Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Do you support Congressional term limits?
Yes Posted Image 11 (100%)
No Posted Image 0 (0%)
Total Votes: 11
Congressional Term Limits
Topic Started: Oct 2 2005, 09:16 AM (370 Views)
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
It seems Washington is out of ideas.

The Republicans...


Republicans DeLayed: The GOP leadership deficit is one of ideas, not ethics.
Quote:
 
The Tom DeLay indictment has Democrats believing they can play the ethics card to retake Congress. But with the 2006 elections still 13 months away, the more immediate and important question is whether Republicans can use their leadership turmoil as an opportunity to remember why they were elected.

In liberal Beltway mythology, the GOP took the House in 1994 because Newt Gingrich shrewdly used Jim Wright and Dan Rostenkowski to portray Democrats as corrupt. That's about one-tenth of the story. The real reason Democrats were ousted is because they raised taxes after saying they wouldn't, and they promoted a liberal policy agenda (HillaryCare/gun control) that they couldn't find the votes to pass. The Gingrich Republicans responded with the Contract for America of conservative proposals, and what might have been a mild midterm rebuke of Democrats became an epic change of power.

The real danger for Republicans now isn't ethics; it is that, like those 1994 Democrats, they seem to have grown more comfortable presiding over the government than changing it. No one typified this more than Mr. DeLay, who has always been more fiercely partisan than he is conservative. Among the GOP House leaders who took power in 1994, Dick Armey was the genuine idea man. Mr. DeLay provided the political muscle of fund-raising and vote-counting.


And the Democrats...

Standing for Something
Quote:
 
President Bush's poll numbers...House Majority Leader Tom DeLay...Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist...A federal leak investigation....

So if you're a Democrat, things are looking up.

And you're also looking back--to 1994, when voters handed control of the House to Newt Gingrich and his Republicans, who railed against a "culture of corruption" in the Democratic majority. After 40 years of Democratic rule, the GOP mavericks moved in to run the place as the party of change. Now, after more than a decade, the revolutionaries look more like the ruling class--a majority that has forgotten its reformist roots. And the polls show it: Congress's approval ratings are in the mid-30 percent range, the lowest in about eight years.

But wait. Before voters decide to throw the bums out, don't they have to know what they're buying into next? In 1994, Gingrich & Co. produced a "Contract With America" to let the voters in on their plan for governing. Today's Democratic agenda is somewhere between hate for George W. Bush and disdain for George W. Bush. That's not enough for a party looking to revive itself as a governing entity. People already know what they are voting against; they need to know what they're voting for.


The answer may be term limits.

Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever
Quote:
 
No part of the Republican Contract with America has generated more opposition within the GOP than term limits. Republican congressional candidates promised a vote on term limits, but now GOP politicians are proving reluctant to agree to relinquish power--which shows the need for term limits irrespective of the partisan composition of Congress.

One of the unconvincing arguments against term limits is that they would enhance the power of staffers and lobbyists, even though congressional aides already write most laws and lobbyists consistently oppose term-limit initiatives. A more serious threat to term limits comes from those who advocate a limit of six terms (12 years) in the House. Most states that have limited the terms of their representatives have approved limits of three terms (6 years) for good reasons. Shorter House limits would create more competitive elections. They would also reestablish a citizen legislature.

To effectively end politics as a lifetime sinecure, thereby making congressional service a leave of absence from a productive, private-sector career, requires that terms be short. A dozen years is a short career, but it is more than long enough for legislators to become more concerned about their relationships with each other--logrolling and the like--than about their relationships with constituents.

The nation's Founders strongly believed in rotation in office. They left term limits out of the Constitution because they did not foresee that politics would become a career for so many people. Short term limits would remedy that mistake. Nothing is more important today than reversing the pernicious rise of a professional political class.


Some additional resources: Citizens for Term Limits, US Term Limits.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
passinthru
Member Avatar
John - Gainesville, FL
What I would really like to see is this:
1. Politicians can only raise and/or receive money from registered voters in their district. This would mean the President could raise money all over the country, but not all over the world. Senators could raise money all over THEIR state, but not all over the country, and on down the line. Since Corporations are not registered voters, they could give no money.

2. Lobbyists, corporations, and PACs or other organizations like them can plead, conjole, cry, or whatever else they wish to do, but can give no money to any candidate in any manner including trips, dinners, ads, etc. They can present their positions to candidates and elected officials.

