It's time for term limits for members of Congress

[bluestateguy]

So few districts are competitive due to excessive gerrymandering and Congressmen who have basically lifetime seats because they are so well entrenched through the incumbency advantage. So you end up with a large number of people in Congress who become arrogant, thinking that they are untouchable, invincible and unaccountable for their actions. They become conservative with a small "c"--resistant to change and anti-reform. They also become co-opted by the Washington establishment and perks: the lobbyists, the worthless junkets abroad, the cocktail parties in Georgetown townhouses and the bureaucratic mindset that stifles reform.

Term limits would make more districts competitive and guarantee a steady supply of new reformist blood in Congress. I'm intrigued by the idea of the citizen politician: the lawyer, doctor, farmer, homemaker, teacher who is elected to Congress for a few years and represents his or her constituents in Washington and then leaves Washington after no more than 3 or four terms (2 for the senate). It would make congressional elections more competitive, reduce entrenched incumbency advantage in elections and reduce Beltway egos and arrogance. It would actually give the Democrats a fighting chance to win control of Congress sometime in this decade.

I've never been much for the argument that says term limits would come at the expense of experience. My own view is that serving in Congress is not rocket science and a fast learner and/or an educated person can learn what needs to be done relatively quickly. In the 19th century, turnover of 40%-60% every 2 years was common in Congress.

As for the elections as term limits argument, I used to believe that too, but I am no longer convinced that that is a workable remedy. All too often voters simply don't do their duty to replace corrupt or out of touch politicians. Obviously there was the presidential race two years ago, and time and time again voters just keep voting back in the same arrogant, out of touch members of Congress. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Let's face it, Americans just aren't all that bright.

I don't think the framers anticipated the importance of congressional incumbency advantage in elections. In fact the idea of the part-time citizen legislature is more what they had in mind for Congress.

[Bill McBlueState]

1. "a fast learner and/or an educated person"

Yeah, but we're talking about candidates for Congress... :evilgrin:

Seriously, though, I think it's beneficial to have a fraction of the seats in Congress held by people who are experienced in the art of compromise that it takes to pass good legislation. I used to live in a state that had term-limited legislators, and very quickly, the state house was overrun by ideologues who were only interested in slashing taxes and attacking the separation of church and state. They had no idea how to actually run something as complex as a state.

[demosincebirth]

8. Ca. has term limits. We get a good legislature and in six years

he is termed out. Not fair. Its was a republican thing in the 80s, with democrats in control of our legislature, they thought it would give them more of a chance to win more seats, but it back-fired in their faces.

[pooja]

2. totally agree, but how many?

[Redneck Socialist]

3. Nah

I'd rather see the process of how districts get drawn reformed than term limits. As it stands now all you would get is a new crop of pub wackjobs. Let's see non-partisan commissions draw up the districts like it's done in Iowa if I'm not mistaken. Truly competitive districts will do more to solve our current problems then a rash load of fresh pub blood.

[livvy]

4. If we had Clean Elections, I don't think we would need term limits.

Re-election would be based on performance rather than who has the largest war chest. If a rep was not doing their job, not representing their district, they could be challenged by someone with fresh ideas, and they would be starting with the same amount of money, same air time allotments, chances to debate with the incumbent, fair, factual, and equal media coverage, and so forth.
If you have a good rep., I think their experience is a factor. I would rather have someone serve for many years, as long as they were doing a good job, rather than someone with less experience learning as they go.
I don't know, just my thoughts. What do you think?

[Journeyman]

5. An unforeseen but potentially disturbing side-effects to term-limits. . .

reported in the Los Angeles Times this morning:

Term Limits Add Up to Brain Drain in Capitol

Experienced legislative staffers seek the better stability and pay offered by lobbying firms. The result: greater clout for special interests.

By Jordan Rau, Times Staff Writer
July 23, 2006

SACRAMENTO — Until this year, Margaret Gladstein was chief advisor to the California Assembly's Banking and Finance Committee, which shapes hundreds of laws including those that govern credit cards, identity theft and flood insurance.

But in June, Gladstein appeared before the committee in a different role: representing the California Retailers Assn., a client of her new employer, a Sacramento lobbying firm. "I've missed all of you," she playfully told the 10 legislators she had worked for.

Gladstein is part of an exodus of experienced legislative staff to California's lobbying corps, known in Sacramento as the Third House. The staff migration — a repercussion of term limits passed in 1990 — has strengthened the influence of interest groups in crafting laws but weakened lawmakers' ability to obtain the objective advice and institutional knowledge that once made California's Capitol a model for other states, according to many lawmakers, lobbyists and Sacramento veterans from both parties.

