Establishing Term Limits for Political Offices

[spartan933]

Lately, I have been contemplating the idea of the establishment of term limits for politicians. Specifically, US Senators and Congressmen.

I started considering this when the whole Massachusetts special election for the US Senate was going on. The pundits on both sides were talking about how Ted Kennedy held his seat for 40 years! Then I started considering the complaints about how Dick Daley has been in office for 20 years and how new ideas and new leadership was needed after he screwed the pooch on the olympics bid. Also, in studying management and restructuring issues for a master's degree, when a corporation or a non-profit organization that is controlled by a board of directors is in trouble, one thing that is often done is the removal of board members and the establishment of new protocols and term limits for the appointment selection qualified people.

The gist of my quandary is that I think that term limits for US Senators and Congressmen would be a good thing. We already have term limits for the President and governors. Thank you George Washington. Why not do the same for the legislative branch? It appears to me that now, our government cannot get anything constructive done. It seems to me that polarized thinking and myopic views of national issues are partially the result of politicians staying in office for long periods of time. Also, I believe that elected officials reach a point in their political career where they are more concerned with keeping their jobs than actually doing their jobs. Their jobs are to satisfy the will of the people. They need to make tough decisions based on the needs and demands of the people and not their own personal desire to stay in office.

I think that two three year terms for Senators would be a good start. And perhaps the same in an off year for Congressmen.

Anyways, what are your thoughts my INGO brethren? Unlike most politicians, I value your opinions.

 

[dross]

Lately, I have been contemplating the idea of the establishment of term limits for politicians. Specifically, US Senators and Congressmen.

I started considering this when the whole Massachusetts special election for the US Senate was going on. The pundits on both sides were talking about how Ted Kennedy held his seat for 40 years! Then I started considering the complaints about how Dick Daley has been in office for 20 years and how new ideas and new leadership was needed after he screwed the pooch on the olympics bid. Also, in studying management and restructuring issues for a master's degree, when a corporation or a non-profit organization that is controlled by a board of directors is in trouble, one thing that is often done is the removal of board members and the establishment of new protocols and term limits for the appointment selection qualified people.

The gist of my quandary is that I think that term limits for US Senators and Congressmen would be a good thing. We already have term limits for the President and governors. Thank you George Washington. Why not do the same for the legislative branch? It appears to me that now, our government cannot get anything constructive done. It seems to me that polarized thinking and myopic views of national issues are partially the result of politicians staying in office for long periods of time. Also, I believe that elected officials reach a point in their political career where they are more concerned with keeping their jobs than actually doing their jobs. Their jobs are to satisfy the will of the people. They need to make tough decisions based on the needs and demands of the people and not their own personal desire to stay in office.

I think that two three year terms for Senators would be a good start. And perhaps the same in an off year for Congressmen.

Anyways, what are your thoughts my INGO brethren? Unlike most politicians, I value your opinions.

I agree that term limits are a nice practical step that I think would help several of our problems. They would also create a set of as yet undetermined problems, though we can guess at some of them.

Senators need to stay for six year terms, and there are some complex reasons for this.

I say the easy fix is two terms each. The president is held to two terms, why not everyone else? Nice easy slogan, there.

The biggest hurdle is that it's going to require an amendment, and Congress will never pass it.

 

[printcraft]

In a word

YES

to term limits.


No one should be at the .gov(public) teet for 47 years+

 

[dburkhead]

No. Waste of time.

First, term limits are unlikely to actually "solve" the problems they are intended to address. Instead of having the same crop of "crooks" in office for however many years, you'll have a new crop of "crooks" each rotation. Term limits doesn't address the main issue which is that of active and ongoing citizen involvement in the process.

Case in point: has the quality of the presidency really improved overall since term limits were put in place for president?

Second: who are you (generic you) to tell me who I can and cannot choose as my representative in Congress? That's exactly what term limits do--tell me (as well as everyone else) that I cannot vote for certain individuals as my representative.

Third: Like with the "security theater" we have to deal with when traveling, "term limits" is actually of negative utility in that it provides the illusion of "doing something" to "fix" the problem while actually accomplishing nothing. This leads people to thinking "the problem is fixed, we can relax now", when nothing could be further from the truth.

When it comes to government the problem is never fixed. There is no system that is immune to abuse or the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the corrupt. It is only continued citizen involvement of the people that can slow and (if one is really, really lucky) reverse that progression.

