For the Math nerds:
Lim
X-->1
In an earlier post, T.P. Voigt mentioned 12 things we can do to fix America. One of those was to set term limits for Congress. I would like to expound upon that and offer a specific solution. That ultimately is the goal of this blog; to not just point out national problems but to find sensible solutions.
Currently, the only limit in place for the federal government is the President. The President can serve two consecutive terms of four years. There is actually a way for a person to serve as President for 10 years. He or she would have to have been the Vice President for a President who was removed from office at least 2 years into the term. The VP would finish out the term as President and then still be able to run and potentially be elected twice.
But as for Congress, there is no such limit in place. Representatives are elected for 2 year terms and the Senate for 6 years. The Supreme Court Justices are given life appointments. They can die or retire, but their jobs are guaranteed so they can focus on the law and not their job security.
Because this blog is about actually offering solutions, here is mine.
I propose that we set the term limits as follows: The House of Representatives are allowed to be elected up to a total of 6 times, giving them 12 years to serve. These can be either concurrent or non-sequential. Members of the Senate are allowed 3 terms totaling 18 years. These can be either concurrent or non-sequential.
Why these numbers? Well, the Senate was set up so it would have a higher turnover ratio so it could there for be a more long term thinking group. The House has a high turnover, every 2 years, and is meant to capture the immediate emotion and feeling of the nation at that given time. These two bodies account for the short term and the long term. With a 12 and an 18 year limit, we still have that.
But we also gain the added benefit of no more career politicians. They would now have to have real skills in another field. We would most likely see an increase of teachers, doctors, farmers, welders, computer programmers, stay at home mothers, be more willing and able to enter the political ring.
The big, behind the scenes groups that use their money to keep politicians in power would be less likely to do so knowing their “candidate” won’t be around forever. When a person knows their end is near they generally do one of two things: go out with a bang or a fizzle.
Knowing their time is at hand, the politician won’t have to spend so much time worrying about campaigning or raising money or passing laws that only benefit their voter base. It removes some of the burdens politicians face of constantly face. They can focus on actually being productive and not just cater to the masses.
And with the higher probability of newer members of Congress, we increase the likelihood of new, fresh ideas coming in and are less likely to face the political grid lock that happens when long time congresspeople circle the wagons and get into their petty feuds.
I welcome any comments on this possible solution. Am I too generous with my limit? Are limits a bad thing? Is there a different way you would want to limit Congress? This might be a small little blog, but someone might someday read something on here and make something happen
Interesting. I think that this analysis only covers half the problem. While I agree with limiting the terms (obviously), the ability to be a "career politician" remains. With 12 and 18 year terms, that's still a huge portion of one's life. Not to mention the outrageous pay and benefits that a senator/congressman receives, including generous retirement. I think 4 years in the house and 8 in the senate is more reasonable, and responsible. And a massive slash in pay and benefits and only a small bit of compensation for retirement. That only kicks in at age 50. not only would this save the government a ton of money, but like, you said, it would discourage the lobbyists and encourage the politicians to have legitimate back-up plans in life.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that I try to keep in mind is what type of people are we trying to attract?
ReplyDeleteI fear that if it is too short of a term, the right kind of minds wont be interested. That is one of the problems in America when it comes to teaching. Being a teacher doesn't have the best incentives so the people who would end up being the best teachers go on to use their skills elsewhere.
We still want to attract good talent so there has to be SOME sort of incentive beyond being a public servant.
But yes, the pay and benefits need to be slashed.
Perhaps 6 years in the House and 10 in the senate? I am thinking that we need to give politicians time to actually do something. Some problems we face as a nation and as a world take time to gather proper the facts. And, if we do end up getting a great, diverse batch of Congress who are crushing it in a good way, we wouldn't want them to be out too quickly. Up to a decade of service is long enough.
Granted, we also have to look at our international influence. There are many other countries that have long serving leaders, and we wouldn't want a revolving door of politicians working with them. I am for stability but not stagnation.
I'm personally more attracted to the idea of six years in the House and 10 in the Senate. I agree that careers need to be eliminated, but they still need time to really do something, and there needs to be more incentive for people to run for such offices. But I don't think I would let it go for longer than a decade--as Jay said, that would be enough.
ReplyDelete