E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Carrie Dann and Ken Strickland
With over 70 percent of voters saying that they disapprove of the job Congress is doing, it’s not surprising that many of them are itching to “throw out the bums,” as GOP Sen. Jim DeMint put it on NBC's TODAY Show this morning.
But many Americans (including many First Read commenters during this week’s “Exit Interviews” series on the United States Senate) believe that it shouldn’t take an electoral defeat to show members of Congress the door.
They advocate for term limits that would cap the number of years lawmakers can serve on Capitol Hill.
The average length of service for senators this Congress is 12.8 years, just over two terms. It’s a full term longer for the senators who are leaving the chamber at the end of this year. The average length of service of the elected senators who are retiring or who were voted out this year (not including Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who will announce whether or not she will mount a write-in candidacy tomorrow) is 18.8 years.
Republican Sen. Sam Brownback is retiring this year because he limited himself to serving only two full terms. He believes that all senators should follow his example.
"You can find 100 competent people to do these jobs year in, year out," said the Kansas lawmaker in his exit interview with NBC News. "And you ought to have a change of blood and a change of ideas."
Brownback believes that, as senators serve longer, power is consolidated in fewer hands and over time creates a more partisan Congress.
Last year, Brownback joined Republicans Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas in proposing an amendment that would cap Senate service at two terms. (Hutchison is currently serving her third term, having failed to win the Republican nomination for governor in her home state in March.)
Term limits are gaining steam as a campaign issue as well. Several successful Tea Party candidates – including Colorado’s Ken Buck, Kentucky’s Rand Paul, and Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell – supported the idea during their primary campaigns.
It’s a popular idea. A recent FOX News poll found that almost eight in 10 registered voters said they would like to see a cap put on how long members of Congress can serve.
Brownback, who's now running for Kansas governor, also wants term limits for Supreme Court justices. Members of the high court have served lifetime appointments since the nation’s founding.
Either suggestion presents a steep climb for would-be reformers. Implementing term limits for either senators or justices would mean a constitutional amendment – which would require either a national constitutional convention or the approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress.
Leave a Comment:
I wholeheartedly support term limits of a way of forcing our elected officials to make the hard decisions that their constituents don't want to hear/don't understand. Of course, it will take more than that to, ahem, embolden our legislative branch.
Let's also shorten the election process and significantly alter it. More, and more widely televised, debates. Fewer (no?) advertisements. Public funds.
Also, a quick thank you to FR for recognizing some of the commenters here. We don't have many good ideas and heck, we shouldn't even claim credit for term limits. It's just nice to know that we're not shouting at each other for nothing every day.
Why should tax payer money go to election campaigns? We dont have the money to do anything without borrowing it or threatening to cut the fire dept, police and teachers if we dont print more money.
Why on God's green earth should we give money to politicians to run campaigns? Thats what the different (RNC / DNC Green Party, Libertarians) political paries are for.
And why shouldnt companies be able to donate money to campaigns when Unions can do it?
If you are going to say corprate America cant donate money then that means Unions shouldnt be able to either.
We all know that unions dont have the American peoples interests at heart (If its ok to accuse corporate America then the shoe fits here too.)
I would like to take private money, unions included, out of elections altogether. I never said one type of organization was better than another in regards to campaign donations.
Money talks, and in our current political system, politicians are forced to listen. I would like to take money out of the equation altogether and instead give all candidates televised speech time/debate time, though I think that is even less likely to occur than removing private money from the equation. I hope that would allow for more honesty and fewer stilted "facts" in our election season.
Actually Larry, there is a choice that you can make on your tax return that allows you to contribute (I think it's $3) to a election fund. Not Democratic, not Republican, just public financing of elections. Not sure about this, but I think it has no impact on your tax liablility, you're just targeting three dollars of your tax liability toward election funding.
Anon, I agree with you, shorten the cycle, no real reason whatsoever to spend roughly two years campaigning to be President, follow the British example, one month and done. Okay, maybe we can't quite get to that short of a cycle, but certainly no more than six months.
