\"Duke\" Cunningham was a House Representative convicted of conspiracy in 2005. He is locked up in prison for his crimes. Amazingly, he pulls down a yearly pension larger than most of our yearly salaries.
Why the heck do Senators and Congresspeople even get pensions?
To me, it stems from a fundamental flaw in our political system - that politicians treat it as a career. We were smart enough to cap Presidential terms. But why are Senators and Congresspeople exempt?
I have a sincere problem with the Strom Thurmonds, Ted Kennedys, and John McCains of the world. To me, you should be able to serve for a fixed amount of time, perhaps run for a second term, and that's it. You either move up the ladder to President, or you back off and let the new blood in. The notion that the same guy can be in power for 45 years (in Kennedy's case) is ABSURD.
Talk Term Limits
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
There are always 2 sides to a coin, the other being imposing term limits is much like discrimination.
I haven't really heard a strong argument for either case, so I'm on the fence for this one, but I too am also interested in this discussion.
I haven't really heard a strong argument for either case, so I'm on the fence for this one, but I too am also interested in this discussion.
I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on disk somewhere.
-
Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4689
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
How about no term limits but each year they are in office the penalty for murdering them lessens....
So kill a congressman in his first year and the penalty is murder.
Year two it's manslaughter.
Year three it's assault with a deadly weapon.
Year four it's littering.
Year five you get a nasty letter from congress and your tax return gets delayed by a month.
Year six you get extra frequent flyer miles added to your account.
Year seven....well that's a rare beast to hunt so... you get to stuff him like a trophy and display him anywhere you want and you get a brand new rifle from Winchester or Ruger!
Year eight he gets to go back to the protections of year one and start the cycle over because if he lasts that long he must be a good guy.
So kill a congressman in his first year and the penalty is murder.
Year two it's manslaughter.
Year three it's assault with a deadly weapon.
Year four it's littering.
Year five you get a nasty letter from congress and your tax return gets delayed by a month.
Year six you get extra frequent flyer miles added to your account.
Year seven....well that's a rare beast to hunt so... you get to stuff him like a trophy and display him anywhere you want and you get a brand new rifle from Winchester or Ruger!
Year eight he gets to go back to the protections of year one and start the cycle over because if he lasts that long he must be a good guy.
Hahah. Insomuch as I'm going to Hell for saying it, there is a definite truth behind V for Vendetta's moral that the government should fear its constituents - not the other way around.
I don't really see it as discrimination and, even if it was, how is the Presidency any different? Term limits on the President was a really smart idea. Certainly, it leads to the departure of good Presidents, but the country has to move on.
I like to think of public service in the Senate or Congress as a voluntary duty, sort of like being part of a school's PTC. It's not something you should be able to make into a long career. Senators, for example, serve for six-year terms. If they were allowed to run twice - thus twelve years - that seems long enough.
The intent behind term limits is two-fold in my opinion.
First, it keeps new blood and new ideas flowing. When anyone is allowed to fester in a guaranteed job, such as having tenure, they lose touch with reality. They figure they will simply continue to get elected and continue to pull down a $160,000/yr paycheck, regardless of what their constituency thinks. They become an institution. They tow the party line or stick to their guns on beliefs their constituency disagrees with because they will rarely be \"punished\" for doing so.
Second, I think term limits would make things more difficult for lobbyists and special interest groups. It doesn't eliminate them - as I don't think anything can. But it paints a moving target. They could spend millions winning over a given candidate, only to have that candidate move on in a handful of years. They would then have to appease an entirely new candidate. Multiply this across all Senators and Congresspeople and you create a problem for them.
Once out of office, there are plenty of opportunities for politicians. Writing books. Going on CNN as an (insert specialty here) analyst. Criticizing newcomers. Whatever.
I don't really see it as discrimination and, even if it was, how is the Presidency any different? Term limits on the President was a really smart idea. Certainly, it leads to the departure of good Presidents, but the country has to move on.
I like to think of public service in the Senate or Congress as a voluntary duty, sort of like being part of a school's PTC. It's not something you should be able to make into a long career. Senators, for example, serve for six-year terms. If they were allowed to run twice - thus twelve years - that seems long enough.
The intent behind term limits is two-fold in my opinion.
First, it keeps new blood and new ideas flowing. When anyone is allowed to fester in a guaranteed job, such as having tenure, they lose touch with reality. They figure they will simply continue to get elected and continue to pull down a $160,000/yr paycheck, regardless of what their constituency thinks. They become an institution. They tow the party line or stick to their guns on beliefs their constituency disagrees with because they will rarely be \"punished\" for doing so.
Second, I think term limits would make things more difficult for lobbyists and special interest groups. It doesn't eliminate them - as I don't think anything can. But it paints a moving target. They could spend millions winning over a given candidate, only to have that candidate move on in a handful of years. They would then have to appease an entirely new candidate. Multiply this across all Senators and Congresspeople and you create a problem for them.
Once out of office, there are plenty of opportunities for politicians. Writing books. Going on CNN as an (insert specialty here) analyst. Criticizing newcomers. Whatever.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Re:
True, but if the only choice for 'the other guy' has to be approved by a controlling authority on the payroll of wealthy lobbiests then your choice is extremely compromised!ccb056 wrote:If the majority of voters wan't another guy in office, the other guy will be in office.
