TERM LIMITS: The Only Way To Clean Up CONGRESS
g under p
Posts: 18,196
To me the only way the US Congress get anything accomplished no matter which party has the majority in Congress is to have term limits. They wield too much power are given way too many perks which they institute for themselves. (D) From Michigan succeeded his father in 1955, my mom was a teenager back then. Eisenhower was President and 11 Presidents have followed. (D) John Conyers from 1965 is far too long, the only way these people leave office is in disgrace of corruption, sex scandal, retirement (hardly happens) or DEATH. A high percentage of their re-elections go unchallenged and they receive HEALTH CARE FOR LIFE seems like a pretty cushy job if you can get it. Checkout some of their perks and I believe they want a new and bigger travel plane and will probably get it.
What would you institute for these congressmen and women in term limits for them? Here's what I would do....
Senate a max of 12 years
6 years staggered
Must serve 5 years 1 month before seeking a re-election campaign
Can only campaign 11 months before re-election
Must campaign with their own money
Cannot use the free postal system to send out campaign literature
Congress 12 years max
Must serve 3 years 1 month before seeking campaign re-election
Must campaign with their own money
Can only campaign 11 months before re-election
Cannot use the postal system to send out campaign literature
TERM LIMITS: The Only Way To Clean Up Congress
Congressional Perks: How the Trappings of Office Trap Taxpayers
Peace
What would you institute for these congressmen and women in term limits for them? Here's what I would do....
Senate a max of 12 years
6 years staggered
Must serve 5 years 1 month before seeking a re-election campaign
Can only campaign 11 months before re-election
Must campaign with their own money
Cannot use the free postal system to send out campaign literature
Congress 12 years max
Must serve 3 years 1 month before seeking campaign re-election
Must campaign with their own money
Can only campaign 11 months before re-election
Cannot use the postal system to send out campaign literature
TERM LIMITS: The Only Way To Clean Up Congress
WHY CONGRESS NEEDS TERM LIMITS
Term limits are needed at all levels of government. However, because of the large electoral advantages wielded by incumbents, the historically low rate of turnover, the greater threat from special interests, and the unique power that federal legislators hold, it is especially important to apply term limits to Congress.
Term limits counterbalance incumbent advantages.
Congressional term limits are a necessary corrective to inequalities which inevitably hinder challengers and aid incumbents. Each House Member, for instance, receives nearly a million dollars per year to pay for franked (free) mail, staff salaries, and office and travel expenses. While campaigning, incumbents continue to receive salaries upwards of $130,000 a year, which typically dwarf the income of challengers (who often must resign from their jobs while running for office). A small army of congressional staffers does volunteer work during campaign season; they have every motivation to do so, since they are campaigning for perpetuation of their jobs. On official time, these political aides perform all sorts of jobs unrelated to legislation but closely tied to reelection, such as soliciting media attention and doing favors for constituents. The power of the frank permits each Member to send thinly disguised reelection propaganda to every residence in his district several times per term. The money allotted to each incumbent for franking alone -- over $160,000 per year -- is higher than the average challenger's total campaign expenditures. State legislators, who recognize the benefits to their state from long-term congressional incumbency, redraw election districts to maximize incumbents' electoral chances. The extent of incumbent resources prevents their exhaustive listing here, but their electoral impact is sizable; both the House and the Senate, for instance, have authorized taxpayer-funded lawyers to intervene in term limits litigation. When these benefits are added to such natural incumbent advantages as name recognition, media access, and higher political contributions, it is no wonder that challengers unseat incumbents so rarely. Despite increasing complaints about the drudgery of life in Congress, a remarkable number of incumbents continue to seek (and secure) reelection. Term limits ensure congressional turnover.
