Continuing on my previous post, I have to clarify something. Because I agree with Jon Huntsman that the Republican Party lacks ideas, it doesn’t mean I agree with Huntsman’s proposals, indeed I don’t. But his criticism of our party at the Congressional level is legitimate as far as it goes.
What I think the Republican party must do is come out with a Conservative Reform Agenda. In the words of Sarah Palin, we have to put government on the side of the people, move government from being master and savior to being a servant.
So, how could we do this? Here’s what I think a true agenda for reforming our country would look like:
1) Reform Government
A broad category , but it’s vitally necessary. We have to trim the massive folds of unrelenting ugly fat from government by:
a) Eliminating or consolidating redundant agencies.
b) Devolving power to the states to create more efficient management.
c) Outsourcing Certain Government functions to the Private Sector when it will make good sense to do so.
d) Selling off unused federal assets.
e) Pinch every penny of federal dollars until it screams.
f) reform Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.
2) Abolish the Current Federal Tax Code
If you actually get rid of the income tax code, you get rid of a ton of lobbying and corruption. You unshackle the American economy from the load of $350 billion spent on nothing more than compliance with this tax code.
3) Abolish the Campaign Finance Code
The whole McCain-Feingold/post-Watergate attempts to regulate and control political speech are unqualified and complete disasters that serve only to protect incumbents, discourage people from running and require politicians to spend all of their time fundraising.
Remember McCain-Feingold was supposed to end the corrupting influence of money in politics? Has it? Look at the last election. Obama’s half billion campaign blew right through the myths of BCRA. Enough!
Let full disclosure be the law and let’s end this sham. If you want more ethical government, choose people of high character, not limit the pool of potential candidates to the well-connected and wealthy.
4) Term Limits for Members of Congress
I remember when attending a 1994 Senate debate between Senator Conrad Burns and Missoula lawyer Jack Mudd, the topic of term limits came up and someone from the audience said, “Politicians should be limited to two terms: one in office and one in jail.”
Perhaps, we don’t need to be that draconian, but if there’s anything that’s messed our country up more than a Congress that serves forever, I don’t know what it is. Back in the 1990s. After all, I reasoned, if we replaced those nasty with Republicans, we wouldn’t need term limits. What a sap I was!
We have learned the lesson of Lord Acton, power corrupts and absolute corrupts absolutely. In the time of the founding Fathers, no one imagined someone spending 40 years in Congress as Charlie Rangel has done.
How radically have we changed to career politicians? All of the 25 longest serving members of the U.S. Senate served in the 20th century, not a single one completed record longevity during the 19th century, eighteen of those twenty-five didn’t start serving in the Senate until after 1940.
These offices are public trusts meant to be held for a season, not forever. When you get people in Congress who are of the mind that their career will last forever, you get arrogance and you get a ruling class that cares more for itself than for the people. Let’s limit the House to four consecutive terms and the the Senate to two Consecutive terms.
5) Pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring a Balanced Budget and granting the President a Line Item veto.
These are things most states have in some form and there’s no compelling for the federal government not to have it.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
February 26th, 2009 at 12:13 am
Adam, I’m frankly not in favor of term limits with the exception for the President. There is something to be said about the efficacy of the legislator. Many legislators have adapted to the times and served the public well. If they didn’t, the public would vote them out (except in areas where there has been marked voter intimidation and fraud.)
I do think a line item veto is a necessity, now.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:38 am
Anthony, the deal with term limits is that for every Statesman like Henry Hyde or Daniel Patrick Moynihan in congress there’s two or three Charlie Rangels and five or six Jerry Lewis’.
Our current Congress and every congress for the past 50 years attests to the fact that rather than engendering efficacy, unlimited terms engender corruption.
Also, the re-election of Congressman doesn’t necessarily attest to popularity of members of Congress as it does a closed marketplace. With gerrymandered and the difficulty of defeating an incumbent, it scares off many strong candidates from considering a run, so the people actually have less viable choices.
