Term limits: a good idea or just more smoke?

a reply to: Dimithae

Exactly. Even without 'parties', individual members would be courted by not only Corporations, but Unions, other members soliciting support for their individual cause. Who controls the disbursement of federal funds??

The sheer power those individuals would have would be far more than in a party system which, theoretically at least, could remove that individual from that position.

Grid-lock with two parties, cacophony with every member for themselves....

Wouldnt matter .. all systems are outdated failures .. best government is no government .. unfortuneatly humanity is far from the point of being able to do without politicians .. leaders .. religions and the rest of the idiocy they squable over and butcher each other over ...

a reply to: olaru12

And one of the worst things about lame duck/term limits is the people on the way out of their elected jobs are now being wooed by large corporations to be highly paid lobbyists to continue the vicious cycle.

I think everyone here is coming up with some great ideas. If American's could take a little from each of you and come up with a workable solution, our current problems with the House and Senate could be a thing of the past.

Term limits are imperative to stop some from losing touch with the constituent's they serve, as well as preventing lobbyists from focusing too much on individual legislator's. Do away with lobbyists, super PAC's, and private funding, and we are on our way to solving many problems.

Serving does not entitle anyone to a lifetime salary or insurance. In addition, serving does not entitle any member to a guaranteed salary. If Medicare, Social Security, Military retirement or their healthcare, are subject to cuts, House and Senate members are the first to lose salaries, along with the President and his staff, and all department heads.

I really like the abolishment of a two party system. Publicly funded elections is a great idea as well.

EVERY member of Congress should be subject to recall elections. We the People retain the right to decide when our elected members of Congress have strayed from the trust we placed in them.

Me personally, I feel Federal judges should be limited to a term of 10 years. If they are subsequently appointed to one of the Circuit courts, they are then limited to a 10 year term. Supreme Court Justices must retire on or before they attain the age of 75.

These are some of the things listed in this thread, and some of my ideas thrown in.

Term limits would at least insure that the most experienced thieves could not stay in office. Much better to have amateurs in office.
Another way to do this not limited by time. If they are true public servants make all income above governmental pay taxable by 90% after the second term. Instead of using term limits lets use the power of the purse to encourage them to get out of politics. The odds are greater that ET will knock on your door tomorrow than this idea being adapted.

The problem with term limits is that when you do finally get a "good" politician they will have to leave when their term limit is up.Then you have to start over with a new inexperienced rookie politician who may or may not be one of the "good" guys.
term limits get rid of the "good" politicians along with the bad politicians.

a reply to: Tardacus

I guess I'm arguing against myself but in this instance there's quite a few more bad politicians than good...addition by subtraction?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Anarchy. At least until the next charismatic person or group become powerful enough to start the whole process over under the guise of "reformed leadeship."

Having term limits creates a level playing field. No representative has more clout, power or influence over another representative. If these people are sincere, and want to create change for the good of the people, a 4 or 8 year term is plenty to motivate them to get off their butts and create bills that will actually benefit the people they're supposed to serve.

Just some of my thoughts on what should change...

-Abolish the party system, candidates run on their own ideology and not a party platform. This would eliminate voter divisiveness, and create better cooperation in the house and the senate. No more of the team mentality and finger pointing. This will also eliminate the BS party spin doctors.

- I would also keep their salaries and benefits in line with the average American worker. It's the only way for them to relate to the hardships of who they serve. (It will also keep them from getting too comfortable with their high salary positions and above average benefits). First, pass bills that will improve the problems most Americans struggle with everyday. Than and only than, should they receive a pay raise and possibly improved benefits. Their salary should be tied to their performance, just like any other job.

-Abolish lobbying and rescind the outrageous court's ruling allowing corporations to donate money to campaigns.

-All politicians whether they are incumbents or new candidates should have exactly the same campaign budget caps.

-All campaign ads should be reviewed based upon true facts and approved by a citizens watch dog group before it's given to the media.

-A comparison chart of a list of candidates and their stance on issues should be available online to everyone and printed in every local newspaper. We need voters who vote on the issues at hand, not along party lines.

-Issues that affect the majority of Americans should also be put on the ballot to get a true picture of how the majority of American's want their representatives to vote on a particular issue. If 70% or 80% of Americans agree on a particular issue, our representatives clearly don't need to debate the issue on the house floor. Pass the damn bill! After all, it is "for the people and by the people."

-If they can't pass a budget and spending bill on time, they shouldn't be paid for every day since the start of the government shutdown. I'm sure the thought of not getting paid will be a strong incentive to pass a budget on time.

a reply to: WeRpeons

Looks good to me, with two exceptions.

If you ban Corporations from donating, you include Unions as well, then I'm fine with it.

The other is banning parties. I know it's a popular stance, BUT, I see far more divisiveness with everyone doing their own thing...even worse that with parties.

Also, as I posted earlier, envision the committee selections. Finance committee becomes even more powerful for an individual that is without party restrictions. So you open the door to both good guys doing the right thing and guys that aren't....A brand new can of worms.

Banning parties is not a panacea in the slightest from what I can see.

good points though...

i say term limits for both houses, with restricted access from lobbyist. no outside contact with them and only contact under monitored meetings , in other words no private face time.

a couple of more things, term limits for SCOTUS, no life deals,look at how long 5 of the ones we have now have been there,
28, 24,23, 21 and 20 years. with one only sixty eight year old. the one with 23 years got another at least if 10 left if going by the ages of the most of the others. they all stay way long than the pres that nominated them.

then this one i feel is one of the most important ones if not the most important. bureaucrats these folks can do much more harm than any of them.. their jobs should be evaluated every year by independent citizens, with no ties to the government at all.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

A hang-fire realization from reading your post.

Yet another downside to term limits is Knowledge. Already anyone taking the position of President is in a info overwhelm.

There are so many fields that the incumbent must learn that he relies on "experts". Usually, the same experts 'advising' the next President even if from the other party. Result? The same decisions.!

Further term limits increases the dependency on those experts, 'staffers' and bureaucrats. They already have way too much say as it is.

Damn! There is no out, is there?