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 have written to all my senators and representatives for the past 12 years trying to get them to vote in term limits...the problem here, is obvious..power corrupts....we need to vote in people who will promise to vote for term limits ..PERIOD!! I also advocate a 6 year presidential term ( that would be one term only) since every president in my 66 years that I can remember who was running for a second term wasted, no, make that totally wasted the last two years of their first term running for office...let them have 6 years and then get em the hell out of there..
Under the proposed election/campaign finance reform petition, NO campaign could be conducted more than 60 days before a NATIONAL PRIMARY DATE to be held on the Tuesday eight weeks prior to the General Election date. That would eliminate these two and four year campaigns we have now. Let's face it, the 2012 campaign has been happening since Election Day 2008, by all potential candidates, including Palin, et. al. Members of Congress are the same way. They never stop campaigning and that is one reason little of nothing ever gets done. The Senate is sitting on nearly 400 House passed bills now, some of which have been languishing for well over a year.
I would apply term limits to anyone in the highest levels of government to ensure that no one remains in power indefinitely. That includes the President (already term-limited), Congressional officials/Chairpersons and, yes, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Even if well intended, leadership perpetuity in any branch of government eventually leads to self-serving arrogance and a king-complex that serves no one well. These limitations would minimize the pain and suffering caused especially by those of a certain political persuasion who view ineptitude, stupidity and sheer ignorance as modern-day, "anti-Washington" virtues.
Nice job FR! You've actually found something that almost all First Read commenters agree on.
Gotta like that Astro-Turf Party - they are building momentum across the nation from Repubs, Dems, and Independents. Not bad from a non-entity party.
The RNC blew it by initially commenting against supporting the young lady from DE. And Karl Rove did an Obama by placing foot in mouth before thinking. And the Dem Party believes there is a civil war in the GOP. The media is now waking up because they can't protect the president they elected anymore.
Ah, hope and change......so how's your summer of recovery doing?
There IS a civil war within the gop! They're purging moderates and keepiong only the extremists!! Un fortunately, the teabaggers are more extreme than the gop is trying to be! The net effect is that tea party approval is plumetting and I still dont think that the gop is going to do as well in Nov. as some predict!! The average voter has a front row seat to see just what the teabaggers and the gop are all about! I dont think they like what they see!! One has to wonder, if the gop loses their 3rd straight election, will they be anything but a regional party catering to extremism and white people, or will the civil war really explode in the party!
Term limits now! And they should take away the retirement pay these guys and gals receive as well. Make them retire on their own money like the regular folk.
They do retire on the same money....Social Security (since 1984) with the option of also paying into the FERS system. Only the old pre-1984 retirement system paid good benefits and for Congressional members, many restrictions were placed on the old pension system and its conversion to the new SS/FERS plans. All federal employees now pay into SS along with FERS, just as most private industry employees pay into a combination of SS and a private pension plan.
The only people against this is Congess themselves. To the ones who have been there since the 60's or longer, to give up such personal power and control of the country is something they can not even fathom, because they really believe in their minds that they and they alone can do what's best for the country.
In real reality, it is their own power they fear losing, has nothing to do with what is best for their own people, state, or country. Death for them is preferable.
For most voters this time around, death is more and likely preferable for them too. They just can't fathom that either.
I have given less thought to term limits than I have to "following the money". But then, I tend to do that with anything related to politics.
I think campaign finance changes are in order.
Isn't it likely there ARE folks in the Senate and Congress who are well liked by their constituents and do a reasonably good job. They aren't necessarily interested in the fast track to party leadership positions. While they may serve on committees they don't claim to "want to be Speaker", for instance and they aren't known for bringing home the pork. Would limiting their tenure serve any purpose? Wouldn't campaign finance reform be a better way of leveling the paying field?
In any event, I think election time is NOT the time to discuss this and is CERTAINLY not the time to be making any decisions. Better to address these issues when cooler heads prevail.
Is there such a time? There certainly hasn't been for the past two years. Check out the link on page 1 for campaign finance reform.
I've been around a long time now. Every few years, people decide they are fed up with the people in office and clamor to throw the bums out, replacing them with different folks. And nothing changes. It's not the "bad people" in Congress that ultimately determines the kind of government we have. It's the system that is beholden to monied interests. When we toss out one set of bums, they are replaced by another set with the same ties to big money.