We cannot have government by the people as long as we have government by a few Senior members of Congress. It doesn’t work. The longer a member has been in Congress the more they’ve done to mess up our country, and the more corrupt he becomes.
I didn’t believe in term limits until 2006, but now I see the evidence that Washington is a town of corruption. It’s like a radioactive waste dump of corruption that human beings need limited exposure to in order to avoid falling into that corrupt culture.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Nice post, Adam.
Would you think 5 terms for Representatives and 2 terms for Senators?
February 26th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Adam, what you say sounds true. But I would argue that the biggest reason why great men don’t run for office, isn’t because of gerrymandering or an entrenched incumbent; it’s because great men know that being a politician isn’t the greatest way to effect change on the population. Let’s face it, lots of congressmen and senators talk alot but don’t do much. There are many CEO’s, doctors, and lawyers that can do more to advance society within their own boundaries than using a single vote in the house or senate. The fact is, the Charlie Rangel’s and Jerry Lewis’ will always exist, regardless of how congressional districts are outlined or how a state tends to vote. The way we win is by taking our fight to the districts that are persuadable and changeable or where there is abnormal voter discontent. I would even argue, that as much as there have been and are some horrid congressmen that have last 30-40 years in Washington, there have been many others on our side that have lasted as well and have been reliable votes for us. I see the term limit fight as a waste of time and not filled with much reward for either side.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:58 am
#3:
I’d go up to 6 terms, I go down to 3 terms. I think one think that hindered term limits is so many people got obsessed with the exact number of terms. As our chairman would say, “Whatever it takes, baby.”
February 26th, 2009 at 1:02 am
#4:
There are not good Congressmen than bad, and ultimately, it doesn’t matter. If you send someone there with unlimited terms, odds are they get corrupted by the city. Washington changes them rather than them changing Washington.
You will not change Washington as long as career politicians rule. You need fresh blood, you need new life and you need to open the door to more and more citizens to become involved.
The term limits fight was very popular in many states and even in Calfornia when they tried to weaken the state’s term limits, the voters of that blue state said absolutely not.
The issue has currency for Republicans because it resonates with the American people when the issue is raised, pushed, and treated with seriousness, it’s a winner. 83% of the American people favor term limits. What’s the way back to power? Put yourself on the right side of 83% of Americans and act like the issue matters.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Well, if you apply the standard of “change” to term limits, I’d agree with you. The problem is, change isn’t always good. Sometimes the status quo and/or experience is totally necessary in Washington. Why is it that the greatest turn around of congressmen in congress, isn’t long serving members…it’s first term members that campaign on the message of “change” or something new and ultimately can’t effect change. Watch Obama even now. Surely, he’ll make the case that he’s going to enact major changes to the way our system works. But, when all the chips are on the table, lot’s of his proposals are doomed to failure and we will inevitably revert back to what we had in 1994 or perhaps 1980…
I think what you say is very valid and I just respectfully disagree. If I live in a district with a congressman that is doing a good job, has brought prosperity to my district, and is honest, I’d want him to stay on as long as he continued to do that.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:11 am
PS, every other bullet point that you outline, I agree with fervently, especially number one. For your first point, it’s my rallying call. Squeeze out the waste, fire/let go personnel that’s not needed drastically reform the biggest entitlements (and dare I say, eliminate Social Security Completely)
February 26th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Anthony, 80% of the members of Congress need to go and now. The good Congressmen are not indispensable and the bad Congressmen we can do without.
I’m curious as to where you live. (Not city or anything creepy like that, but who’s your congressman.)
Mine is Mike Simpson. Now there’s a guy who’s been in Washington too long…
February 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
#8:
Okay, well if most people will agree with most of the agenda, I’ll take it, but apparently as human beings we don’t gravitate towards the points we agree on.
But the contentious ones.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:18 am
I’m in Philadelphia…Bob Brady…can’t stand him…douche bag, blah politician, etc…but it’s Philadelphia…some douche bag will always be here
February 26th, 2009 at 1:20 am
#11:
A douche bag who brings prosperity? *confused*
February 26th, 2009 at 1:28 am
no…he doesn’t bring prosperity, but nor would someone new…they’d all be in the same mold of a left-wing Philadelphia politician. You see, I’m not going to apply a standard to the guy that represents my district and say that he should go after eight years and then turn around and say Michelle Bachmann from MN should stay for more than eight years because she’s fabulous. It’s just not right.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Just to start at the top.