Every two years we can count on someone telling us that dissatisfaction with Congress is at very low, abysmally low, or at record low levels. Really? NO! NOT really. The fact is, generally voter dissatisfaction is with the OTHER Congress folks. Mine is just fine, thank you. Yours is an idiot. That's why Congressional turnover is so low. We just keep sending OUR wonderful pork barrelers back.
But NOW, there's going to be a "wave". Voter dissatisfaction is so virulent that instead of sending back 90+% of these miscreants who are running for re-election, we're only going to return 80+%. Boy, are we mad and we'll flex and limit their number of limited terms. That's how it's supposed to work. The Constitution already limits terms; two years for Representatives, six years for Senators, and four for Presidents, although a President actually does have a limited number of terms - two.
A limit on the number of terms an elected official may serve is totally anathema to the notion of self-governance. It is the ultimate in the anti-choice position. That is what elections are about, isn't it? Choice. (Maybe some day, ALL of America will open their collective eyes and realize that the Pro-choice position is about far more than reproductive rights.)
California adopted this insane "term limit" position with horrible consequences. The effects of the Prop. 13 super-majority requirement aside, what has happened is that Californians erased the institutional memory of their legislature. That means legislation is largely written by staffers and lobbyists - people utterly insulated from the electorate and virtually unaccountable to the citizenry. Gosh, what a great idea.
Do you really want someone - once again - restricting your right to choose? If there is a clearer path to elections falling completely under the control of big money, I can't imagine what it would be.
I have the misfortune of being represented by a Congresswoman who most assuredly does not represent my views. Indeed, she does not represent anyone from our district. She is held in total thrall by John Boehner. When he says, "Jump," she asks how high on the way up. While it's true I have only one vote - just like you - I'll use it. I'll be doing my damnedest to limit her term. I'll do it, I don't need anyone to do it for me. That's my job. I'll do mine. You do yours.
The British cycle is 90 days. No advertisements outside of 90 days, and 3 televised debates in the final 30 days. I like that system as well.
I don’t view it as a restriction of my rights, I view it as an increase in the freedoms of our elected officials. I’m all for freedom of the people, but sadly, the majority of the American public is uninformed, misinformed, willfully ignorant, or plain stupid. We want more for less, and we don’t care about the mutual exclusivity of the two. Rather than piss the electorate off, the legislative branch addresses few problems, and the ones it does address are not taken on wholeheartedly. A change in term limits and the election cycle (see above) would make our elected officials more free to make the decisions the people don’t wish to make or don’t understand.
I don’t think having staffers write bills is such a huge problem, if their bosses have to stand up and represent it. I suppose that goes against the above paragraph though. If we increase freedom to legislators by making them less accountable to the populace, they don’t have to represent the bills their employees write. Still, I am less concerned with this and more concerned with the ignorance of the populace.
Could you clarify how would term limits bring more big money than elections already do? How would that increase the problem of special interests?
We already have term limits...it's called VOTING
So, GET OUT AND VOTE each election cycle...
Just and fyi...California has had 'term limits' in place since the 90's and it is one of the biggest mistakes that has ever happened and part of the reason we have the problems we have...
All 'term limits' does is get out 'people' when they are finally understanding the process...the staffers are the only ones who have institutional memory...only the 'staffers' stay on from one office holder to the next, the staffers are the ones who 'draft' law heavily influenced by lobbyists.
How Have Term Limits Affected the
California Legislature?
"The effects on Sacramento’s policymaking processes
have been more profound. In both houses, committees now
screen out fewer bills assigned to them and are more likely
to see their work rewritten at later stages. The practice of
“hijacking” Assembly bills—gutting their contents and
amending them thoroughly in the Senate—has increased
sharply.