 

[OneBadV8]

I say Yes. Serving in Washington was meant to be public service, not a reward or career paid for by the public.

 

[dross]

No. Waste of time.

First, term limits are unlikely to actually "solve" the problems they are intended to address. Instead of having the same crop of "crooks" in office for however many years, you'll have a new crop of "crooks" each rotation. Term limits doesn't address the main issue which is that of active and ongoing citizen involvement in the process.

Case in point: has the quality of the presidency really improved overall since term limits were put in place for president?

Second: who are you (generic you) to tell me who I can and cannot choose as my representative in Congress? That's exactly what term limits do--tell me (as well as everyone else) that I cannot vote for certain individuals as my representative.

Third: Like with the "security theater" we have to deal with when traveling, "term limits" is actually of negative utility in that it provides the illusion of "doing something" to "fix" the problem while actually accomplishing nothing. This leads people to thinking "the problem is fixed, we can relax now", when nothing could be further from the truth.

When it comes to government the problem is never fixed. There is no system that is immune to abuse or the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the corrupt. It is only continued citizen involvement of the people that can slow and (if one is really, really lucky) reverse that progression.

I agree that it's not a panacea. And as I mentioned above, there will be consequences and tradeoffs that no one can guess in advance.

I don't think it will make as much difference in the Senate as in the House. I believe that originally the House was supposed to be more of the citizen-leader, and was supposed to have a great deal of turnover.

Look at what happened in 94. You had a bunch of idealistic new Congressmen come in, and then become corrupted as they began to like Washington power, they ignored their own promises to self term limit, and eventually became like everyone else there. I think if they knew they only had four years, they'd more likely to cling to their ideals. Also, there would be less long term favor trading, since most wouldn't be there to collect.

I know there are many downsides, but I think it might be a good thing. Hard to know in advance, again, because of the unknown future effects.

 

[CarmelHP]

.... Term limits doesn't address the main issue which is that of active and ongoing citizen involvement in the process.

....This leads people to thinking "the problem is fixed, we can relax now", when nothing could be further from the truth.

When it comes to government the problem is never fixed.

That's the best reason to oppose term limits. It allows a lazy electorate to be even more lazy, which encourages those who are prone to corruption to move even faster to take what they can while they can. And do NOT blame term limits on George Washington. Washington limited himself, which is a big difference. If watchful voters send men of integrity to DC, then they don't have to worry about term limits, if they send charlatans, then no term limit will help. Now, repealing the 17th Amendment would be an idea with merit.

 

[Phil502]

I am for term limits, the longer they are in the better crooks they become. The longer they are in the more time for them to be beholden to special interest groups. I would like nothing better then to change them ALL out right now, even though that might be a big mess but you get the idea.

I don't know if the politicians would change their ways by this or not but this way is not working too well so far. Of course if people were more involved we could change these guys out without the term limits so........?

 

[dross]

That's the best reason to oppose term limits. It allows a lazy electorate to be even more lazy, which encourages those who are prone to corruption to move even faster to take what they can while they can. And do NOT blame term limits on George Washington. Washington limited himself, which is a big difference. If watchful voters send men of integrity to DC, then they don't have to worry about term limits, if they send charlatans, then no term limit will help. Now, repealing the 17th Amendment would be an idea with merit.

The argument, and it comes in many forms, that basically says, "people need to be better," falls flat in my book. Just have never seen it work, and it's the main problem with socialism, outside the fact that socialism is inherently immoral and corrupt.

I think systems need to be set up that account for human failing. Capitalism comes to mind.

People are mostly sheeple, and I don't see that changing, unless perhaps we set up some libertarian education camps. That should work.

"Learn the right way of thinking, or else."
"Or else, what?"
"Or else we'll leave you alone to go about your own business."

Just doesn't have the same je nais sais quoi as the socialist version.

 

[LEaSH]

If there were some method of holding those elected accountable - that would be something.

Voting them out doesn't stop a new wave of power grabbers to take up the office.