3. Registered voters are limited to donating 1/10 of 1% of a candidates salary over the office term, during any one term of office. If a senator makes $150,000 each of 6 years in office, the most any one of his constituents can give him is $900 in a six year period. This will prevent buying favors and make every voter feel as if they have equal access. It will also make candidates be more frugal and imaginative in their election expenditures.

4. Any candidate running for election or re-election can only spend 5% of what they will recieve in salary over the term of the office on any one campaign. This way no one can try to buy the office because they have unlimited funds.

If this was the case, the need for term limits would disappear and I would change my vote to "no."
Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fr. Mike
Member
A few years ago, a guy came out of nowhere in Washington State and defeated the Speaker of the House-Tom Foley.

His mantra was term limits. He swore that if he was elected, he would not seek a second term. We--his mane was Nethercutt and he did run again, and again.

So--somewhere within the congressional spa and perks he lost his mantra. :dunno:
A humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ

Don't forget to say your prayers!
The unborn have rights too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
spacebeing
Oct 2 2005, 02:36 PM
A few years ago, a guy came out of nowhere in Washington State and defeated the Speaker of the House-Tom Foley.

His mantra was term limits. He swore that if he was elected, he would not seek a second term. We--his mane was Nethercutt and he did run again, and again.

So--somewhere within the congressional spa and perks he lost his mantra. :dunno:

The same thing happened to a guy from Colorado named Tom Tancredo. His pledge to limit himself to two terms was just hot and air and empty rhetoric. Since then, he has been an embarrassment to the State.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MDPD6320
Member Avatar
Frank - Gainesville, Florida
I'm not so sure one way or the other. I can see benefits on both sides of the question.
I'm less interested in the house, but in the senate where the terms are 6 years... Well,
Byrd wants to run again and I think he's 87. Sometimes it's a little over done.


John,

Very interesting concept.
" The government big enough to give you everything you want it is big enough to take everything you have."

"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
the President could raise money all over the country, but not all over the world. Senators could raise money all over THEIR state, but not all over the country, and on down the line.


The only problem I see with this one is that some State districts are much richer than others and some States are much richer than others, so the offices would still be bought by the rich, wouldn't they?
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fr. Mike
Member
Wasn't there a senate campaign a few years ago in California where the challenger spent 20 million dollars or more of his own money trying to get elected?
A humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ

Don't forget to say your prayers!
The unborn have rights too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
Was it for governor? I think he bowed out and endorsed Mc Clintock..is that the one?
He helped in the recall efforts though of Davis. Is that the one you are thinking of? His name escapes me. Corky would know.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
passinthru
Member Avatar
John - Gainesville, FL
Quote:
 
The only problem I see with this one is that some State districts are much richer than others and some States are much richer than others, so the offices would still be bought by the rich, wouldn't they?


There was a state senator from our district here in FL that raised most of his money outside his district from south FL corporations. Who do you think he was interested in representing? (I guess we could change a letter and call him a "sinator" and add it to Mur's list of Mensa words. :) ) While some districts of a state may be richer, each "donor" is limited to a rather small donation in relation to what can now be given, and also limited to registered voters. The concept is to give the representative back to the "people" and specifically the people who are going to elect him. Where Perot made his biggest mistake was financing his whole election himself; if he had said he would limt his donations to $10/person and match that money with his own, he would have spent less, had a good idea of who would really vote for him (people usually follow their money with their vote) and his followers would have felt more a part of the process. As you probably know, large corporations hedge their support by giving to both parties so as to garner favors from whoever wins. In many cases, the corporations are not in the district which is supposed to be represented. You can count that if I gave $100,000 to a candidate who won, my phone call would be answered. Since I can't afford to do that, my calls go unanswered, and letters are just part of the pile.
Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
I think what John proposes would go a long way to help another problem, namely, the nationalization of state and local elections. Good example was running Keyes in Illinois. Could say similar for Clinton in NY. Both parties looking to centralize government and remove United States from America, so to speak.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
We all who used to support the Reps now see that they are as addicted to power as the Dems, just slightly different agendas with supporters and fringe groups on their side.

How do you keep power once you get it, by buying yourself in year in and year out with other peoples money.

Perhaps if you know that you can't make a lifetime project out of it you will be less willing to be bought. Remember being bought is not just out right corruption but the subtle things like feeding the ego about how insightful and important to the peoples business one is.
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member
The senority system, particulary in the senate give a disproportionate amount of power to senior senators. Who are in turn relected by their constituants because of the influence they have. I think term limits are a good idea.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply