GOP senators push for term limits

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) -- A handful of Republican senators have proposed a constitutional amendment to limit how long a person may serve in Congress.

Currently, there are no term limits for federal lawmakers, but Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, and several of his colleagues are advocating that service in the Senate be limited to 12 years, while lawmakers would only be allowed to serve six years in the House.

"Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians," DeMint said in a statement released by his office. "As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork -- in short, amassing their own power."

Two-thirds of the House and Senate would need to approve the amendment -- a stumbling block that short-circuited the idea 14 years ago. The new proposal echoes the Citizen Legislature Act, part of the original Contract with America proposed by Republicans before they won control of Congress in 1994.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/11/congress.term.li...

[sinkingfeeling]

1. And then, once 2/3s of the Congress agree, an amendment must be ratified by the states.

[shraby]

7. I believe it's 3/4 of the states..if it's done that way,

it will be hard for either party to do away with it when they come into power. It will be a part of the constitution then.

[Xipe Totec]

2. Where were they when the had a chance to pass this?

When they were in power and had a Republican in the White House?

Hypocrites.

[Brother Buzz]

36. Word!

[hobbit709]

And how many of the original pack of clowns in 1994

are still around? They all started weaseling when it came time to put up or shut up.

[Yupster]

73. That's the biggest problem to getting term limits done

The ones who weren't hypocrites left and hurt their own numbers by leaving.

The Republicans also hurt themselves by term limiting their committee chairmen. When their terms were up, many of them left the congress rather than lose their chairmanships and many of those seats were won by the Democratic candidates.

[GoCubsGo]

85. Lots of 'em

Boehner, Cochran, Bilbray, McCain, Ros-Lehtinen, Roherbacher, Bartlett, Crapo, Inhoef, Kyl, just to name a few. Several of them, like Cochran, L. Graham, Chambliss are now in the Senate.

[Ineeda]

3. Proves the GOP is scared witless.

From what I've read, many of those pushing this are not planning to run. I'll try to find a link.

[aquart]

4. Is DeMint Family?

[Brother Buzz]

34. Yes

The Family AKA The Fellowship AKA The Fellowship Foundation AKA National Fellowship Council AKA Fellowship House AKA The International Foundation AKA National Committee for Christian Leadership AKA International Christian Leadership AKA the National Leadership Council.

Or simply: The Christian Mafia

[aquart]

47. Then eat him.

[Brother Buzz]

51. I'll leave him to the buzzards

[No Elephants]

88. They are a cult.

[GaYellowDawg]

5. Funny how those fuckers do that when they're in the minority.

Where was all this "term limit" talk from 2000-2006? I still remember a whole lot of "term limits" talk in the 1994 elections, and 99% of those assholes stayed in office as long as they could manage. Republicans are just mad that we, the voters, imposed a term limit on that fucking Bush-rubber-stamping Republican Congress.

[Yupster]

74. They held a vote on term limits, but it failed.

It's tough to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Then they made a big mistake. They passed term limits in the Republican House Caucus limiting their own terms as committee chairmen.

That ended up hurting them badly as many of their old guards who could win Democratic districts since they'd been there for 30 years retired rather than lose their chairmanships when their terms ended. It put them at a competitive disadvantage with the Democratic congressmen who didn't limit their own terms.

The other problem is the true believers who weren't hypocrites kept their promises and left. That pretty much killed the movement.

I followed closely because I'm with them on term limits. I wish we had it.

[Raven]

6. This, I think, signals the demise of the GOP. No self-serving

Republican politician worth his/her salt would propose this unless they knew their days were numbered.

It amazes me how these folks spend all their time on everything but the peoples' business.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Didn't Republicans propose this in 1994?

Were their days numbered then?

[Raven]

26. Yes, the Repub Revolution...I think they thought they'd get rid of

the rest of the Dems and then revoke the term limits they put in.

[Kingofalldems]

41. Ooh good one! Score one for the republicans

You tell those Democrats!!!11! Even though they lied about this in '94, it's just super they are bringing it back again.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. Those who forget the past are condemend to repeat it

[Qutzupalotl]

56. Guess they forgot they proposed it in 1994.

Would have been too convenient to remember when they had all the cards. So, they repeat the proposal.

