Bill introduced to limit congressional terms

[ericire12]

Still too long:


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/demint-revives-bill-to-ban-permanent-politicians/

Sen. Jim DeMint says Washington politicians are like fruit on the vine: the longer they hang around, the more rotten they get.

The South Carolina Republican - hearkening back to the days of the party's "Contract with America" - on Tuesday offered a fix to the corrupting influence of "permanent politicians," introducing an amendment to the Constitution that would limit Senate members to three six-year terms and House members to three two-year terms.

"As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buy off special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork - in short, amassing their own power," said Mr. DeMint, who is running for a second term next year.

Senate leaders and longtime Washington watchdogs said Mr. DeMint's bill had a zero chance of becoming law, mostly because of a general lack of interest and the high hurdles to amending the Constitution.

"It's a great issue to talk about, but it's not going to happen," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic majority's second-highest ranking leader.

Mr. Durbin said he didn't know whether the bill would even get a vote.

Term limits have not been a cause celebre on Capitol Hill since the issue featured prominently in the "Contract with America" that helped the Republican Party win control of Congress in 1994. House Republicans brought three versions of constitutional amendments for term limits to the floor in 1995 and each failed to win the two-thirds majority needed to pass.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), disagrees with Mr. DeMint's premise that politicians get more corrupt the longer they serve.

"There are plenty of bad members who have been there a short time and plenty of bad members who have been there a long time," she said. "Length of service just isn't telling enough. It doesn't make a great member or a terrible member."

Mrs. Sloan said the amendment appeared to be more about Mr. DeMint making a statement than about changing the Constitution.

DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton said the bill will succeed if the American public get behind it and force lawmakers to put it to a vote.

It takes a two-thirds vote of approval in both chambers to pass a constitutional amendment and then it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. The last one to succeed - the 27th Amendment that delays pay raises for members of Congress until after the next election - was proposed in 1789 as part of the Bill of Rights but was not ratified by the states until 1992.

Despite the long odds, Mr. DeMint's bill picked up two Republican cosponsors: Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who is running for a second term next year and has pledged to not seek a third, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, who is in her third full term but next year is running for governor.

[Johnny Bravo]

It will never make it. There are too many greedy,self-serving, power hungry SOBs to ever let something like this threaten their crooked and unjust lifestyle. They want one lifestyle for them and a completely different lifestyle for us. Our lifestyle includes paying for thiers.

[ericire12]

It will never make it. There are too many greedy,self-serving, power hungry SOBs to ever let something like this threaten their crooked and unjust lifestyle. They want one lifestyle for them and a completely different lifestyle for us. Our lifestyle includes paying for thiers.

Comment of the day award!

[fightingquaker13]

On the surface this is a great idea, but there are two big drawbacks. The first is that lobbyists don't just get influence by offering money, but also information. In most cases all the money buys you is an hour of someone's time, not a vote. Say you were elected tommorrow and had to vote on a bill dealing with hydro electric power (about which you know squat) in comes the helpful rep from dambuilders.com and gives you a 20 page briefing book with good scientific data saying build more dams and lets give tax breaks. Sounds good. On the other hand, someone who's been there for a while might say, wait, didn't we do this in 1992 and it didn't work out so well? The point is that you lose institutional memory. I'm sure Tom and Timothy can testify to this. Firms that downsize by letting older (hence higher priced) employees go, find themselves with a lot of green kids who lack experience and quality suffers. I kow it was dad's experience when he was a design engineer and they purged the slide rule generation to bring in computer whiz kids. Trouble was, they forgot that the geezers put a man on the moon and knew a thing or two about building an engine.
The second problem is democracy. What if I like my rep? What if she's doing a good job? Shouldn't it be up to me to keep her? We have term limits. Two years in the House and six years in the Senate. There's nothingto keep us from throwing the bums out. If we don't the blame falls on us.
I know there are counter arguments to this based on the system, money, intrenched interests and the like. I am sympathetic to them and am largely playing Devil's advocate, but I think we need to consider the reasons why the Founders might have gotten it right te first time.
FQ13

[TAB]

wait,

so
6 years in the house
and 18 in the senate.


thats 24 years in washington...  thats still alot of time.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

FTA;
"It's a great issue to talk about, but it's not going to happen," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic majority's second-highest ranking leader."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Durbin

n 1982, Durbin won the Democratic nomination for the 20th Congressional District,

Of course he's against it, He's been there for 27 years. Here's another who would oppose it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Congressional_service

Byrd is the only surviving Senator to have voted on a bill giving statehood to a U.S. territory. He has served in the Senate longer than ten current colleagues of his have been alive, namely Bob Casey, Jr., Amy Klobuchar, Blanche Lincoln, John Thune, David Vitter, Mark Pryor, Mark Begich, Michael Bennet, Kirsten Gillibrand and George LeMieux, as well as former Senator John E. Sununu and current President Barack Obama.