 

[chraland51]

You are just fooling yourself if you think that those clowns that we send to Washington will ever establish term limits on themselves. The new people who get elected and promised to work for term limits during their campaigns quickly forget about what they previously said. Just look at the arrogance of our elected officials. Their pensions are safe while social security sits on the brink of failure. They accept pay raises that were voted in by previous members during a time when unemployment is extremely high, hyper-inflation might just be around the corner and the economy is in the tank. They have their Cadillac health insurance that none were willing to give up while they were going to cut our benefits and ration medical care to the general population which would shortly have included people who are currently illegal aliens. They spend our tax dollars on luxury items and trips like there is no tomorrow. What has been done since the last time gasoline hit $4/gallon? Not a thing!!! Gas will likely go up to the same price in the not too distant future and we will just have to suffer through it again because they know that the public has a short memory. We have the reserves if only those crooks that we send to Washington would let us develop them with available technology. We could be energy independent in a few years if only we did not have our leaders blocking our way. I would be mortally shocked if term limits were ever implemented. Just my two cents.

 

[CarmelHP]

The argument, and it comes in many forms, that basically says, "people need to be better," falls flat in my book. Just have never seen it work, and it's the main problem with socialism, outside the fact that socialism is inherently immoral and corrupt.

I think systems need to be set up that account for human failing. Capitalism comes to mind.

Capitalism relies on people following their self interest. Electing better candidates relies on voters following their self interest (not to be enslaved, not to be overtaxed, not to have their money wasted). Term limits seeks to remove the hand of the voter from the political equation, just like Socialism seeks to remove the hand of the consumer from the market equation. If voters won't follow their self interest in whom they vote for then all is lost.

 

[El Cazador]

Capitalism relies on people following their self interest. Electing better candidates relies on voters following their self interest (not to be enslaved, not to be overtaxed, not to have their money wasted). Term limits seeks to remove the hand of the voter from the political equation, just like Socialism seeks to remove the hand of the consumer from the market equation. If voters won't follow their self interest in whom they vote for then all is lost.

Interesting to note that the majority promoting term limits here are also found in the Libertarian and Anarchist threads promoting lassez faire markets and no boundaries absence of laws, since "the People can rule themselves".

 

[dross]

I think the difference between politics and the markets (and I understand that term limits aren't strictly libertarian) is that markets provide feedback. In politics, the officeholders have purposefully made it difficult for the average person to understand what's going on. I'm not making excuses for those who won't understand, but I know some pretty intelligent, successful, sophisticated folks who are incredibly naive and ill-informed when it comes to politics. At some level there is an apathy created by the inability to see results based on voting. It's reached the point where many people, including some here, can't see a difference among the candidates, and I admit, some of it is pretty subtle difference.

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I'm not at all sure that all insn't lost.

 

[dburkhead]

I think the difference between politics and the markets (and I understand that term limits aren't strictly libertarian) is that markets provide feedback. In politics, the officeholders have purposefully made it difficult for the average person to understand what's going on. I'm not making excuses for those who won't understand, but I know some pretty intelligent, successful, sophisticated folks who are incredibly naive and ill-informed when it comes to politics. At some level there is an apathy created by the inability to see results based on voting. It's reached the point where many people, including some here, can't see a difference among the candidates, and I admit, some of it is pretty subtle difference.

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I'm not at all sure that all insn't lost.

The problem is that term limits won't change that.

I'm reminded of the joke with the punchline, "because the light is better here."

 

[dross]

The problem is that term limits won't change that.

I'm reminded of the joke with the punchline, "because the light is better here."

So, you're just a pawn of the keepers of the current system? In the pocket of The Man? Don't care about the future of our country?

 

[dburkhead]

So, you're just a pawn of the keepers of the current system? In the pocket of The Man? Don't care about the future of our country?

Despite the lack of smileys or other indicators, I'll assume you're joking with that.

If not, I suggest you go back and read what I've written in other political threads.

 

[CarmelHP]

Despite the lack of smileys or other indicators, I'll assume you're joking with that.

If not, I suggest you go back and read what I've written in other political threads.

Maybe you're NWO?

 

[dross]

Despite the lack of smileys or other indicators, I'll assume you're joking with that.

If not, I suggest you go back and read what I've written in other political threads.

Joking? Me?

Maybe you're NWO?

I think you've pegged it. He's the vanguard of the new world order, sent to infiltrate our little cyber bastion of freedom.

Actually, I just wanted to know what it must feel like to type some crazy sh*t, like I often read around here. It felt weird.

 

[Grizhicks]

While I agree that we need term limits, don't thank George Washington for term limits on the president. FDR was elected 4 times (1930's & 1940's), and it was after him that term limits were put in for the president.