As a body, the Legislature is less likely to alter the
Governor’s Budget, and its own budget process neither
encourages fiscal discipline nor links legislators’ requests
to overall spending goals. In addition, legislative oversight
of the executive branch has declined significantly. (Giving us Governors like GAS that act more like a dictator than willing to work for the people)
The authors’ interviews with members and their staff revealed a
widespread sense in Sacramento that something needs to be
done soon to provide more stability and expertise to the
Legislature’s policymaking process..... "
Voters continually have low approval ratings for congress but we have a 98% incumbency rate - what would you do to educate the populace?
The article you linked highlighted the need for a great deal of changes aside from term limits, but does not come close to calling it a mistake.
"Few of the most fervent hopes of Proposition 140’s
backers—or the worst fears of its opponents—have materialized.
Even so, term limits have dramatically changed
California’s Legislature.
With this thought in mind, the authors make several recommendations
about training, the budget process, and modifying
term limits...
The authors also conclude that the Legislature could
ensure more stability and responsibility in the budget process
by:
• Holding more joint Senate-Assembly subcommittee hearings
to work out agreements in specific funding areas.
• Giving these subcommittees specific funding targets to
work within.
• Reporting proposals from each house’s subcommittees
under closed rules so that they are not easily changed in
the budget conference committee. This former practice
of “locking” budget items on which both houses agreed
should be reinstated to make subcommittee hearings
more consequential.
• Strengthening the Legislative Analyst’s Office, giving it a
larger role, and staffing it at previous levels.
• Making chairs of the budget subcommittees members of
the final budget conference committee to ensure that
agreements made early on are adhered to more closely in
the final stages."
Well if you don't like that, then a simple google search for 'negative effects of term limits on California' will lead you to numerous sites...
There is also this interesting 59 min. video where the effects of term limits are the topic...
I'll have to watch the video some time.
I didn't say term limits were the solution. I think they're one of a great many changes that need to be made to make the political process more open, honest, and effective.
What would you do to modernize the process?
Absolutely!!!
But don't stop there...NO PENSSION OR MED BENNIES FOR LIFE!!!! Give them a "severance" equal to time served but THATS IT!!!, and that is fair.
In addition, if they are found doing anything crooked during their terms, they get NODDA!!!
AM...As I originally stated...
VOTE...
get out and VOTE,
make an effort to VOTE,
get your friends and family out to VOTE...
(do you see a trend here?)
With an electorate that doesn't vote, they have no connection to what is happening in the halls of government...It is their own 'damn' fault for not participating in the process if things don't turn out the way they want...
All term limits does is allow the citizens a lazy way out of participating...
Now, Roscoe...those things have already been addressed by the citizens of CA...our legislature already has those 'restrictions' in place...That was a good thing that we did.
So you believe that the voters of today have a proper, realistic and informed connection to what is happening?
My point is that the people, including many active voters, don't know what they want. Again, they want more services and they want them now, but they don't want to pay for them. They're further harmed by news sources that can seem to serve up conflict and narratives on a daily basis, but very little objectively reported information. This, of course, also needs to change.
Heck no...most just vote along 'party' lines...but at least they are out there voting...And most 'media' is controlled by a limited number of 'corporations' so I tend not to trust them as much either...BUT...that is no excuse not to do your own research wherever and whenever you can....I bet more than half the people on this article don't even vote, but they are more than happy to make a comment about the 'process'...
As to your question about what I would like to do...I would like to see 'truth in advertising' applied to all campaign's, sure...I would like to see 'transparency' as far as who is funding what 'ad or documentary' that supports anything political (be it about a candidate or a 'position' on a bill/law). I would like to see public financing of campaigns...(I would really like to see an end to corporate lobbying...but we all can't live in a dream world...)
Look at the current CA governors race...Meg Whitman gave herself another 15 million yesterday making this gubernatorial race the most 'expensive' ever in the nations history...(she already spent over 100+ million of her own money)...She is trying to 'buy' her way into GAS's boot-steps...
