I got this the other day in praise of Senator Jim DeMint’s introduction of legislation calling for Congressional term limits. If there can be a limit on presidential terms (22nd Amendment) I think this ought to be the 28th. From U.S. Term Limits:
U.S. Term Limits President Philip Blumel today praised Senator Jim DeMint’s proposed amendment to the Constitution imposing 6-year and 12-year terms on Representatives and Senators as “an historic opportunity to bring an end to an era of oppressive political oligarchy that threatens the very fabric of representative government.”
Blumel urged Americans nationwide to support what he said was a “non-partisan, widely popular proposal.” He said the term limits amendment “would bring an end to the aura of insularity that prevails in Washington today, ushering in a new era of citizen legislators.”
According to DeMint’s proposed amendment, which is cosponsored by Senators Tom Coburn, Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Sam Brownback, U.S. Representatives would be limited to three, two-year terms, and Senators two, six-year terms.
Said DeMint, “Term limits will increase legislative turnover, expand the field of candidates who run for office, and instill transparency and accountability in our public officials,” saying that the power of incumbency had created “an almost insurmountable advantage for Washington politicians.”
Blumel agreed, pointing out that, according to the Globe and Mail, the incumbency advantage for Representatives running for re-election is 96 percent. For Senators, 88 percent. “Barring death, indictment or the rare retirement, the incumbent reelection rate approaches 100 percent,” Blumel said.
“The Constitution is needed to rein in the powers of members of Congress, and the perfect place to start is term limits,” Blumel added.
“Today, the U.S. has the longest serving members in Congress in its history. And as a result of these out-of-touch career politicians, the fiscal house is on the brink of ruin,” said Blumel, “The national debt has never been larger nor the electorate more discontented with Congress.”
A recent Pulse Opinion Research poll that found that 83 percent of likely voters believe that elected officials should have their terms of office limited, including 86 percent of Republicans, 77 percent of Democrats, and 87 percent of Independents.
“Support for term limits is at an all-time high. And it’s no wonder. There is no accountability,” Blumel explained. “The reason the nation is faced with such irresponsible politicians is because the ballot box has become increasingly ineffective at getting rid of incumbents in gerrymandered-Congressional districts.”
“But with Congressional term limits, Washington could be cleaned up with new generations of politicians who are closer to the people. They will spend less time getting re-elected and more time attending to the work of the American people. Therefore, all Americans and every member of Congress should support amending the Constitution to include term limits for members of Congress,” Blumel concluded.
It’s widely conceded that, in this Congress, term limits are going nowhere. While it’s not necessarily a partisan issue, most of those who have made Congress their life’s work by having careers spanning 20, 30, or more years are Democrats who hail from safe districts or states. Obviously the argument is that those residents like their representation, but as the release points out the electorate as a whole is disgusted with the doings on Capitol Hill.
Another aspect of the question concerns pensions. It’s my understanding that full pensions for Congress do not kick in until 18 to 20 years’ service. Perhaps a sweetener for compromise would be to allow pensions to vest after a shorter time period in exchange for those currently in office leaving sooner.
When he was running for Congress last year, I asked Andy Harris about whether he would term-limit himself and the reply was 12 years is long enough to be in any office to get things done. Sure enough, by running in 2010 he’s ending his 12-year tenure in the Maryland Senate. Whether Frank Kratovil plans on making the same sort of promise is unknown, but in the recent call for fiscal conservatism from TEA Partiers and others interested in limiting the size and reach of government there is room for a litmus test on whether they’re interested in truly serving the people or enriching themselves by being career politicians.
Another point made by the release is about the gerrymandering of districts. Next week I have a post which will explain the sinister intent of some to disenfranchise conservative voters – be on the watch for it.
So far we have two candidates signed and one pending. Someday only bonded candidates will run for office.
Send the professional politicians home.