“a) Eliminating or consolidating redundant agencies.”
There are no redundant agencies. What do you have in mind?
“b) Devolving power to the states to create more efficient management.”
Management is more efficient when centrally coordinated. There may be other good reasons to decentralize, but efficiency is not one of them.
“c) Outsourcing Certain Government functions to the Private Sector when it will make good sense to do so.”
This has been going on for a generation. If anything, too much is being outsourced.
“d) Selling off unused federal assets.”
Like what?
“f) reform Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.”
In what way do you propose to do this that is different from any or all of the hundreds of other ideas out there?
“2) Abolish the Current Federal Tax Code”
Huh? And replace it with what? C’mon, may, no one is going to take you seriously if you simply state that you want to abolish the current code. That is meaningless. It will have to be replaced with something, and what that something is – is what the entire debate is about.
“3) Abolish the Campaign Finance Code…
Let full disclosure be the law and let’s end this sham.”
So how exactly would a campaign finance system with no limits, just full disclosure do ANYTHING to reduce the problems that YOU identify as being part of the current system:
“protect incumbents, discourage people from running and require politicians to spend all of their time fundraising.”
At least McCain was freed from fundraising for a while. Your solution would make money-raising full time, would do nothing to encourage anyone to run – in fact it would be even harder than now for an underfinanced person.
The current system may be bad, but your solution would only make it worse.
“4) Term Limits for Members of Congress”
A ridiculous gimmick that y’all imposed on us back in the nineties, and that is being rolled back, rather than expanded.
The Constitution specifies the appropriate limit to terms – they should end when the people no longer want to be represented by the incumbent. Term limits are an insult to the notion of democracy – they insure a legislature full of greenhorns who dont have institutional memory, dont know how the place operates, and spend their short careers on the lookout for what cushy job they will land in once they are forced out by the artificial limits. Term limits are a way to empower special interests – lobbyists and their firms are permanent parts of the scene – they become the repository of institutional memory, they have all the deep and long standing connections, they know how to manipulate the system.
“5) Pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring a Balanced Budget and granting the President a Line Item veto.”
That sounds nice, but it would hugely upset the balance of power between the legislature and the executive – it would make the president close to a dictator. Thats why they all want it, and why it aint gonna happen.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:57 am
In any country there needs to be a class of elites in government (our senators and to a lesser extent representatives) – they are simply the best ones to keep things stable due to their political experience. The tendency of the elites to guard their power and prestige is of course placed in check by the fact that they have to answer to the people wherein their power lies every few years.
A system that is too democratic is unstable because it results quickly in a tyranny of the majority. The best, most prosperous, and most enduring states, in history, are those that have a mixed system like us (the Roman Republic comes to mind) with a strong but not overpowered executive, an elite group of legislators, and periodic oversight by the people at large. The best of the best also have very high national aspirations that they hold their government to. If we put term limits on we weaken the legislature overall (relative to the Presidency in particular) and get too many senators and reps that will do anything to placate their voters and siphon money since the good ones are constantly getting shuffled out. There’d be no point in establishing a career there.
It’s a recipe for bad government. If we don’t like the elites in Congress, we get the pleasure of throwing them out. And if certain places won’t throw them out, there’s not much we can do because people are to varying degrees tolerant of corruption and cronyism.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:03 am
Completely concur with Tano on the line item veto as well. Giving popular leaders lots of power never, ever turns out well and the Presidency should definitely not get any more than it currently has.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:06 am
#15:
If we put term limits on we weaken the legislature overall (relative to the Presidency in particular) and get too many senators and reps that will do anything to placate their voters and siphon money since the good ones are constantly getting shuffled out. There’d be no point in establishing a career there.
