As I have told my readers for a long time…I am an old hippie radical…..I have seen so many of the “new” ideas that are nothing but rehashes from the past….Term limits that is being talked about In Washington these days is just one of those rehashes.
I believe it was in the days of Clinton, when the GOP was in a minority roll that the term”term limits” became a major talking point…it seems that the GOP thought it would be a good idea if members of Congress could only stay in Washington for 3 terms (do not quote me on that figure….my mind may be playing tricks on me…) But guess what? It is back and being put forth by some in the GOP….btw, are they not in the minority again?
This time it comes from Sen. DeMint of South Carolina…oh yeah…..he is a Repub….go figure……
In Washington, the rules of the game are rigged — in favor of bigger government, higher taxes, more debt, and the time-honored system of political back-scratching of “go along to get along.”
Fifteen years ago, Republicans — who had been out of power in Congress for forty years – made term limits a centerpiece of their “Contract with America” agenda.
The term limits constitutional amendment ultimately failed, in part because so many new reform-minded congressmen imposed term limits on themselves. After six or eight years, these members voluntarily went home, leaving behind those Republicans and Democrats who fully intended to make a career inside the beltway.
In 1996, when the GOP became the majority again…this idea was not so damn important and that is what will happen again if the GOP is lucky enough to return to the majority in 2010.
For a constitutional amendment to succeed it will have to pass the combined houses of the Congress and then go to the states for ratification….a time consuming agenda at best and it will most likely crap out long before it gets to the States.
My question is: Does having old farts stay in Washington for 30…40…50 years really make it good for the country or does it hinder the pursuit of any change or reform?
Excellent point about the self-serving nature of the term limit debate.
That aside, I think term limits would probably be beneficial for the public. A representative gains too much security after he’s been in office for 10-15-20 years; the war chest gets bigger, the name recognition sinks in and then it takes a monumental effort to unseat him/her.
Plus, in your response to the question you pose at the end, I think it absolutely inhibits meaningful change and reform, for the simple fact that they become institutionalized into the political game.
Hi Clint and welcome back…..I agree totally with term limits…..my idea is 10 yrs then out and no lobbying for 5 years after exiting …..I have heard some say that voting is a form of term limit…but I disagree since about 90% of incumbents gert re-elected…then voting is NOT a form of term limit….
Term limits do not need to be ratified by both chambers. Actually, the states can circumvent Congress altogether. That is how we ended up with prohibition.
Yeah, interesting how the McCarthyists want term limits when the are in the minority.
Happens every time, huh?