I'm from California. People nationwide know the mess that has been made of California government since term limits went into effect several years ago. It has made things worse, not better. That conclusion is based on the factual evidence, not some ideological theory.
I spent 10 years in Washington DC. I saw that Congressmen spend half their time working to raise money for their re-election. So we get part time legislators when it comes to taking care of the people's business. Why do they spend so much time raising money? Because money is so essential to getting elected and re-elected. So people in Congress are beholden to the monied interests that are prepared to fund their campaigns. Unfortunately, we don't have "one person, one vote." We have "one dollar, one vote."
If you want a better Congress, change the system so that the only thing that will make the difference between winning and losing an election is what VOTERS prefer, not the financiers. In short, if you want good government based on fair and effective elections, you must be willing to pay for that with public funding. Unless of course you think the current goverment, which came about under the current electoral system, is top notch. In that case, you will want the current election finance system to continue.
"I'm from California. People nationwide know the mess that has been made of California government since term limits went into effect several years ago.
It has made things worse, not better. That conclusion is based on the factual evidence, not some ideological theory."
Hear, hear minsk...(I am from Sacramento so I see it everyday)...
Anyone can just do a simple google search 'negative effects of Term Limits on California', I did put in a link to the Public Policy report back in comment 1.6(?)...
But here it is again...(it is a two page pdf...)
How Have Term Limits Affected the California Legislature?
I don't think it's necessarily only moneyed interests they are beholding to. They are also beholding to their party machines and bosses.
Note: the $3 check-off on the 1040 tax form goes only to fund the PRESIDENTIAL elections, not elections for Congress or Senate. And even for presidential elections, it only provides a small part of the money that it takes to run a campaign.
In this age of internet, maybe it is time to "ban" TV ads in campaigns. After all, the biggest cost of campaigns is the amount of money spent on TV. Look at what the CA GOP candidates have spent so far.....$119M out of Meg's own pocket? What control is she trying to buy with that money? What's her hidden agenda? Is she really spending this fortune to help the residents of CA, or a secret way to further line her own pockets? This goes for all of the candidates spending vast personal fortunes just to get elected.
Make all candidates go back to the grassroots campaigning....door to door, email/websites. Sure saves a lot of money and you get to talk directly with the voters.
government service should be just that a service with congress receiving no more pay than their military counterparts. Limit the terms and restrict the pay and benifits to the same the public has access to and return service to being a service. That will go a long way in reducing the career elitists and bums who find a way to live off of the government their whole careers. By rotating people in and out of private sector we also ensure they know and feel whats going on in the real world.
I for one am tired of these career politicians who's only motivations are fundraising and getting re-elected. They are supposed to be public servants. I would almost rather have a lottery where a registered voter is drafted to serve and represent their constituents. It couldn't be any worse than what we have now.
Our founding fathers had it almost right when they emphasized the separation of church and state. They should have gone one step further and made it the separation of money and politics!
Yes please to term limits, and get rid of the cushy retirement & medical benefits for congress as well. Make them go out and earn a living before and after. Contribute to a 401K while they're in office and give them a nice watch when they leave. Say thank you very much for your service to your country, now goodbye.
See my various posts on Congressional retirement....it is Social Security (since 1984) and a federal version of 401K's. They get NO special medical benefits after leaving Congress, before or after reaching Medicare age. Their healthcare insurance plans while in office are the same plan options that are available to all federal employees. They pay a portion of the premium and the taxpayers (as the employer) pay the rest. The difference is that they get good rate plans because of the vast number of federal employees, just like the good rates that major corporations with the same size of employment can offer their employees (such as the "cadillac plans of the UAW, etc.)
Oh, cool. Your message prompted me to go look it up and you're right. I spoke out of school on that one. Ok, so only term limits will be fine.
Lawmakers should without a doubt have term limits. This is probably one of the largest problems in our country today. How do we get our lawmakers to impose term limits? My lawmakers won't even discuss it. It's outrageous.
I am a strong believer in one term in any elective office. This would return power to the people and reduce the rampant corruption we now have. Represenatives would be just that. They would go to washington and do what the people who sent them there want. At the end of two years they would go back home and live with what they have done.