The turnover rate for House incumbents who attempt reelection typically is below 10 percent. This is in stark contrast to the first century of America's government, when long-term congressional incumbency was rare and Members often voluntarily chose to leave Washington and return home. (See e.g., George Will, Restoration (New York: Free Press, 1992), p. 84.) In the nineteenth century, the average turnover in each new Congress was over 45 percent, (Figures from Norman Ornstein, Thomas Mann, and Michael Malbin, Vital Statistics on Congress 1993-1994 (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1993), and Will, Restoration.) and this ensured a continual influx of Members free from the institutional biases that long-term incumbency brings. Today, however, despite a large 1992 turnover fueled primarily by retirees, there is little or no turnover among those who set Congress's agenda: the committee chairmen and other members of the Democratic leadership. In the House of Representatives, for instance, the average job tenure is ten years. However, the principal leaders (the committee chairmen, speaker, majority leader, and whip) have served an average of twenty-seven years -- which means that the average member of this group has been in the House since the Johnson Administration. (See chart, "Unpopular Representation," Insight, April 11, 1994, page 22.) For every congressional election in the last twenty years, incumbents running for reelection in the House of Representatives have been returned to office at rates averaging higher than 90 percent. (Ornstein, Mann, and Malbin, Vital Statistics on Congress 1993-1994, p. 118, table 4-7.) Term limits would end such entrenchment and concentration of power, and the number of legislators who chose to retire or refused to run again also would increase. In California, for instance, the prospective imposition of term limits on the state legislature has more than doubled voluntary turnover (from 11 percent to 25 percent) in two years. (See John C. Armor, "'Foreshadowing' Effects of Term Limits: California's Example for Congress," U.S. Term Limits Foundation, Term Limits Outlook Series, Vol III, No. 1 (June 1994), p. 3.)
Congressional Perks: How the Trappings of Office Trap Taxpayers
Congressional Perks: How the Trappings of Office Trap Taxpayers
Executive Summary
Since the founding of the Republic, Americans have had a healthy skepticism of the concentration of power. The Framers of the Constitution established a system they hoped would prevent not only the disproportionate accumulation of influence in one branch of government, but also the disproportionate accumulation of privilege.
Today, Members of the United States Congress enjoy a vast web of perquisites that benefit them personally as well as professionally, including:
Comfortable salaries that are often determined through legislative sleight-of-hand. Contrary to the arguments of many Washington "insiders," the cost of living has rarely eroded the historical value of lawmakers' pay, which on a constant-dollar basis is hovering near the postwar high.
Pension benefits that are two to three times more generous than those offered in the private sector for similarly-salaried executives. Taxpayers directly cover at least 80 percent of this costly plan. Congressional pensions are also inflation-protected, a feature that fewer than 1 in 10 private plans offer.
Health and life insurance, approximately 3/4 and 1/3 of whose costs, respectively, are subsidized by taxpayers.
Wheeled perks, including limousines for senior Members, prized parking spaces on Capitol Hill, and choice spots at Washington's two major airports.
Travel to far-flung destinations as well as to home states and districts. Despite recent attempts to toughen gift and travel rules, "junkets" are still readily available prerogatives for many Members.
A wide range of smaller perks that have defied reform efforts, from cut-rate health clubs to fine furnishings.
But the very nature of public office itself demands a more comprehensive definition of a "perk" than that normally applied to corporate America. Members of Congress can also wield official powers that allow them to continue to enjoy the personal benefits outlined above, such as:
The franking privilege, which gives lawmakers millions in tax dollars to create a favorable public image. Experts across the political spectrum have labeled the frank as an unfair electioneering tool. In past election cycles, Congressional incumbents have spent as much on franking alone as challengers have spent on their entire campaigns.
An office staff that performs "constituent services" and doles out pork-barrel spending, providing more opportunities for "favors" that can be returned only at election time.
Exemptions and immunities from tax, pension, and other laws that burden private citizens -- all crafted by lawmakers themselves.
Congressional pay and perks directly add hundreds of millions of dollars to the yearly bill that Americans are forced to pay for the federal government -- a significant cost for taxpayers, even if pundits dismiss the amount as a "drop in the bucket." Yet, beyond the basic issue of dollars and cents, Congress's perks have other pernicious effects. They distort the budget process, by diminishing lawmakers' moral authority to say "no" to special interest spending requests and benefit boosts for other government officials. They distort the electoral process, by tilting the playing field against challengers. Most importantly, they undercut efforts for long-term economic and budget reform, by insulating Members from the real-world effects of their own policies.
American taxpayers and American government would be better served by benefits for Members of Congress that look more like incentives than perks. Enactment of proposals for a defined-contribution pension plan, a scaled-back franking privilege, a pay level tied to government efficiency, and a term-limit Constitutional amendment would help to restore balance to a system plagued by the trappings of office.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Limited terms would also definitely be good.
The problem is getting these people to ever legislate AGAINST themselves. It's nearly impossible.
What I do believe however, is that the American people could pull off the biggest peaceful revolution in history come next election. It would require everyone in this country to vote against their party line if need be-- simply vote out the incumbents. (If no incumbents are running, vote your consciense, or organize a campaign to slip a 3rd party in there). No matter how good or bad a job your reps are doing (as there is a 95% chance that he or she is doing a shit job anyway), everyone just agrees to vote them all out. If it were to be done every 2 years, it would effectively be term limits actually administered and enforced by the people. If we could all just accept that we're getting screwed equally from every angle, and put the D's & R's down for one Tuesday in November, we could pull it off. No matter what our political beliefs are, I think we can all agree that the people are no longer in control, and haven't been for a long time. Step 1 is showing these people that we ARE in control. This country needs something to unite us, no matter our differences. We can do it without firing a shot, taking to the streets, or even writing a letter.