It's supposed to be a representative republic not a private club that lets us common folks peek in the windows but only when they feel like it!
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Re:
We can't completely eliminate the Mafia either, but at least with that group of career criminals we can lock them up most of the time!Kyouryuu wrote:...Second, I think term limits would make things more difficult for lobbyists and special interest groups. It doesn't eliminate them - as I don't think anything can....
-
Mobius
- DBB_Master
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
- Contact:
I like your thinking Will.
Here's another way to get them out of politics too: for the first 10 years you raise their salaries by ten percent every year. At year 11 you decrease the salaries by 10% each year - so that in year 20 they get no salary at all.
I'm pretty sure that'd result in politicians retiring from office in the 11th year.
Here's another way to get them out of politics too: for the first 10 years you raise their salaries by ten percent every year. At year 11 you decrease the salaries by 10% each year - so that in year 20 they get no salary at all.
I'm pretty sure that'd result in politicians retiring from office in the 11th year.
Um, your math is a little off Mobi. Unless of course you're saying 10% off the original salary, not not the previous salary.
Anyway, term limits were never part of the original constitution. Then again, neither was the abolition of slavery nor women voting.
Anyway, term limits were never part of the original constitution. Then again, neither was the abolition of slavery nor women voting.
I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on disk somewhere.
term limits are nice if you can find fresh blood to run,
There is a high financial and personal cost to first time contenders, spending a lot of time on the road, giving up your employment for little promise of actually winning.
A government committee looking into getting more people to run have recommended that the salary for MPs be raised to match that of company executives, add to the fact that there are minimum age limits for congressmen really reduces the reason for someone just starting a family to run.
Term limits for the presidency came out of concern of having a president die in office, especially in the case of when a change in that possition isn't the most beneficial - FDR died just after winning his forth term, and thankfully just before the end of the war in Europe, but just after pretty much giving eastern europe to Stalin at the yalta conference due to his failing health. The two limit, and the 22nd and 25th amendments were brought forth due largely to issues surrounding FDR's last months in office.
The issues concerning the white house have little application to congressmen, so to enact term limits for them would mean at least another constitutional amendment that would also remove the age minimums and a significant pay increase and other financial assistances, just to get people to run.
There is a high financial and personal cost to first time contenders, spending a lot of time on the road, giving up your employment for little promise of actually winning.
A government committee looking into getting more people to run have recommended that the salary for MPs be raised to match that of company executives, add to the fact that there are minimum age limits for congressmen really reduces the reason for someone just starting a family to run.
Term limits for the presidency came out of concern of having a president die in office, especially in the case of when a change in that possition isn't the most beneficial - FDR died just after winning his forth term, and thankfully just before the end of the war in Europe, but just after pretty much giving eastern europe to Stalin at the yalta conference due to his failing health. The two limit, and the 22nd and 25th amendments were brought forth due largely to issues surrounding FDR's last months in office.
The issues concerning the white house have little application to congressmen, so to enact term limits for them would mean at least another constitutional amendment that would also remove the age minimums and a significant pay increase and other financial assistances, just to get people to run.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
They aren't in it for the salary. The lifetime benefits are a perk but you only get that if you serve a certain number of terms.
The real draw to the job is power, the kind you get to wield and the kind that feeds the ego. The real payoff is the under the table dirty deals and the lobbiest job that awaits you when you leave.
Reform the campaign finance system and eliminate lobbiests and you clean up congress which would solve lots of problems.
There are plenty of ways for interest groups or individual industries, or even individual companies to plead their case before congress to seek aid or protection.
There is no good reason to have the corrupt system we have now where they bribe our representatives to get their way and the highest bidders get to choose who goes on the short list that we have to use to elect a leader from!!!
The real draw to the job is power, the kind you get to wield and the kind that feeds the ego. The real payoff is the under the table dirty deals and the lobbiest job that awaits you when you leave.
Reform the campaign finance system and eliminate lobbiests and you clean up congress which would solve lots of problems.
There are plenty of ways for interest groups or individual industries, or even individual companies to plead their case before congress to seek aid or protection.
There is no good reason to have the corrupt system we have now where they bribe our representatives to get their way and the highest bidders get to choose who goes on the short list that we have to use to elect a leader from!!!
-
Kilarin
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2403
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: South of Ft. Worth Texas
What frightens me most is that we need term limits in a country where our representatives are democratically elected.
You would THINK that people would be smart enough to change their leadership occasionally. But they aren't. We have to defend democracy from democracy, and that is a scary place to be.
On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does. -Will Rogers
You would THINK that people would be smart enough to change their leadership occasionally. But they aren't. We have to defend democracy from democracy, and that is a scary place to be.
On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does. -Will Rogers
Here's the problem. Sen Carl Levin is my state Senator. Been there forever and a day. Problem is when election cycle comes about the democrats do no have anyone who runs against Levin in the primaries. So all the democrats who pull the \"One Lever That Rules All\" and vote straight democratic have never had the chance to vote in the primaries for a Levin replacement. Ergo no real choice.