First of all, politics shouldn’t be a career. Secondly, the legislative branch would be no more weakened than the Executive Branch that has term limits.
My ideal is that the good ones get constantly shuffled out, making room for new blood and rotation in the system.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:08 am
Tano…I’ll respond line-by-line
A) “redundant agencies”
-first, use this website as a reference: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081026t.pdf…there are others too…if you just do a few simple searches, you’ll find a lot…second, i don’t even think we need to start at agencies or programs…it’s cutting out the fat of personnel…from 1995 to 2007 the amount of middle and lower level management positions in government offices doubled…this is totally not necessary and could be eliminated immediately
B) “efficient management”
-you’re totally wrong and ill-advised…we know that the most efficient levels of government service happen at the local levels…when a centralized power controls the destiny of all people and can’t account for any regional trends or attitudes, people revolt or reject the system…this is why we have a tax system that is both centralized and de-centralized to states and local authorties…if we allow the central power to control all the distribution of money, effective programs that are only necessary to certain communities might not be created and people get ignored…frankly, we should decentralize government totally
C) “outsourcing government programs”
-frankly, we should allow the private sector to do more. When has government been the best agent to handle our money? When has government been the best agent to administer health services? when when when
D) “federal assets”
-again, simple research will provide you with simple answers…post office building, train stations, power stations, jails/prisons, government housing, etc etc etc…billions of dollars in real estate, billions of dollars just to maintain it…billions of dollars down the toilet
F) “entitlements”
-Social Security is bust and should be completely abolished and eliminated by 2020…allow the last generation of people that paid into to get it…wipe it out for our generations and reduce our tax burden…most asian societies don’t have a social security system…they have people that learn at very young ages how to save properly and thus can finance their own retirements…why is that the japanese save proportionately, 120% more money than Americans do? Medicare, needs work…millions of ideas like you said…medicaid is misused by millions of people and many families that don’t currently have health insurance don’t realize that they have an option to use medicaid as a source for some of their insurance
2) “tax code”
-the tax code is one of the biggest burden on the american system…the amount of people necessary to just maintain it is a burden…we should totally gut and simply the system, effectively eliminating the need for so many government jobs, and make the system easier for the public
3) “campaign finance”
-Frankly, I think we should just take money out of elections…people try to make the case that if you cap the amount of donations (private and corporate) that a candidate can receive, you stifle “free speech” and effectively minimize the constitution…I disagree… I think Free speech is more stifled when one interest (a candidate) has more money than the other…so when those two (or more) competing interests begin to use their money, one’s speech doesn’t have the chance of maximizing in the public domain that the other’s does. At that point, free speech is no longer equal…something which i would call a major blow to the free flow of information…we saw this in this past election…free speech can be maximized by giving every candidate an equal opportunity at their speech, by taking money out of it completely
4) “term limits”
-Adam and I discussed this many times over above
5) “line item veto”
-it’s necessary because so much crap gets thrown into bills at the last second and ultimately, gets passed into law because it’s part of an entire blanket…i don’t see at all how it would make the president a dictator…it actually mitigates the opportunity of the president to enact blanket legislation that shouldn’t be there in the first place
February 26th, 2009 at 2:13 am
Adam, I rarely agree with anything you say, but I must say that I find this post to be right on the money. Especially term limits. Incumbants hold such a ridiculous advantage over newcomers, and it’s so hard to get rid of them, even when they’re useless/corrupt/harmful/other.
Also, it’ll be interesting to see what sort of “emergency” pork barrel project Congress designs when we realize that the Social Security program is “suddenly” insolvent.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:34 am
Adam,
But if a lawmaker is good at what he does, we’d want to keep him around, yes? It’s silly to throw out someone, an established lawmaker, that does a relatively good job – and less would bother to do one if they knew they couldn’t establish a career as a good congressman. It’d all just be a popular special interest power grab.
