Do you support term limits for national / state offices?

[Charles L. Cotton]

If term limits were in place right now, I would be willing to bet wide and sweeping gun control would have passed this year.


Having Politicians worry about getting reelected isn't necessarily a bad thing....

Exactly right!

Chas.

[Keith B]

If term limits were in place right now, I would be willing to bet wide and sweeping gun control would have passed this year.


Having Politicians worry about getting reelected isn't necessarily a bad thing....

Exactly right!

Chas.

We need to make sure we keep the good ones and vote out the bad ones. If the good ones have a term limit, they will possibly be replaced by a bad one. Think about the US Supreme Court. We have the edge now, but if one of the conservative judges leaves during Obama's term, then we will be in a world of hurt.

[Jeff B.]

We have the edge now, but if one of the conservative judges leaves during Obama's term, then we will be in a world of hurt.

That may be one of the under-statements of the year.

Jeff B.

[rotor]

Basically the question should be, do you want more government or less government? Do you want more ridiculous laws or less laws? Think about it. Originally the concept was that people served part time in the congress and went back to their real jobs, much like the Texas legislature which meets every two years. When you have career politicians, what do they do? They pass laws, many of them sound good on paper but in reality are nightmares, like Obamacare, like assault rifle bans, etc. If you believe in a conservative view of government perhaps we should take more of the libertarian view that the sole purpose of government is to provide a military to protect us from foreign invasion, provide a banking and currency system and perhaps not a lot more. Right now we concentrate on "gun control" in this group, adding more stupid laws to the tons of other stupid laws out there. Don't forget, CHL was the reversal of previous law banning conceal carry- passed by the legislature. I think we should lean to less governmnet, fewer laws, end career politicians existence and let them return to a real job instead of vegetating and controlling our lives for example like Harry Reed does. Might as well be a dictator. So, I support term limits, less government, fewer laws especially those that make progressives feel good but take away my constitutional rights (Ms Feinstein are you reading this?)

[The Annoyed Man]

Basically the question should be, do you want more government or less government? Do you want more ridiculous laws or less laws? Think about it. Originally the concept was that people served part time in the congress and went back to their real jobs, much like the Texas legislature which meets every two years. When you have career politicians, what do they do? They pass laws, many of them sound good on paper but in reality are nightmares, like Obamacare, like assault rifle bans, etc. If you believe in a conservative view of government perhaps we should take more of the libertarian view that the sole purpose of government is to provide a military to protect us from foreign invasion, provide a banking and currency system and perhaps not a lot more. Right now we concentrate on "gun control" in this group, adding more stupid laws to the tons of other stupid laws out there. Don't forget, CHL was the reversal of previous law banning conceal carry- passed by the legislature. I think we should lean to less governmnet, fewer laws, end career politicians existence and let them return to a real job instead of vegetating and controlling our lives for example like Harry Reed does. Might as well be a dictator. So, I support term limits, less government, fewer laws especially those that make progressives feel good but take away my constitutional rights (Ms Feinstein are you reading this?)

I'm with you in sympathies, but that is because of frustration. Others are right that if we had term limits, it would remove the "need" politicians feel to get reelected. It is that "need" which moderates their behaviors......in some cases. It encourages their behaviors in others. For instance, the more radically leftists Nancy Pelosi behaves, the more she guarantees her reelections. So whether or not term limits affects reelection is largely a product of the rationality or insanity of their constituencies. For instance.......and I never really liked the guy as a politician.......I would wager that during his many terms in Congress, Ron Paul's supporters would not have supported term limits because it would have eliminated their "spiritual leader" (in political terms), who was a major figure in libertarian history. And yet, because they are also strongly libertarian, they would have likely supported term limits for everyone else. So this is a classic example of term limits cutting both ways for the same voters. I think Charles and others are right.....if we had term limits right now, with nothing to lose in terms of reelection, all those "blue dog" democrats who consistently vote pro-gun might very well have helped to pass an AWB.....not to mention those squishy republicans who are often categorized as RINOs.

That's why I don't think term limiting is ultimately a good idea. And yet, we still have a need to prevent the venal and the corrupt from getting elected. That is why I believe that the answer is to make the job unattractive on its face, so that only those who are properly motivated would want the job. Right now, congresspersons live like royalty.......on our nickel. Let them live like royalty on their nickel. Cut the pay in half. In 1789, a congressman received a $6 per diem. That was it. Any expenses beyond that came either out of their own pockets, or out of subsidies paid for directly by their own states. The citizens of VA were not required to subsidize the activities of the representative from MA, beyond the cost of a boarding house and paper pens and ink. Today, a congressman makes $174,00/year, paid for by ALL the taxpayers, PLUS all of their operating costs, paid for by ALL of the taxpayers, plus healthcare for life, paid for by ALL the taxpayers, plus a retirement package available only to themselves, in which they are fully vested before having completed one single term. If Obama had lost his first presidential campaign, he would have had these benefits for life by virtue of having served 2 years of a 6 year senatorial term.

Cut that $174,00/year in half, and now you have $87,000/year, which puts a congressman squarely into the middle class. Take away their ridiculous perks, and now they have to live like the rest of us live. Alternatively, $87,000 is $7,250/month....so limit their pay to only while congress is actually in session. Then, the rest of the year they have to live like the rest of us, and have a JOB. And several million residents of the DC area manage to live on far less than $7,250 per month, so if a congressperson can't do it, then there is good reason to not trust them with the nation's pursestrings. In other words, take away every incentive they have to STAY in DC.

Here's why: They think their job is to pass laws. Therefore, they justify their existence by passing lots of them. We are in trouble because we have too many laws. Since term limits affects good representatives as well as the bad, the answer is to stop giving bad people a reason to run for office. Let them give their energies to some other enterprise. They only enter politics because it is profitable for them. Making it unprofitable eliminates them, and leaves only those with servant hearts.

