Term limits in US national posts

[wmw999 2,117]

For a long time, there have been arguments pro and con. I've generally come down against term limits, because we do, in fact, lose expertise in Congress when someone good and experienced ("good" obviously a judgment) leaves Congress.

But I think I'm coming down more and more pro term limits; if nothing else, the Baby Boomer generation (yes, I'm one) is so long-lived, that the average age of congresscritters is now 59, and the median is 60. And a 60-year-old has potentially 20+ more years of serving, the way things are now. Frankly, that's ridiculous.

When the country was young, so were the people, and the members of Congress were also younger, and generally served for less time. It's one thing when there are one or two old gray-hairs who can come in with wise opinions (like Franklin during the Revolution time), but when nearly everyone is a wise old gray hair, they're going to be thinking more short-term, because they're also human beings. Some of them don't buy green bananas...

Yes, it's an interruption to a career if there are limits. Tough shit -- it's supposed to be public service, kind of like serving on a jury. 5 terms for the US House, and 2 terms for the Senate. Or, for Senators (because there are only 2 for each state), maybe a combined max of 4 terms between the two.

We do lose expertise. On the other hand, we might gain some flexibility. Lobbyists might become more powerful, or they might become less powerful, and that, to me, is another huge problem, and one that the brilliant minds of SC should also be able to address...

Thoughts?

Wendy P.

[DougH 270]

38 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Yes, it's an interruption to a career if there are limits. Tough shit -- it's supposed to be public service, kind of like serving on a jury. 5 terms for the US House, and 2 terms for the Senate. Or, for Senators (because there are only 2 for each state), maybe a combined max of 4 terms between the two.

I don't have an ounce of sympathy for the impact to representatives "careers", and I am skeptical about there being any real impact. Even with term limits the job will continue to be a tool for personal enrichment. I don't think this will change the impact of lobbyists, so our representatives will just go through the revolving door sooner. 

I am actually less concerned about the loss of "expertise"; much of their expertise is borrowed from their staff and lobbyists. Their personal expertise is political games and remaining in office. I am however concerned about the higher turnover increasing the importance of the primary system that allows a small largely ideologically extreme portion of the population to shape the pool of candidates that we have to choose from. You may find Mitch reprehensible, but his is likely standing in the way of someone that could be way way worse given the current political and ideological climate in the country.

----

Lets scrap it all and switch to a public service draft. Candidates are selected based on some combination of representative demographics and expertise, and we vote for that pool of candidates. No campaigning, no bullshit, you get to pick from Doctor A or Doctor B, Tradesman A or Tradesman B, and Teach A or Teacher B.

They go to the "Congressional island of doom" during their public service period, that limits the reach of lobbyists and other influences with agendas. Lobbyists have to swim to the island past the sharks. We bring in subject matter experts that are relevant to the legislation being crafted and debated.

After their tour of duty is up we have service award "elections" where we either reward them handsomely for answering their call to service and doing a good job, send them home with a plaque for mediocre service, or drop them into one of the islands volcanoes if they are a Marjorie Taylor Greene type of crazy.

I think my congressional island of doom has a high chance of getting put in place compared to the congress critters voting in their own term limits. 

Edited June 5, 2022 by DougH

[ryoder 1,381]

39 minutes ago, DougH said:

You may find Mitch reprehensible, but his is likely standing in the way of someone that could be way way worse given the current political and ideological climate in

He refused to do his constitutional duty to bring up a SCOTUS nomination for a vote, in order to stack the court later with GOP lackeys. He needs to be impeached, not re-elected.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

For a long time, there have been arguments pro and con. I've generally come down against term limits, because we do, in fact, lose expertise in Congress when someone good and experienced ("good" obviously a judgment) leaves Congress.

But I think I'm coming down more and more pro term limits; if nothing else, the Baby Boomer generation (yes, I'm one) is so long-lived, that the average age of congresscritters is now 59, and the median is 60. And a 60-year-old has potentially 20+ more years of serving, the way things are now. Frankly, that's ridiculous.