Our government needs a governing elite.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:40 am
Guys, remember that you aren’t killing corruption by throwing out a corrupt legislator a bit earlier than his district would have. Instead you will get a Congress run by special interests who know the avenues of power a whole lot better than the Congressmen – it will be manipulated by shady, external, undemocratic groups even more than it already is at times now.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:41 am
The line-item veto is unconstitutional.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:43 am
make it constitutional
February 26th, 2009 at 6:17 am
#22 The line-item veto is unconstitutional.
Alex, that’s why Adam said pass an amendment.
As for the overall on this list, I mostly agree. The line-item veto I’m of mixed feelings. Yes, I like the idea conceptually, but I think in practice, it might move too much power to the President. Can you see Pres Obama vetoing tax cuts from the pork bill? I could, and he’d sell it on “the rich have to make sacrifices…”
Speaking of which, when calling for “sacrifice,” why is it that liberals only mean having more money come out of your pocket, as opposed to trimming back or eliminating pet projects?
Finally, term limits is a wonderful idea, and one reason is the same as for the First Amendment (but isn’t mentioned, as far as I can tell). Keeping the same people in Congress keeps the same thoughts and policies in place. The world adapts to change, why shouldn’t Congress? It’s extremely unhealthy for government to be status quo in an evolving world.
Look at it another way. Today, we consider a move of 40 seats (not quite 10%) to be a massive shift. WTH!?!? A massive public shift should mean a LOT more than that! So many advantages are already built into the system (did you know that Congressmen can bulk ship, at taxpayer expense, campaign literature to their constituents under the guise of keeping their constituents informed?) that it’s ridiculous!
Anyway, the list is a great start (oh, I agree with Tano that you have to replace the tax code with something; Fair Tax, anyone?)! Once we’ve done most/all of that, we can start working on the next round of changes.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:06 am
#21
Guys, remember that you aren’t killing corruption by throwing out a corrupt legislator a bit earlier than his district would have. Instead you will get a Congress run by special interests who know the avenues of power a whole lot better than the Congressmen
Yeah, because as it is now, special interests have none influence. None! If you get rid of the current Campaign Finance laws and the tax code that will be solved.
#24:
I agree with the Fair Tax as a replacement, but I just don’t want to start the fight over what we replace it with on this thread.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:14 am
24-Richard
“Keeping the same people in Congress keeps the same thoughts and policies in place. The world adapts to change, why shouldn’t Congress? It’s extremely unhealthy for government to be status quo in an evolving world.”
Ha! What a beautiful expression of a liberal’s mindset. I thought conservatives LIKED the idea of constancy and stability.
But you are missing the point of having a democratically elected government. There may be any number of ideas you come up with to modify the system to make it better, but none of those ideas should actually be implemented, because the principle that is most important is that you have a government that best represents the will of the people. That is the whole point of a democracy.
Is it absolutely perfect? No. Maybe you get some people who are constantly reelected who really should be retired. But they always CAN be retired by the people – so the better solution is to work to get people more interested in what is going on, and to be less tolerant of corruption or incompetence. You don’t take away the right of the people to be represented by the person they most want to represent them.
There is nothing wrong with making a career of being a legislator. Its totally screwy that anyone would think it is a problem. It is a difficult job, requiring knowledge of a vast amount of things, and understanding how dense and byzantine processes work. If done with honor, honesty and competence it can be a wonderful life’s work.
Given that these types of laws have been established in random places around the country, we can see how they work. Or not. They dont. You do not get better representation, you get WORSE. You don’t get fewer sleazy con men, you get more. It is no longer potentially an honorable career – it becomes necessarily a stepping-stone job to something else. Either in politics, usually in the lobbying world. Thus it actually ENCOURAGES corruption, by forcing legislators to constantly keep in mind the fact that they are going to have to go out and make money some other way soon, and working for those special interests is the obvious path. So they do their bidding even more so than now.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:19 am
One is already in the platform; two, well, you need an alternative (and don’t say the fair tax – the last thing we need in this economy is a tax that encourages people to stop buying goods); three – yes; five – yes, except in wartime.
But number four: “Term Limits for Members of Congress” I take serious issues with. Term limits are a disaster, and they do more to remove good choices from the ballot than anything else. In Michigan, we have term limits for the legislature, and guess what? We end up with a bunch of people who have no connections, and no clue in hell how to run a government.