[Abraham]

Politicians consider themselves American aristocracy.

An old high school buddy of mine got himself elected as mayor of my old home town. (20,000 pop.)

During his tenure, he sent me a short, fatuous letter at the top which was posted "Honorable" and his name. I know him. He sent me the letter in order for me to be impressed with the title "Honorable".

I laughed out loud reading this transparent attempt to impress me.

Honorable...?

Puh-leeze.

If the suckers, I mean voters, only knew the man behind the, ahem, title.

It's the same for all politicians who just can't resist feeding at the trough, I mean serving the public...if you've voted for them, they quietly laugh at you for your trust in them...and keep on slurping up the gravy...

[fickman]

Basically the question should be, do you want more government or less government? Do you want more ridiculous laws or less laws? Think about it. Originally the concept was that people served part time in the congress and went back to their real jobs, much like the Texas legislature which meets every two years. When you have career politicians, what do they do? They pass laws, many of them sound good on paper but in reality are nightmares, like Obamacare, like assault rifle bans, etc. If you believe in a conservative view of government perhaps we should take more of the libertarian view that the sole purpose of government is to provide a military to protect us from foreign invasion, provide a banking and currency system and perhaps not a lot more. Right now we concentrate on "gun control" in this group, adding more stupid laws to the tons of other stupid laws out there. Don't forget, CHL was the reversal of previous law banning conceal carry- passed by the legislature. I think we should lean to less governmnet, fewer laws, end career politicians existence and let them return to a real job instead of vegetating and controlling our lives for example like Harry Reed does. Might as well be a dictator. So, I support term limits, less government, fewer laws especially those that make progressives feel good but take away my constitutional rights (Ms Feinstein are you reading this?)

To explore this some: wouldn't term limits require a new law. . . essentially more government. . . a new law to protect us from ourselves by limiting our freedom to keep a great representative around for a long time?

[MeMelYup]

It would depend on how it was written. If it stated two consecutive terms without a one term break.

[EconDoc]

We used to have term limits for Senators. Then they passed the 17th Amendment and destroyed the system of checks and balances. Representatives are as close as we come to democratic elections. They represent the voice of the people. Senators were supposed to represent the voice of the State. They were appointed by the Governor or Legislature and represented the party that was in power at the time. When the Governor or Legislature changed, the Senator might change too. Furthermore, Senators were not beholden to the people to represent their views. Now both houses are about the next election.

Repeal the 17th Amendment. Then let's see what impact that has before we make any further changes.

I find the notion of being afraid of term limits rather quaint. It's like saying, I love this guy that represents me now and there's not another person in my state who could do as well as he does. Really? How do you know if you don't try? Maybe fresh blood will bring the change we need. New ones wouldn't be quite so influenced by the "old" ones if the old ones were leaving soon.

Correction: We never had term limits for Senators. The 17th Amendment provided for direct, popular election of Senators. Before that, Senators were selected by vote of state legislatures. In practice, this meant that Senators represented the concerns of state governments. Yes, they did get replaced at the end of their terms if another party had taken power in the state legislature, but that was not term limits. And, if one party controlled the state for decades, as the Democrats did in the South after the Civil War, then the same person might be re-elected many times. Other than that one quibble, your post is essentially correct.

[fickman]

I left the poll open so that you can change your answers. . . for any of those who might have been swayed by reading through the discussion.

[The Annoyed Man]

I left the poll open so that you can change your answers. . . for any of those who might have been swayed by reading through the discussion.

OK, I voted "undecided." That'll learn yah!

[fickman]

I left the poll open so that you can change your answers. . . for any of those who might have been swayed by reading through the discussion.

OK, I voted "undecided." That'll learn yah!

Another chapter in my book of unintended consequences.

[rotor]

Several points. If we take away the gravy train salary and benefit package then only the rich can run for office and we would have an aristocracy, like the Kennedy clan and the Rockefeller clan. DC is an expensive place to live and maintain an abode and still maintain a home back home. So I don't deny them a salary. The retirement perks are too great now, I agree. I also believe that if we had term limits and elected honest good people ( Jimmy Stewart in Mr Smith goes to Washington type) they would vote for the good of the country and not for the hacks and industry that slips them the big bucks. Right now the day your congressman completes his first day in office he is soliciting for the next election. The people we have now are not there for the country, they are there for their own power. Why do we need term limits? Could anyone see this country surviving Mr. Obama for one more term? I rest my case. Does anyone want to keep Harry Reed? I rest my case. Sure we have some good ones but what I consider the bad ones stay in power forever. Rangel stll there right. What about Sheila what's her name from Houston area? We just can't get these people out by elections. What more proof do I need to provide. I know I am naive with the Jimmy Stewart stuff but the problem is that the crooks ( like Rangel) just keep getting elected.

[Abraham]

Rotor - Your heart's in the right place, but sorry to say, they're ALL crooks.

Conservative, Liberal, Independent.

In some cases, they may start out as principled individuals, but quickly get bullied into being corrupt.

Doubt it?

If you have a favorite politician, give them time and watch how they erode into the power/money grubbers they ultimately become.

Or, they're forced out, disillusioned and totally demoralized.

Politicians are our most elite gang members.

P.S. Look at how much Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner have in common with insider trading.

Their only difference?

Gender.

[rotor]

Abraham, I am an idealist. I hope you are wrong. Ted Cruz for example- I hope he doesn't turn. Like Star Wars, the darkside tends to take over. Or they quit, like Jim Demint. Somewhere there must be an honest man/woman that just cares about this country.