[Freddie Stubbs]

78. As Democrats proposed health care reform in 1992 and failed to deliver despite

controlling the both houses of Congress and the White House from 1993-1995.

[Qutzupalotl]

80. They didn't control the health insurance industry lobbyists in 1993,

and still don't, for the most part. It's only with great effort that we're accomplishing any movement on the reform front now.

So you must be giving Obama major props for getting this far, right?

[Freddie Stubbs]

83. Obama's results have been light years past what Clinton's were

He has shown that he understands how Congress works. Something that it took Clinton and his people a few years to figure out.

[No Elephants]

89. Both Clinton and Obama learned the lesson of 1992-94; and so many of the Clinton people are working

for Obama now, starting with Rahm and Hillary.

[Blue_Tires]

92. the obvious difference is the gop never even pretended to care

about term limits (or fiscal responsibility) once they started driving the gravy train...it was simple pandering to the voters plain and simple

[RDANGELO]

8. No, we don't need term limits.

We need public financing of elections. Term limits would result in having people elected who come to enjoy their time in the limelight rather than get something done. It would also give more power to the congressional aids who would have more grasp of the complicated issues.

[Old and In the Way]

13. Exactly right.

Public finance all elections and take the lobbyist money/IOU's out of the equation. Then we'll see better candidates who can spend their time doing our business, instead of being beholden to corporate $ and permanent fundraising for their elections. I also agree that term limiting Congresspeople will transfer the real power to the unelected bureaucrats who are permanent employees on the hill. Term limits is a bad idea that only a Republican could love.

[TupperHappy]

68. Exactly wrong

A better way to allow the incumbency to protect themselves I don't know. They wouldn't have to make even the pretence of listening to the people anymore. And say bye bye to any third party movement, cause you know they'd write the rules to make it nigh impossible for a third party candidate to run and get money.

[Old and In the Way]

81. You're on the wrong board.

Free Republicans love their term limits...that way they can torpedo good Democrats who work for us. That was a centerpiece of Gringrich's Contract on America.

If you don't like your incumbent, organize and run someone in a primary. Don't limit my choice to re-elect someone who is doing a good job for us. You want to risk another Republican experiment at disastrous government? There's your roadmap right there.

[Kermitt Gribble]

9. I think it's a good idea.

It would put an end to the good ole boy club in the Senate. Tie public financing of elections to it and we have a winner.

[earthside]

37. Or ...

... do public finance of election campaigns and we won't need term limits.

Frankly, I would be for term limits for the Congress if we cannot get campaign finance reform.

Now, philosophically, I don't like the concept of term limits. But the fact is that we have members of the Senate and House from both parties that do not know when it is time to leave; they start to think that they are institutions in and of themselves. Joe Lieberman comes to mind. So, does McConnell, but so does Robert Byrd (even though I like him).

Too many Congress critters come to believe that they are indispensable ... and that is why I think we are having so much trouble getting health insurance reform done; the worst obstructionists are people that should have gone home years ago.

Genuine campaign finance reform would make all incumbents have to face real opposition every time they are up for election -- and that is what makes them accountable and keeps them in touch with the people. So, do that and term limits become unnecessary.

Unfortunately, neither of these reforms will ever take effect, so we are going to be stuck with the best 80 year old Senators and Representatives that the mega-transnational corporations can buy for a long time.

[Roland99]

38. Agreed.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

48. Sounds about right...n/t

[Kermitt Gribble]

50. I agree.

As the poster below said, if your elected official is doing a good job, you should have the option to keep them. Campaign finance reform is the only real solution - maybe term limits can be used to threaten them in the mean time.

[stlsaxman]

43. If the person I hire is doing a good job- let me keep him/her. Term limits nullify my choice.

[Kermitt Gribble]

49. Good point.

I think we need one or the other (term limits or campaign finance reform), though - something to end the corruption.

[stlsaxman]

65. the latter is the only way to go.

publicly financed elections.

[Chulanowa]

52. Term limits are undemocratic, to start with

If the people want to keep sending someone to congress, let them.

Next, term limits have this funny effect where a legislator doesn't have to worry about hte people who elected him. Once he's on that final term, fuck 'em, he does what he wants and leaves them eating his leavings.