Say what you want about how good politicians aren’t indispensible – but not everyone is a Reagan or a Roosevelt or a Kennedy. If every election was a Reagan against a Roosevelt, we wouldn’t have issues – but instead, we get the likes of Obama, Carter, Bush, and Clinton.
People will vote out the corrupt, inept, and those who they don’t like. Just look at Ted Stevens – he didn’t even have a conviction before the election, and one of the most Republican states still voted him out.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:31 am
18-
Anthony,
A) No,it is on you to present us with examples of “redundant agencies”. You don’t make a compelling argument by telling people, when they challenge you for specifics, to go to the library and look it up.
B)I tried to be careful and specify that I was talking about efficiency. It sounds like you dont know what that word means, and are substituting a different meaning. Sure, centralization has inherent problems, and these can be huge if one centralizes too much. But the opposite is true to. If you do not coordinate and centralize enough, then you end up with massive redundancy (replicating an administrative hierarchy in 50 different states), incoherence, as things are done differently in different places making it hard for people to know what to expect etc.
That is the problem of efficiency of administration.
C) Sounds like a statement of ideology, with no good reason to back it up. “When has government been the best agent to administer health services?” Huh? Are you serious? Go look up the administrative overhead costs of Medicare vs. the private sector. Medicare is VASTLY superior – using something in the range of 2% of its money for administration, whereas the private sector is over 10%.
This may be shocking to people who never actually learn about the real world, but just live in the ideologues world, where government is supposed to be always bad. I urge you to explore the facts of this example, and really try to figure out why it is so. You will end up learning the severe limitations of your ideology.
D) Once again, you make a proposal, its on you to do the research and tell us why you believe what you believe. Till then, I assume you got nothin’.
Entitlements.
Now is not the time. Social Security is in good shape – able to pay full benefits for the next 33 years. After that it can only pay 72% of benefits, so eventually a minor tweak may be necessary.
Tax Code. I see no specifics, so what is the point?
Campaign Finance. Well your proposal is the exact opposite of Adams. Yours is the position taken by the far left. I am sympathetic. Good luck – keep making the case in places like this.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:32 am
I’m with MPC, but let’s run term limits through the law-of-unintended-consequences computer.
If someone applies for a job with an expiration date, that person will keep his or her future career in mind. So you will wind up attracting those who see a career future in the massive lobbying industry around Washington, D.C., and it’s massive bureaucracy. Such lawmakers will first and foremost be interested in pleasing the moneyed interests around the Beltway rather than their constituents back home.
You’ll wind up with short-term politicians angling for a career in the lobbying industry, which they will expand in order to keep their job prospects as lobbyists as promising as possible. You’ll wind up expanding the power and reach of centralized government by lobby group, which is already out of hand at it is.
Instead of term limits, encourage politicians to pledge themselves to limited terms. That might be the “good enough” solution that is the best that one could hope for.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Adam, I am glad you distinguished yourself from Huntsman. And I think that your ideas are right on except for the line item veto.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Broadly, I agree with Adam G’s first and second points, tepid on third, and opposed to the fourth and fifth.
Campaign finance laws should probably be overhauled, but there will always be laws regulating the actions of candidates, and some of these will apply to the How as well as the Who of campaign financing.
The line-item veto amendment would give greater power to the President and disrupt the current balance between the Legislative and Executive branches with regard to domestic policy. Such a veto would also lead legislators and lobbyists to find creative ways around it, probably by causing legislation to be drafted in even more contorted sentences so that poison pill clauses can be added to unrelated lines.
It is difficult to figure out the future perversions that such an amendment would bring in its wake over the medium-to-long term.
Finally, I would ask whether the line-item-veto supporters like or dislike the idea of extending Dubya’s infamous practice of “signing statements” under legislation to the current administration. And if you like the signing statements, why not keep that rather than fighting for an amendment, which would take a decade or more to implement if ever.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:04 am
I’m a huge fan of term limits. After all, the Founding Father’s considered putting in the Constitution, but figured they didn’t need to, since who in their right mind would make politics a career?!