Well we agree on all of those things, including the amount of naivete it takes to believe they'll happen. =D
I can't help but look at the CA governor's race. I live in the state, and Whitman's ads are everywhere.
EVERYWHERE?....that is a classical understatement of epic proportions....
I can't stand her...I am so sick of seeing her face...There is no way I want to see her in office after this last year of ads on her part...
It's called apathy.
Many citizens are unhappy with their representatives, but unless policy directly affects their daily lives, no one cares enough to make an effort to go out an voice an opinion. That's why the Tea Party is so impressive. (Agree or disagree with their platform). People are finally motivated enough to make a stand, have a voice, and speak out. God Bless America.
I don't so much want to rely on term limits as I want these scoundrils perp walked when they are caught. Charley Rangle is a tax evading whore and should have been indited by the IRS but his house club membership precludes that. Show me where that's written. Let their colleagues have at them after the people's court is done with them.
Hell yes as validated by the facts that Harlem voters don't let the fact that Sorry Charlie Rangel has 13 ethics charges prevent them from making him their Representative for a TWENTY FIRST TERM !! I'd even settle for a 10 term limit,that would mean the "Contract with America" Reps (the ones that were going to bring up term limits until they passed and conveniently forgot about it once in office) would be nearing their last round up !! Twenty years is plenty of time to serve your district while not long enough to have to rolled in on your death bed to cast your last vote (hopefully) !!
People should vote for the people they believe represent their interests. Why should an incumbent who the voters trust be arbitrarily ousted? Voting for the candidate of your choice should a basic American right. Of course I may change my mind when some of these right wing whack jobs get into office.
Incumbents have far too many advantages. Term limits should be REQUIRED to remove these advantages.
THis should be public service and should be limited. There is no way that we cannot replace all of Congress every few years and have a better outcome. We could do better with random picks from state phonebooks. Most of the time, inaction is the best course for Congress.
Term limits? Definitely.
I'm torn on this issue. But from what I've heard we will get a more conservative legislative body. In the states that have term limits they have more conservative legislatures. So for that reason I'd be for it. Most Americans tend to be conservative.
Do you have statistics to back this up? Conservative in what way - Social, Fiscal, or some other form of conservatism? Do you think there is any correlation between term limits and conservatism? If so, what?
Conservative as in "my God is better than Your God" I'd guess.
But seriously- I always thougth we had term limits, and they were called 'free elections'.
This isn't working too well, though in that the first thing a candidate does upon winning election or re-elecction is- start trying to figure out how to win again next time. Not much else gets done.
Drive-by,
EXACTLY!!! "Gather unto myself all I can for special interest favors" Thats what career politics is all about.
Do we really have "free" elections? How much money is spent to get elected on the national level? Its a LOT and when a LOT is spent someone is owed and it is NOT the voters. And certain districts keep re-electing the same ones (Ragel) who over time think they can get away with whatever and do. And the worse part is their actions cost the rest of us taxpayers that are not in their district and don't benefit for their "pork". And if it is so good to have all of these "experienced" congressmen and senators WHY are we in the shape we are in?
Obama is a perfect example of constant campaining, didn't do anything in IL except vote "present" and campaign for senator. When he became senator immediatley started running for President. Thank goodness we have had term limits for president of Clinton would still be president.
Or W Bush. Or the preserved remains of Jackson.
The point is less about one politician you dislike and more about the system, which does seem to require constant campaigning.
John mcCain is a classic example of the need for term limits. he has changed his views on immigration too many times, 4 years ago he was all for reform, now he is running for re-election using illegals as his platform.
i don't think our founding father had invisioned a member of congress serving for 30 years. way way too long.
evidently he does what the people want or like everyone says vote him out.the canidates that lose evidently are not who thier state wants
I can only speak for the Democrats and I know many Democrats I would not want to see term limited. Al Franken, Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, Maria Cantwell, Amy Klobuchar to name just a few. They are extraordinary Senators, who care about the direction the country is taking. And I would hate to lose them. They are sane, selfless, intelligent Senators.