[stlsaxman]

66. +1

[Old and In the Way]

10. Start with your own caucus, DeMint.

Sue Collins ran on serving 2 terms...she's on #3 now. The only hope the Republicans have is getting popular Democrats term limited. Then Big Money can bias the results towards Republicans. Why would I want my freedom to elect any person limited? I know how to vote against a candidate if I think they aren't doing the job for me.

Do us all a favor Jim, go term limit yourself.

[Jansen]

11. Congress should be a public service, not a lucrative career path.

I favor term limits on the house and senate regardless of why it is suggested or who suggests (including their party).

In my eyes it transcends an us vs. them situation. Sure there are exceptional individuals in the congress, but seriously. In a country of 300 some million only 535 people are fit and capable of governing?

[ej510]

23. We can always add more members of congress.

[bertman]

29. I'm with you on this one, Jansen. Term limits and campaign finance reform are THE two

most important changes we need to make. I am sick to death of Congresscritters-with-lifetime-terms.

[Yupster]

75. Agree Jansen

If someone is an outstanding leader, think how much better a footprint they could make by serving as senator, and governor and corporate CEO, secretary of the treasury, and congressman instead of occupying the same seat in the House or Senate for 50 years.

[Soylent Brice]

12. this will have ZERO effect on repigs.

most of them become lobbyists after they fuck shit up anyways.

[bluestateguy]

14. I'm for term limits

But I'm curious as to why Republicans suddenly decided to become serious about this issue when they are once again in the minority.

It was in their Contract on America in 1994. A vote was held in 1995. It failed and that was that. We didn't hear anything more about it from them for 14 years.

[WriteDown]

28. I'm for term limits too...

but these guys have been caught lying about the EXACT same issue before.

[John Q. Citizen]

53. We have term limits already. Or do you think I shouldn't be able to vote for who I want to?

[sfwriter]

16. They already have term limits called elections...

as the GOP has noticed...

[ShortnFiery]

22. And the Democrats will take note when we get our asses handed to us in 2010.

But will the party move even more to the bat shit crazy corporate RIGHT or will it turn toward The People?!?

Naw, they'll blame the liberals and turn even more to the right. That's when I'll jump off of the crazy train.

[KansDem]

17. Not this again! I really hate the "Stop me before I vote again" mentality...

Putting a revolving door in Congress will be a huge bonanza for the lobbyist industry.

If corporations have six lobbyists for each member of Congress to thwart real HCR, just imagine what they can do with a new face every 12 years...

[villager]

18. Throw in term limits for Supreme Court "justices," and this may be a good idea!

n/t

[boppers]

94. The supremes do have a limit.

It's called "Life"

[Autumn]

19. A republican idea I can actually

support.

[John Q. Citizen]

59. Not me.

Term limits were one of the worst idea that ever happened to the states. No body knows what the hell is going on. No body gets good at legislating.

No body can actually do any long term planning, it's all instant short term stuff, because who is there to learn the ropes and see things through?

People grab on to this idea instead of demanding real campaign funding reform. They think this will solve the problem, but the big money just buys up who ever will do there bidding and it doesn't effect them at all.

Why not have term limits on doctors? 6 years, then on to another profession? Or teachers> Or pilots?

Because it would be a stupid idea. however, there should be a way to get rid of screwed up doctors, right? But a good one shouldn't have to go because of some Repo law.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

70. Yep. The lobbyists and aides become the real power, being the only ones w/ institutional memory.

Well, even more of a power than they already are.

[Doctor_J]

20. Where were these assholes from 1994-2006?

have I mentioned lately how much I hate these people?

[ShortnFiery]

21. This is ONE issue that I can support with the GOP. We have corrupt people within OUR Party

too. Term limits sounds Peachy-Keen to me.

[John Q. Citizen]

60. No more Teddy Kennedy's and life devoted to health care reform, eh? Kucinich would be

gone, who would you think could replace him?

I hate other people telling me I can't vote for who I want to.

[Bette Noir]

24. We have term limits in California.

Instead of ending the notion of career politicians, as intended, it forces career politicians (who will never change) to play musical chairs with their offices every couple of years. It's not as good an idea as it looks.

[TomCADem]

64. Ditto! California Is A Step Away From Insolvency...

Because politicians simply have no familiarity with how the State works, and they simply shuttle from one position to another. Worse, they have no investment in keeping California going. California has not passed a budget on time in a long time. And has virtually shut down several times since the adoption of term limits.