Electors became obsolete with the invention of the telegraph.
If we can bank with our computers, we certainly should be able to vote with them.
Yes, of course we should limit the terms. However, it should be one (1) term as they spend almost the entire first term campaigning for the second.
Pat, I want to see your whole list dumped, and the sooner the better!! Everybody on your list is either a liberal liberal or a socialist. I live in the state victimized by Russ Feingold and I pray everytime he comes up for re-election that he loses!!
I know what you mean Paul. I just can't stand all these selfish, arrogant, conservative wind bags either.
We changed the Constitution to limit Presidential terms. We should do the same for members of Congress.
YES!
I have to go along with term limits. Two. One in office. The other in jail. I think while we are at it, we should look at their overly generous compensation and their ability to write their own paychecks. Anyone out there let your employees write their own paychecks? Might as well throw public campaign financing in the mix. Right now, big business, labor and whatever are buying and selling congress and senate people with a frequency that would make any stock market proud. Both sides just to make sure they get it right.
Our government is a mess and I really believe a major reform is in order.
I believe both the Republican and Democrat parties have outlived their shelf life and should be replaced with at least two new parties and possibly a third.
"The Law of Unintended Consequences" applies here.
It is en vogue right now to bellow at the top of your lungs about how we need term limits in Congress and while a Congress that is devoid of "career politicians" seems like a pretty good idea on face value there is an unintended consequence of enacting term limits...
A Congress with ZERO CONTINUITY...one that is paralyzed because it is in a constant state of turnover and "lame duckedness" (sorry for making that term up but it seems appropriate). Is that what we want?
But, Da Noid, don't we have and haven't we always had lameduckedness (love that word)?
I think the continuity you're looking for goes out the window with our system anyway, and probably by design. Come November, the continuity goes out the window again probably.
There is never "zero continuity", especially in the Senate, since only 1/3 of the members are on the ballot in any given two year election period. With TWO TERM term limits, you would also have some continuity with those that do get elected for the two terms.
Just checked the poll...looks like about 4% of the voters on this thread are either members of congress, their friends or family.
I am neither, but I am a citizen of CA where term limits are already in place...so I have the benefit of 'experience'...
It isn't pretty...
Damn right there should be term limits. The reason we have so many crooks, thieves, and liars in the hallowed halls is because the longer they stay there the more crooked they become. If a congresscritter knew that no matter how they voted on an issue, they were out at the end of their term, then politics, at least after they get elected and while they are supposed to be about the people's business, would be out the door and they might actually do what they are being paid to do instead of spending two thirds of their time in office campaigning for reelection. It might also encourage them to vote for what's right instead of what's in their own best interests. Politics should never have been allowed to become anyone's "career" in the first place. It breeds dishonesty. Seems to me all "experience" does is enable our representatives to bring home the pork more efficiently. Good when it's coming to your district but when you're paying for someone else's, not so much.
Yes! There should be term limits for members of both houses. If the President is limited, why not them?
IMHO, the more time in, the more indebted to the lobbyists they become. The greed takes over. They can vote themselves anything they need but when it comes to the business of the American people, they'll get to it when they all feel like it. Holidays are months, not days. They get re-elected because they make promises that they know they have no obligation to follow through to keep up the lifestyle. There isn't all this talk about flip-flop politicians for nothing.
If we would force every candidate to sign a binding contract spelling out their position on every potential issue they MIGHT have to vote on while serving in office before they can even get on the ballot, we could end these false promises. That is contained in one of the sections of the proposed Constitutional Amendment outlined at www.faircampaignreform.us. That amendment contains eleven sections, including limitations on campaign financing, eliminating ALL lobbyists at the federal level, eliminating ALL "third party" financing (corporations, unions, non-profits, et. al.) There is also a petition for Term Limits Constitutional Amendment.
Voters should never be denied the choice of picking who will represent them in Congress!! I agree with taking ALL private money OUT of politics, reducing the campaign system like the british do! AS a condition of their license, media is required to present public service programming. What more of a public service can be doine than carrying 2-3 debates between candidates so that we could make an informed choice! Ban lobbying money and gifts!! Ive been saying this stuff for years!
And Jim DeMint should be the first "BUM" kicked out !