It's that simple. People have to want change. REAL change. I think people believe that they voted for change this past election. I personally don't see how we're getting it, but at least the people know that they wanted something different. It's a baby step, but a step. People have to realize that the president isn't the be all and end all in our government, and start paying attention to congress, who is supposed to keep the power expansion of the government in check.
I don't blame the government for our problems, I blame us for voting those clowns in.
Same here. Especially when the people have absolutely RIPE examples to vote against the people who have proven time and time again that they are voting for legislation in favor of special interests, and not of the people.
I think what I should've made clear was 12 years max if re-elected. It is FAR too easy for these congress people to get re-elected with the flow of money that comes their way. Many go unto re-election unchallanged to me I find that unbelieveable that no one challenges these people for office. They too can see how difficult it is to defeat them.
Why would they legistlate against themselves since they know they're NOT required to. We the citizens of this country has make them accountable and force them to police themselves.
Peace
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
Can't argue against smarter voters, that's for sure.
of course, if we had smarter voters, the GOP would be out of business
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
Seriously... Ted Kennedy has been a Senator for as long as i can remember... and that's a long ass time. Remember Strom Thurman? That fucking racist piece of shit was in office for what... 60 years???
...
That being said... WE have the power... we are just too stupid to realize it. We believe OUR guy is doing a GREAT job... so, we vote for him/her based solely on name recognition, not on job performance.
True change? How about we vote for anyone else but the incumbant in the 2010 elections?
And let's give the politicians advanced warning... your time is up, motherfucker. You have a 12% aproval rating... isn't that like getting a 12% on your final exam? Who passes a class after getting a 12% score??? That is a score that is striving to become an F-minus student.
I don't care what bullshit political party they are in... (D) or (R), if your current title is 'Senator' or 'Representative'... you are not getting our vote because you suck ass. Even if we don't recognize the other names.. we will look into them and tell that.
I tell you... if the American Voters said, "We are envoking Term Limits on our Congress"... and we ACTUALLY pull it off by voting out ALL incumbants in an election. They WILL take notice and finally get to fucking work.
Until then... they know we are stupid fucking idiots that will automatically check the box next to the political party we are registered as and that we are too fucking lame to actually participate in the political process and look at anyone other than the name on the ballot we have heard of before. Congress has the dumbest fucking bosses... EVER!!! and they know it... and they take advantage of it.
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm on the job already... I'm working on a website to help accomplish this. When it's launch time, I'll post it here.
Imagine what a clusterfuck your job would be if everyone in the office turned over every six years. Nothing would get done.
The best way for people to get rid of representatives they don't like is to VOTE THEM OUT. Until we, the electorate, can be bothered to do vote out bad representatives ... instead of giving them a lifetime hall pass ... then we get what we deserve.
for the least they could possibly do
The only problem with making pay for politicians super low, is that it makes it so that the only people who can afford to into politics and then are so rich they are totally out of touch with real people or it is people who are crooked and sneaky enough that they can supplement their tiny politician salary by taking bribes and using their power to generate other illegal income.
The problem is, we pay them a lot now and it seems they still do this.
76 year old Thad Cochran won his primary and gets a chance to run for his 7th term in senate. Cochran seemed to be showing signs of dementia when in an interview he was oblivious to knowing that Cantor lost primary (this interview happened 3-4 days after Cantor lost ... in would seem it would be impossible for him not to know this if he had his wits about him). Oh, and $12M in outside money was given to Cochran and he just barely won.
Both have been in office longer then I've been on this planet.
Are we insane? Why doesn't the common populous join arms in demanding term limits?
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
And I support term limits with the mindset that these elected civil servants shouldn't necessarily make careers out of their positions (as in, the FUCK is Rangel doing courting a 23rd term?). Otherwise, seems the door's wide open to complacency, being bought, "what, I have a duty to my constituents?"
Keep money out of it too, or have an across-the-board cap on contributions and salary.
A majority of people do vote because of the R or D next to the name and that is never going to change. Term limits will at least force new blood into the system and end the constant campaigning that requires corporate interest to fund.
I can't predict if it will help or not, but it's worth a try. The current system isn't working is all I know.