[NWHarkness]

25. How dare anyone tell me who I can vote for?

The issue of term limits has to be seen, not from the point of view of the elected officials affected, but from the pov of the voters, who lose choice in deciding who should represent them. If I think my representative deserves another term, why should my right to vote for them be abridged by n arbitrary statute.

In addition, this ought to be called "The Lobbyist Empowerment Amendment", since wiping out all institutional knowledge in Congress would result in lawmakers relying even more on lobbyists for expertise and information.

Enough with the gimmicks, already.

[stlsaxman]

67. Bingo!

[Cha]

27. Is that all they got?

[Xenotime]

30. This is a bad idea.

[Mr. Sparkle]

31. It is the lobbying industry that stays the same, no matter who gets elected. n/t

[yellowcanine]

32. The Republicans bring this up every time they are out of power. Then when they are in power they

conveniently forget that they were ever for term limits. Democrats should just say STROM THURMOND
STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND
STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND
STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND
STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND
STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND
STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND
STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND
STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND
STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND
STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND
STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND
STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND
STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND STROM THURMOND

[2Design]

33. Then we would have to pay health care for more people for life too n/t

[liberal N proud]

35. They must be afraid they will never win another election

[ShortnFiery]

39. On this one issue the GOP idiots are spot on!

[John Q. Citizen]

71. Where has it worked well? Can you name one benificial thing it has acomplished where it's been done?

I live in a term limited state and it's made things worse instead of better.

[TygrBright]

40. Because putting continuity, the power of information, and administrative control in the hands...

...of paid staffers is SO much more democratic.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

As it is now, it takes the average Senator or Congresscritter three or four terms to gather enough information, experience, and connections to actually be effective in doing their jobs. Things will be so much easier to get hold of and take charge when you have more turnover and more jockeying for position and more reliance on paid staffers to tell you what the hell is going on. Yep. Sure.

And those paid permanent staffers who manage Committee processes and run various offices and so forth-- they would NEVER take advantage of the power of information and experience to influence the legislative process based on their own partisan agendas. NEVER!



Yeh, this is a GREAT idea!

ironically,
Bright

[yurbud]

42. This is what they did in California once they realized they would never have a majority again

term limits set at such a short span that legislators could barely learn the ropes, let alone be effective, and then they convinced the public to pass a ballot measure requiring a 2/3 majority to pass a budget or raise taxes, effectively giving the GOP micro-minority veto power over the budget.

[classysassy]

44. Term limit/recall

Term limits with conditions,a recall provision where as two thirds of the people deem he or she are not responsive to the wishes of the people,he or she should be replaced.

[24601]

46. There is only one way that Congress will pass this - and that's if

States start calling for a Constitutional Convention. That's the thing that REALLY scares the shit out of Congress Critters because they lose all control over the agenda and don't even get a vote on the resulting proposals. A constitutional Convention isn't limited to one topic and can go down all sorts of roads, like

Congressional member and staff Term Limits
Removal of Federal Judges/Justices by vote of 75% of "constituency" - district/circuit/nation - vote every 10 years
Permitting naturalized citizens to be President & VP
Prohibiting campaign contributions by those without a vote in an election
Making Congress subject to the Freedom of Information Act (all those committee & caucus files!!)
Making political parties subject to the Freedom of Information act
Prohibiting Congress from exempting itself from laws
Requiring votes on Presidents' nominees within 90 days - or the nominees are automatically confirmed
Requiring Congress to vote on their pay increases instead of letting automatic processes handle it
Prohibiting Congress from flying in First Class when coach seats are available
Requiring a balanced budget
Outlawing the filabuster
Probibiting a Senator from being on TV more than 10 minutes a month
Requiring that for a bill to pass, it must have at least 25% support of members from any party that has 20% or more of the seats in the chamber (requires bipartisanship)
Requiring the Supreme Court to Determine the Constitutionality of a proposed law
Requiring the election, not appointment of Senators (like representatives)

the list is endless

[no limit]

54. I'm for this

I dont think they are doing this because they want a fair government, but for once I can say I'm onboard with these assholes.