(snip ~ much more)

[mcscajun]

I'd sooner see reform of lobbying and an end to black box voting

and while we're at it, let's get rid of this ridiculous gerrymandering whenever it suits the party in power. Considering term limits is the last resort; it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[badgerpup]

6. Seeing as how right now the only job qualification seems to be $$$$

...term limits sounds like a GREAT idea.

I'd like to see it where somebody isn't eligible to be elected or appointed to a high-ranking gov't post unless first they have held a REAL job for a year or two.
I'm not talking the 'military'; I'm talking the $5.50 an hour kind, the manual labor kind, the ones where you get dirty, and you come home with your back hurting, and you're dirty and sweaty and tired...but don't get too comfortable, because you have to be at your other $5.50 an hour job in an hour and a half.
They would have had to actually LIVE on that income...rent, healthcare, utilities, insurance, groceries, etc...WITHOUT resorting to the trust fund or whatever financial silver spoon and golden shoes they'd been born with.
Call it their 'practicum'...just so they know what their constituents are most concerned about (hint: often it isn't gay marriage or flag burning or whether the Ten Commandments are displayed on the courthouse).
Anyone who fails this could still run for office if they really wanted, but their inability to function in the 'real' world would be on record.
:rant:

[FloridaPat]

7. No. It's time for a new form of gov't where We the People really are

We the People. It's time for national discussion on our future and not the future of Reality TV subjects. It's time for a free press that provides information and not gov't propaganda.

[Zorro]

9. Bad, Bad, Bad Idea

You limit terms by voting for a new politician and not the incumbent.

Artificially limiting the number of years removes the expertise politicians gain from performing their jobs, who then typically end up as lobbyists.

Then the rookie politicians look to these lobbyists to help them shape legislation, because of their expertise.

And that's how a lot of legislation gets through Congress -- it's written by the lobbyists, sponsored by the politicians, and signed by Bush and his ilk.

So the lobbyists become quite powerful in the legislative process, and are unaccountable to the public.

That's why forcing a term limit on politicians is a bad idea; although your sentiments are worthy, it ultimately leads to more mischief making. Although lobbyists wield a lot of power as it is, term limits will only exacerbate the problem.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. No

they tried in FL and it was a disaster. The outgoing crew has a field day at the end and it was like a free for all of give aways and bad legislation. Now the Repugs have complete control of the State Legislature and there is no end in sight.

[longship]

11. A lot of them are going to experience limits they didn't know existed.

Come this November.

Keep working. Keep pushing. Keep volunteering. Keep giving until it hurts.
Then, give some more time and money. Yes, it's that important.

[porphyrian]

12. First, let's eliminate corporate influence in government.

If politicians can be bought by interests that aren't representative of the population, it doesn't matter how long they're in office.

[DYouth]

13. Because our electoral process is so controlled by Big Money, I agree

As long as the new people who come up every term aren't basically puppets of the old incumbents, this is a good idea.

[StellaBlue]

14. But they will be puppets, not of previous incumbents, but of

the incumbents' corporate masters.

This is a stupid idea.

[undeterred]

15. Millionnaire James Sensenbrenner has been in Congress for 28 years,

Bryan Kennedy is the first Democrat in ages to have the guts to run against him, and it seems like a long shot. Republicans don't run against him either. Sensenbrenner thinks that his district loves him, but they haven't actually had a choice in the matter for a long time.

[GOPisEvil]

16. I'm not a fan of assigning any more of my rights back to the government.

They've taken enough as it is.

[adwon]

17. Um ok

So we can make the problem worse by bringing in rookies who don't know how to write laws that can pass constitutional muster? That will be the result, you know.

You can't slap the band-aid of term limits on a federal government that's grown beyond all imagining and pretend it will do something other than add a large dose of confusion into the mix.

[DemforNagin]

18. I've always been in favor of term limits

For all elected officials. You need a constant flood of new ideas, new ideals, and new blood. This avoids the "old boys" network altogether and ensures constant representation of the people. I think after 8 or 10 years on capital hill, most of those guys forget about us, and the only thing on thier mind is getting re-elected time after time. Sure, we may get a bone every now and then to keep us voting, but it's not about taking care of us at all.

The only arguement I've ever come up with against term limits was;

"But what if you get an actual good guy in there that does things right? You're gonna replace him after 2 terms with some idiot who doesn't know beans?"

Yes, that would suck, but if it also keeps the boneheads out of there for longer than 8 years, it's worth it.