I am becoming increasingly annoyed at members of Congress who bandy about the word “billion” when they speak about taxpayer money. Look at the poorly named Stimulus Packages under debate. Each item is all about billions, so much so that $17 billion to give one-time $300 payments to Social Security recipients does not seem like that much. With few exceptions these members, Democrat and Republican, are the same people who let Bush have his war and allowed our economy to fail. The present debate demonstrates that the members of the governing class have long since ceased to represent the constituencies which elect them. They have come to understand that their job is only to get re-elected. Representing the best interests of the citizen has become irrelevant to them. We need term limits.
The Founders did not intend government to be a career. They envisioned governing as a volunteer position for a set amount of time, after which it was time to go back home. They also debated limiting terms. Washington and Jefferson argued in support of term limits, while Madiso
n and Hamilton opposed them. Not much came of the debate for about a hundred years, since members often voluntarily chose to leave Washington and returned home. Long-term Congressional incumbency was rare then, but the times have changed.
At present, there is only one term limit. The 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution placed a limit of two terms on Presidents in 1951. There are no term limits for Vice Presidents or members of Congress, whether Representatives or Senators. Politicians, lobbyists and special interest groups continue to combat term limits for those offices.
Fifteen state legislatures have term limits in effect today and most have experienced a complete turnover in their membership. Term limits have prevented more than a thousand experienced legislators from running for reelection. New legislators have to learn their jobs in less than six years, chair important committees in their first term, and even serve as Speaker of the House after just two or three years in office. The leadership, culture and organization inside those legislatures have had to adjust to limited terms in office. So have those who work outside the legislative halls, such as bureaucrats, governors and lobbyists.
Voter initiatives of the 1990s are responsible for states adopting legislative limits. In an online column, Wall Street Journal columnist Steve Moore wrote that “limits on politicians' time in office were enacted or reaffirmed by enormous margins nearly everywhere they were on the ballot in what might have been the loudest referendum for term limitation by voters ever.” The Republicans hopped on the bandwagon.
Article comments
1 - Baritone
I don't know. I am not passionate about term limits. Your arguments are sound, and you may well be right.
However, if I might act as devil's advocate here, I will throw out this bone:
While you include a counter argument, it does seem that "learning the ropes" working in Congress and in DC in general can take some time. If both houses of Congress are made up largely of rookies, then who will there be to run the show? It may be that a whole new strain of functionaries - people who are NOT elected to any office - could wind up controling the reigns as it were.
Leaving the devil to hisherits own designs, I have actually suggested that the House term of 2 years is too short. This doesn't actually bear one way or another on term limits, but I think that the 2 year term allows for only a relatively short period when they are focusing on the job at hand and not back home raising money and campaigning. I think a 4 year term for House members would be better. They could still be limited to only 2 terms, but at least they wouldn't be jumping ship after only a few months to go home and sniff out contributions and eat chicken ala king at fund raisers.
B
2 - El Bicho
There's no guarantee term limits will change anything but the players. The CA state legislature has had term limits for years. How's that working out? Have you received your IOU for your state tax refund?
What is required is a national public movement to get people involved in the process by running for office and paying attention to what is happening.
3 - Dr Dreadful
State tax refund... [snort]... that'll be the day...
4 - Baronius
Novice legislators will have no control over their bureaucracies.
Look at the result of presidential term limits. Green front men call in their party's old-timers to supervise the civil servants. As bad as some first terms are, the second term of every administration is worse, because no one's accountable. I don't see why it would work better for legislatures.
5 - Maurice
Tommy Mack - great article! Well written and great links. Of course I am jaded. I agree with you 100%.
A couple of months ago President Bush's approval rating was 28% - Congresses was 13%! I really think term limits would help.
6 - James Sutton
I couldn't agree more! What we are in dire need of are term limits. All one has to do is to consider what really needs to be done regarding the issues of the day, what common sense tells us needs to be done, and then look at what is being done by those we voted in to protect and direct this country. And then it becomes obvious that these needful things are being are being over looked for a reason. And that the reason must be for some self serving purpose(s), re-election? We have some excellent representatives here in Alabama but it is time that all elected representatives face limits. We as citizens can take back the government as easily as a constitutional admendment limiting terms in both houses. For instance, limit both houses to 12 years, 2 terms for the senate and 3 terms for congress. This would mean little change in existing procedures. If these individuals cannot achieve in 12 years, any goals they might have, then they really do need to go home. Oh and if any would say we might not get the "best qualified" for the job, all I have to say is please, give me a break! The inmates are already running the asylum!!
7 - Steve Smith
The idea of government by, of, and for the people is based upon citizens being elected to serve their civic duty as public servants. Not to have elected positions be a career with a salary, benefits, and a pension. I believe the root cause of 90% of the problems with federal governance is the lack of "real citizens" in federal, elected positions. I think that after 6 years of the pressure from lobbyists and special interest groups, no one could still be a "real citizen"; you would be mentally drained and physically exhausted. We would be greatly served by getting fresh blood into Congress, people who had the fire and zest to take action for solving the issues and taking appropriate action, versus trying to build a power base for decades to use for lining their pockets. After fighting the good fight for 6 years, they would have done their civic duty and earned the right to go back to their real life. I like limits on Congress of three terms of 2 years for Reps, and two terms of 3 years for Senators. Either house, 6 years total. If a person can't get their agenda going in 6 years, they are never going to do so. Let another citizen get in there to push for solutions. I trust the average citizen's ability and good intentions more than any of our current 535 members of Congress; but only for 6 years or less.
8 - Kea Ratliff
BUTT PIRATES!!!=D
9 - leslie Damron
I totally agree, butt pirates all the way!!!
10 - Gary Barton
I agree, but you don't go far enough. Why should there ever be a re-election? The act of running to be re-elected detracts from the elected official doing the people's business. I suggest a single 4 year term for the House, a single 6 year term for the Senate, and a single 6 year term for the President.
How do you get them to pass an Amendment to remove themselves from office? They won't!
A Constitutional Convention is the only way.
11 - roger nowosielski
There are advantages to continuous strong executive power - especially in times of need.
Case in point - Pericles were reelected to his position twenty times in a row - to serve for twenty consecutive years - because the people thought him the most qualified to lead.
12 - Ed Jones
I like your article and agree on all points. Term limits would force senators into the open. They would not have time to limit American Liberty and trample on the Constitution.
STOP THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY NOW find a petion and sign before it's too late!
13 - Gary Jones
Not a personal attack, just an observation. You plagiarized almost the whole article from the heritage foundation. At least make an effort to rephrase someone else's thinking. Other than that I totally agree with you.