[Ter]

55. All term limits need to be repealed

Including the President's.

[Yupster]

76. No thanks on the President For Life crap

that other countries suffer under.

[starroute]

57. This is a ploy that favors pressure groups like the teabaggers

I read something about it last winter in connection with the forces in California that were behind Proposition 8. They'd started off by pushing for term limits in the state assembly, because when there's no incumbent running, it gives tightly-organized minority groups with sources of external funding a distinct advantage in promoting their own candidates.

The GOP knows now that they don't have much chance going up against popular, well-known Democrats. But with an open seat, if one small group can push their candidate very hard leading up to the GOP primaries, while the Democrats are doing the usual democratic selection thing, they'll have momentum going into the general election.

So even aside from the general disadvantages of term limits -- like giving more power to lobbyists because freshmen members won't know the technical details as well -- this is a naked power grab that sounds "democratic" on the surface but would be anti-democratic in its effect.

[MARALE]

58. This is a ploy like it was the last time

This is a great political cause, one that they know they can't win. They don't really care about term limits, but this is something that is great to put in an ad that they pushed for and they will use it for political gain. it is always brought out in years when they are down in popularity.

waste of time, although it would be good to have but it really would not make that much of a difference. they need to have a lot more limits when it comes to contributions, jobs for family, jobs after the senate, etc...

[David Zephyr]

86. It's all the GOP does now: ploys.

They need a 12 step program.

[FarCenter]

61. Put in place an upper age limit of 65, and retire SC justices at 70

There is already a lower age limit for Congress and Presidents.

Just require that Reps, Senators, and Pres. be less than 65 when elected and that Supreme Court justices retire at 70

There are way too many old fossils in Congress and the Supreme Court. Let's get some new thinking in there.

[struggle4progress]

62. Is this really LBN? Vitter (R-LA) and Platts (R-PA19) introduced SJRes 1 and HJRes14 in January;

DeMint cosponsored Vitter's text in September

[TomCADem]

63. That's Right! Make The U.S. As Disfunctional As California!

Maybe even add the 2/3 requirement to pass budgets and taxes, and voila, you have a State on the verge of bankruptcy as no legislator has any investment in the long term solvency of the State.

[depakid]

69. How would a reasonable retirement age suit you?

Set at say, 80?

Given the 20th Century fiefdoms still around and interest group cooption, it might make sense not to wheel federal representatives out of the building in a gurney or in coffins- as that's currently the only method to retire some folks on both sides of the aisle.

Might also make sense not to have dementia set in on the Senate floor, as we've seen recently with Grassley.

Best for all involved and best for the nation, IMO to simply say: stand down and enjoy your golden years.

[L. Coyote]

72. Attempt to break the power of BLACK communities, plain and simple!

Check out who has been in Congress longest!

[Yupster]

77. Wherever you see one-party districts, you find

80 year old congresscritters. I don't think it's a black thing. It's a one party district thing.

[L. Coyote]

84. Do the stats!

[LynneSin]

79. Isn't it ironic that the ONLY time they mention term limits is when they are the underdog

but as soon as they have control they toss that idea out the door

[amandabeech]

82. I would rather that they pass an amendment eliminating private funding for federal elections.

We can't county on the Surpeme Court which has held, essentially, that political contributions are free speech. Even if Obama gets his two terms, and moderate to liberal judges dominate the court, continued corruption of the political process by extreme amounts of money may still contine. A constitutional amendment is necessary.

The problem with term limits is that the institutional memory of these very complex institutions. Someone has to understand the ins and outs, and I'd rather that it be elected officials in addition to staff. To see the kind of dysfunction that an entire legislature of short-termers can produce, just look at what happens in those states that have term limits. California is an excellent example that has received considerable news coverage. In addition, I'd nominate my home state of Michigan, not that term limits are the reason for the decline there, but a bunch of green horns haven't exactly been effective at dealing with the situation.

[defendandprotect]

87. We need to work to make sure there terms are very limited . . .!!

[prolesunited]

90. I favor term limits

Every election, the people get to decide.

[Unvanguard]

91. Probably a bad idea. Experience is important. Otherwise the bureaucrats have the power. n/t

[bemildred]

93. I look forward to their setting an example by resigning en masse. nt