[ericire12]

On the surface this is a great idea, but there are two big drawbacks. The first is that lobbyists don't just get influence by offering money, but also information. In most cases all the money buys you is an hour of someone's time, not a vote. Say you were elected tommorrow and had to vote on a bill dealing with hydro electric power (about which you know squat) in comes the helpful rep from dambuilders.com and gives you a 20 page briefing book with good scientific data saying build more dams and lets give tax breaks. Sounds good. On the other hand, someone who's been there for a while might say, wait, didn't we do this in 1992 and it didn't work out so well? The point is that you lose institutional memory. I'm sure Tom and Timothy can testify to this. Firms that downsize by letting older (hence higher priced) employees go, find themselves with a lot of green kids who lack experience and quality suffers. I kow it was dad's experience when he was a design engineer and they purged the slide rule generation to bring in computer whiz kids. Trouble was, they forgot that the geezers put a man on the moon and knew a thing or two about building an engine.
The second problem is democracy. What if I like my rep? What if she's doing a good job? Shouldn't it be up to me to keep her? We have term limits. Two years in the House and six years in the Senate. There's nothingto keep us from throwing the bums out. If we don't the blame falls on us.
I know there are counter arguments to this based on the system, money, intrenched interests and the like. I am sympathetic to them and am largely playing Devil's advocate, but I think we need to consider the reasons why the Founders might have gotten it right te first time.
FQ13

Once again with both feet firmly planted in academia. Quaker, please step back into the real world before posting anymore comments.

*POOP!

[fightingquaker13]

Eric, I am once again impressed with your keen skill at debate. The strategy of "I don't like what I hear and might lose so don't engage" is always a winner. The fact is that in this case I do tend to agree with you (through no fault of your own) I just think the counter arguments are serious and valid and need to be considered. Do we want a Congress of newbies? Do we want to lose the ability to re-elect a rep who has given good service? There is nothing "academic" about those questions. They are simply commonsense concerns.
FQ13 who thinks if we are going to ammend the Constitution adding a recall provision for Congress  would be more useful
PS Eric, by dismissing academics, you are dismissing folks who spend their lives studying a subject and might possibly know a thing or two about it. Just sayin'.

[tombogan03884]

Eric, I am once again impressed with your keen skill at debate. The strategy of "I don't like what I hear and might lose so don't engage" is always a winner. The fact is that in this case I do tend to agree with you (through no fault of your own) I just think the counter arguments are serios and valid and need to be cosidered. Do we want a Congrees of newbies? Do we want to lose the ability to re-elect a rep who has given good service? There is nothing "academic" about those questions. They are simply commonsense concerns.
FQ13 who thinks if we are going to ammend the Constitution adding a recall provision for Congrees  would be more useful

I would not call 18 years in the Senate a "newbie" In fact I would limit senators to 1 term. After 6 years in Washington a politician has to be engaged in homosexual prostitution to rebuild his reputation, (although that did not work for Barney Frank ).
Yes they will make mistakes in the first year, SO WHAT, They do any way. At least they will be MISTAKES, not simply blowing off the orders of their constituents as we have seen recently with the "health care" fiasco.

[fightingquaker13]

I would not call 18 years in the Senate a "newbie" In fact I would limit senators to 1 term. After 6 years in Washington a politician has to be engaged in homosexual prostitution to rebuild his reputation, (although that did not work for Barney Frank ).
Yes they will make mistakes in the first year, SO WHAT, They do any way. At least they will be MISTAKES, not simply blowing off the orders of their constituents as we have seen recently with the "health care" fiasco.

Agreed. Remember I am playing Devil's advocate here. This why I would rather see a recall provision. I am not much swayed by the experience argument, though it has some merit. My only real hesitation is on the democracy argument. I think a recall provision for Congress would solve the problem and not volate the representative nature of Congress. That jackass in NY who broke four campaign promises in one day might get a wakeup call for example. I don't support extending this to the President or the Court as it is their job to say no the people as we are a republic not a pure democracy. The Congress can get rid of them if need be).
FQ13