions to the rule, and as I sated if we could actually get the money out of politics there would be far less problems, but as I also said I don't think either idea is ever going to come into play! If we could actually look at all the money members of congress are taking from the special interest groups, and then look at their votes, I think we would see the old timers are getting a lot more money because they have the "power" to sway votes, and that to me is not a good idea when that money gets the corporations what they want while the people get the leftovers, if there are any!

[Peadar O Suileabhain]

I have an odd position on congressional term limits.

I believe that there should be limits on House members, but not on senators.

The House is, in theory, the more small-d democratic body. It shouldn't be place with entrenched committee barons who spend decades building personal political fiefdoms. By limiting House members to 10-12 years, we could see some healthy turnover and an infusion of new blood.

The Senate is a different critter. That's a place where I see a need for institutional memory and knowledge. Now, I realize that the Rick Santorums and Tom Coburns undercut the argument, but I still see the Senate as a place where the Bidens and Lugars and Kennedys and Rudmans can agree to act like adults and take a long-term view on those uberissues such as treaty ratifications and judicial confirmations that are the sole responsibility of the upper chamber.