They are sane, selfless, intelligent Senators....
Yeah, and at one point so were Charlie Rangel and Ted Stevens. Too many years in and the corruption begins.
al franken!?
Yes, Al Franken. Maybe we shouldn't make it so lucrative. Cut their pay, reduce their retirement and cut their health care. Make it so they have to be in the house or senate for 30 years before they can draw retirement or health care and not a combination of both.
Unless they voted against the Health Care Reform bill, I have to question whether they are either sane, selfless, or intelligent. Selfless, intelligent people do not force legislation through that they know the country does not want.
We HAVE term limits. All you have to do is vote them out.
The demand for term limits tend to come from those people whose "favorite" party doesn't win.
jcbwell, yes we have term limits. I don't think people realize that for some reason. We can vote them out. Not everybody in Congress is a sell-out. And the ones who aren't, should stay if their states want them. Usually it takes many years to make a difference. It's that way in practically all jobs.
Sherrod Brown is a self serving piece of garbage.
Please................Al Franken is a saturday night joke who could not take defeat so he had to insist on recounts for months when accorn was doing thier unlawful voteing fraud.
I'd agree with this list. Especially, Maria Cantwell. However, for every one of those you see one or more who really need to get out of the way. It seems that 12 years should be long enough to make your impact and groom someone to replace you.
Nice joke. Could anyone keep a straight face through that post?
Ah come on guys frankin wasn't getting many laughs on SNL, but he is very funny pretending to be a Senator
Term limits will be a huge boost to the creation of an entrenched bureaucracy of congressional aides and lobbyists that will effectively govern the country without being elected.
Term limits will not increase the likliehood of this. I think it is the other way around. A multiple term senator is likly to have the same staff and suppor the same lobbiests year after year. Get a new Senator or congressman in and he/seh will want their own staff and may not get along with certain lobbiests in place forcing whoever is supporting the lobbiest to replace them. Besides, even if the senator/congressman doesn't bring in a whole new staff, the elected official will still be the one casting the vote for the bill and that is what counts the most.
I'm not for sure term limits are the way to go. Voters should be able to vote out those that are abusing their powers or not doing what they were elected to do. California has term limits and it hasn't changed anythiing. The people serve in the Assembly then when termed out they run for the State Senate or some other political office. I do believe in term limits for all federal judges, I don't believe anyone should have a life time appointment.
I'll happily bet you $500 Charlie Rangel gets re-elected this fall.
What about Charlie Rangel? He's under ethics investigations and still wins his primary?!? This is why term limits matter. When certain districts only ever vote along party lines, you have Senators/Congressman who aren't affraid to break the law or rules to gain personally because they know it won't matter come election time.
In Charlie Rangel's case it is the stupid voters in his district, where corruption is a way of life. Remember a congressman by the name of Adam Clayton Powell got reelected in the same district while a fugitive from justice.
sfcret, you are correct, term limits haven't worked in CA for a simple reason: when a state legislator is termed out in one house, he/she runs in the other house. Or, they migrate to one of the various boards in CA that collect termed out politicians at outragious salaries and perks.
How would the term limit effect congressional pensions? Would we just be giving more people pensions they probably do not need?
That's a good point. Given the time to prepare for their exit from the legislature, they shouldn't need much of one, if any.
Defined Benefit Pension Plan: You are given a set amount of money per year when you retire.
Defined Contribution Pension Plan: Your employer puts away a set amount of money per year (that you are working) that goes towards your retirement.
Congress currently has a Defined Benefit Plan. They should get a Defined Contribution Plan because that is what most Americans are offered these days when they enter the work force (if they are offered any pension at all).
Or a simple severance package. I have a hard time believing that these public servants won't land on their feet. They seem to have a lot less trouble than their constituents.