When the country was young, so were the people, and the members of Congress were also younger, and generally served for less time. It's one thing when there are one or two old gray-hairs who can come in with wise opinions (like Franklin during the Revolution time), but when nearly everyone is a wise old gray hair, they're going to be thinking more short-term, because they're also human beings. Some of them don't buy green bananas...

Yes, it's an interruption to a career if there are limits. Tough shit -- it's supposed to be public service, kind of like serving on a jury. 5 terms for the US House, and 2 terms for the Senate. Or, for Senators (because there are only 2 for each state), maybe a combined max of 4 terms between the two.

We do lose expertise. On the other hand, we might gain some flexibility. Lobbyists might become more powerful, or they might become less powerful, and that, to me, is another huge problem, and one that the brilliant minds of SC should also be able to address...

Thoughts?

Wendy P.

Hi Wendy,

Re:  And a 60-year-old has potentially 20+ more years of serving, the way things are now. Frankly, that's ridiculous.

Think Diane Feinstein *:  Dianne Feinstein - Wikipedia

88 yrs old & re-elected two yrs ago.  IMO that is insanity. 

Surely, there is at least one other Democrat in California ( 39 million residents ) who could do her job.

Like you, I have given this a fair amount of thought over the yrs.  Also, like you, I've read numerous articles both pro & con.  I've decided, again like you, that it's time has come.

The problem is that no one in Congress will support it.  And, without them changing the rules, it ain't gonna happen.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Jerry Baumchen

*  I've been reading recently that a number of her colleagues think she is suffering from early on-set of dementia.  At her age, it is fairly probable.

 

[jakee 1,254]

Surely term limits for elected officials in pools of 100 and 435 are less important than term limits for appointed judges in a pool of 9?

[wmw999 2,117]

4 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

*  I've been reading recently that a number of her colleagues think she is suffering from early on-set of dementia.  At her age, it is fairly probable.

 

At 88, that's not early onset. Right now, the Doonesbury reruns in our paper are going through the part where Joanie tells Lacey Davenport that it's time to resign because of dementia. I have a feeling that's not random.

Wendy P.

[kallend 1,621]

18 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Wendy,

Re:  And a 60-year-old has potentially 20+ more years of serving, the way things are now. Frankly, that's ridiculous.

Think Diane Feinstein *:  Dianne Feinstein - Wikipedia

88 yrs old & re-elected two yrs ago.  IMO that is insanity. 

Surely, there is at least one other Democrat in California ( 39 million residents ) who could do her job.

Like you, I have given this a fair amount of thought over the yrs.  Also, like you, I've read numerous articles both pro & con.  I've decided, again like you, that it's time has come.

The problem is that no one in Congress will support it.  And, without them changing the rules, it ain't gonna happen.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Jerry Baumchen

*  I've been reading recently that a number of her colleagues think she is suffering from early on-set of dementia.  At her age, it is fairly probable.

 

My wife, a geriatrician specialist MD, tells me that "early onset" is a technical term for dementia starting around 50.  By 88 the onset is no longer "early".  The dementia might be in its early stages, but it didn't onset early.

[airdvr 197]

I think the biggest problem is the money.  The system has been titled in favor of corporations and the wealthy.  Those who can afford to make contributions in exchange for favorable treatment.  Until we remove that incentive it will only get worse.

[wmw999 2,117]

Absolutely. We've weaponized capitalism and politics, and then we wonder why things went wrong. Capitalism and politics are supposed to be means to an actual end, and not an end in and of themselves. Start with Citizens United, and let's figure out what our national goals actually are (besides owning each other, that is)

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

20 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I think the biggest problem is the money.  The system has been titled in favor of corporations and the wealthy.  Those who can afford to make contributions in exchange for favorable treatment.  Until we remove that incentive it will only get worse.

No kidding. We should establish a commission to figure out which political philosophy and party, in pursuit of selfish gains, stood by silently while their equally selfish leaders packed the US Supreme Court with hard right ideologues who handed down a decision allowing corporations and the wealthy to make huge contributions in exchange for favorable treatment. Then we should publish the report on twitter!