There shouldn't be any retirement benefits for elected officials. Politics should not be a career. That is the problem in the first place. Let them contribute to social security like the little people do. Let them be responsible and set up I.R.A.'s for themselves. Public office is "Public Service"! Nobody should be going into politics looking to leech off of the public. With term limits, and elimination of retirement benefits, they would be forced to go back to work in the private sector where, hopefully, they can put their IVY league education to work making money, and paying taxes. Also the Public Employees Retirement Fund should be combined with Social Security. There is no reason to have two separate accounts.
Congress' DBP is called Social Security, just as yours and mine and it has been this way since 1984. Do a little research people before you speak about Congressional benefits. Their medical benefits end upon leaving Congress (while in Congress, they are insured under the same plans as other federal employees.) After leaving Congress (if before 62/66 retirement ages), they get NO retirement until they reach the same retirement age as all other SS recipients. Their retirement benefits have a little more complicated calculation though.
Let them serve two(2) terms and make them pay into Social Security and Medicare. If our members of Congress were paying into SS & medicare like most of us do this system would be fixed in a snap of the fingers. As it is they get pensions paid out for the rest of their lives and if married their spouse also gets their full retirement incl. med for the rest of their lives, what a sweet deal.
No federal employees pay into Social security.
You are right Salt Grass, however federal employees do pay into medicare. If we have term limits then those elected could not receive any federal retirement.
Mr. Salt Grass - you have no idea what you're talking about.
All federal employees now pay into Social Security and into Medicare, including members of Congress. As I noted above, there are NO medical benefits other than Medicare for Congress after leaving office, nor benefits for their spouses.
I'm amazed that only 95% of us think congress should have term limits. I guess a couple of congressmen or women must have voted. Of course our professional thief class will never put this in place on themselves
Considering the structure of how they are elected and how they affect the rest of the country, not sure it matters. They are elected by the voters in their districts and as long as the voters in their particular districts are happy with them and their values they will just elect someone like the predecessor. As long as they are getting everyone else's tax money from around the country for little pet projects and it benefits their constituency, nothing will change. California gets to spend tax receipts paid by Texans but we have no say. It's just a crazy system. Look at Charlie Rangel, and others like him, they will keep voting him in no matter how crooked he is because he provides for his voters and his voters don't care about anything except themselves and as long as they are taken care of, they don't worry about the rest of the country. We just need a new system. We'd be a lot better off if every district just spent the money their districts contributed to the pot.
Actually, you just stated some of the reasons we SHOULD have term limits. Incumbency has tremendous advantages when running for re-election (which they do ALL the time). Agreed, we can't fix stupid voters with term limits, but we can make them think for a change.
I don't care who or what party is in Congress. They have NO business making it a business.
An idea who's time is long overdue
Good to know FR listens to us. I have had mixed feelings about term limits in the past since voters can limit the terms but the trouble is, they don't. Incumbents have a huge financial advantage over challengers. They amass campaign funds for years and it is an unfair advantage. A good example is Iowa's Grassley who has millions stashed away; his challenger Roxanne Conlin has limited dollars to match his dollar advantage for TV and radio ads. She is gaining on him in the polls but her lack of funds will hinder getting her message out to voters. So far, Grassley refuses to debate her. What's Grassley afraid of? Could he be afraid she would shred his false claims? Another advantage to term limits--no pension, they would be on social security like the rest of us. When Grassley retires, he will get $139,000 annual pension.
We already have term limits. They're called elections. When enough people vote for the other guy/gal, the incumbent's terms get limited. But seriously, what's wrong with elections? I favor repeal of the 22nd Amendment myself. Any assessment of presidential second terms since the effective date of the 22nd Amendment shows that presidents get careless, reckless, and in Reagan's case, lawless when they become lame ducks. We would be doing this to all of our legislators. It is a good thing to have them always working for re-election. Otherwise, they tend not to listen or in some cases, show up.
Term limits are NOT the issue. The system that supports committee chairmanships based almost exclusively on seniority causes voters to reelect their incumbents because of their power as opposed to their ability. If that protocol is changed, the VOTERS will insure there are term limits.
If you want term limits badly enough vote the incumbent out. Term limits is just another way of citizens abdicating responsibility.
I think if any of us were truly inspired to serve the public and knew we had a limited amount of time to effect changes or help make policy, partisan politics would not be a priority. I think we'd be more creative and more flexible, and it's quite possible some amazing ideas could come out of that fresh air constantly circulating in D.C. I think the median age of public servants would also decrease since we'd know we couldn't count on a job til we die.
Salt Grass says, "No federal employees pay into Social security."
That's false. We in the military pay social security taxes and we're on the federal payroll.
Term limits would eliminate some excellent, honest legislators. The problem is not the number of terms but the seniority system in the House and Senate. Limit the number of years a legislator can be the chairman of a committee and limit the rules that prevent newly elected representatives from introducing legislation, serving as committee chairmen, etc. Change the rules that create power in seniority.
There is NO one in Congress that can not be replaced. No one. The number of terms IS the problem. Incumbents are almost always re-elected because they have every advantage.
If we can't find 535 reasonable people out of 300 million every few years, we aren't trying.
Do away with congress all together!
Yeah! We should anoint a King!
Now this is something I will actually AGREE with FR about.
Ive said for many years term limits should be set at 1 maybe 2 terms tops.
Why?
Well first off you would never see another Robert Byrd, Charlie Rangel, John McCain, Joe Biden, Kennedy, Arlen Specter etc.
Those are all folks who have (had RIP Kennedy and Byrd) been in office far too long and I believe actually believe that that seat is THEIRS and not the constituents in which they SERVE.
If we keep term limits at 1 to 2 terms this will actually make the Reps and Sens. do the job they are there to do and not spend anywhere from 20-25% of each term campaigning.
Agree. Except with the 20-25% number. It's more like 80-100%.
Of course without term limits politicians aren't concerned with anything but getting elected the next term. The problem is to get term limits the very people effected by the term limits would have to vote for it. Which unfortunately would never happen.
Here is an Idea for congress;
1. If you are a rookie (voted in for the first time) you get to serve for 2 years in the House.
2. If you get voted in a second time you get to serve for 3 years.
3. If you get voted in a third time you serve for 3 more years and then you are done with the House.
4. You can run for the Senate at any time. Same Scenario.......
This way no congressman spends more theh 16 years in congress.
We the voters do have a way to force this issue. It is called Popular Amendment. Go to www.faircampaignreform.us for information on how to do this, and check out the term limits petition as well as the election/campaign finance reform petition.
Honest Senators? Name one and show the proof. All politicians are corrupt or become corrupt within six months of being elected (to any office.)
Congress members also now pay into SS instead of the old pension plan.
Even if somehow you pulled off a national referendum and had a clear majority you couldn't change the constitution. The "conceptual framework" of the constitution isn't law. The constitution itself is law. This isn't Eastern Europe where you get a popular movement to rush parliament and put in a new government then repeat every few years. We abide by the constitution and laws in this country. We do not abide by the "conceptual framework" of the constitution. The day something like this succeeds is the day the United States of America is no more.
Ahhh, but the voters (with enough petition signatures) CAN put pressure on their state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention to vote on the Amendment.....that is one of the four processes set by the Constitution. It would be just as difficult of a process as trying to get Congress to act, but it would be a start. Imagine what pressure there would be if we could get half of the registered voters to sign the petitions in at least 2/3 of the states (and better yet 3/4 of the state) and present them to the respective Secretaries of State. Wouldn't they have to act upon the petitions?
I did some research and the Federal pension law was changed in 1984, so my information was outdated to say the least. I am still unclear on if they can opt in or out of social securtiy and or the federal pension plan and as you stated the benefits are not exactly the same as regular social security.
Limit them to 2 terms. Public service is an honor not a career. We need to eliminate corruption and give the people a voice again.
Term limits should be the norm for all political offices.