My Senator is Tom Coburn. When he was elected to the House in ’94, he pledged (along with many others) to serve no more than three terms. He kept his pledge, unlike many others (like Tom Tancredo). Now he’s pledged to serve no more than two terms in the senate (and there’s the distinct possibility he may not run for a second). That’s the best scenario, self term limiting.
However, only the good politicians will do that (well, some of them, that is), and some of them end up breaking their pledge. I think a term limit of 6 terms in the House and 3 in the Senate would be good. And just for your information, Rep. Jose Serrano, I do not want the presidential term limit extended to three terms. Two terms works just fine, thank you very much.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:06 am
One of the big problems with politicians is that they are constantly running for re-election. They put their own interest in getting re-elected ahead of doing what is right, even if it is unpopular.
Limit the Senate to one 6 year term. Raise the pay to attract the most talented people (who otherwise would be taking a pay cut) but get rid of some of the benefits like their pension.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Wow, when I read number 1 I thought Adam had finally come around to supporting Romney. Oh well, nice writeup. I agree with a lot of it. I’m on the fence with 2 and 4. I like the line item veto, even with Obama in charge. It makes him fully acountable for the bills he signs. Can’t just say “I had to do something” without taking his share of blame for all of the pork.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:33 am
I don’t want terms limits – I don’t care who imposed them. I want the ability to vote for a politician as long as I want him in office. Think, a third Reagan term would probably have eliminated both Clinton AND Bush II.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:35 am
I actually do not agree with everything in this post, but I think it is very well written.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:35 am
MatthewK, as usual, fails to see the folly of his politics. Do you want three Obama terms? Three Hillary Clinton terms?
February 26th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Congress’s incumbency rating is in the 90s, yet their approval rating is in the 30s. Please tell me how this is a good thing.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:43 am
It might not be a good thing, but it’s par for the course. It’s also interesting to note that people rate their own legislators positively, while hating the body as a whole.
Remember Churchill’s dictum: Democracy is the worst conceivable form of government — until one examines the alternatives.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:48 am
It might not be a good thing, but it’s par for the course.
So is a Democratic Congress. Seriously, I’m sick of these weiner incumbents winning only because they have name recognition and straight-party-line voters. The average Joe is almost always in the pocket of a mediocre incumbent.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
MatthewK,
Your genius shows no limits.
Point A- No term limits likely would’ve meant a third and probably fourth term for Bill Clinton, who left office with large approval, and who said he would’ve loved to run again had he been legally able to.
Point B- A third Reagan term? Seriously? He was a great President, but his health was failing him, and by 1990, he likely had Alzheimers.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
42 – Who would have ran to split the Republican vote for a third Clinton term? Ross Perot was ready to hang it up by then. (I favor term limits for president but Clinton was not so wildly popular with voters as he is often made out to be.)
February 26th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
The argument over term limits should not be about whether such and such a president could or couldnt have a third term. We are arguing about core democratic principles here, not angling for advantage in a specific case.
And if the American people felt that Bill Clinton, or Ronald Reagan was the best person to be president, even though that had already served two terms, then why should they be prevented from running again? It is insane.
Term limits were always nothing but a gimmick – an artificial, antidemocratic way for the Republicans to try to gain power by preventing Democrats from being reelected even though the people wanted those Democrats.
The effort was led by that huge hypocrite, Newt Gingrich, who preached about how Congressmen should only serve 12 years, while he was in his 13th and 14th year in office. If he believed what he preached he should have not run again.
Its a totally artificial and phony measure with HUGE unintended consequences, all of which end up empowering special intersts over the will of the people.
“Congress’s incumbency rating is in the 90s, yet their approval rating is in the 30s. Please tell me how this is a good thing.”
Its a phony comparison, because “congresses rating” is a phony statistic. Individual congressmen usually have high approval ratings, so the fact that they are reelected is not surprising.
Congress as a whole never has high approvals (or very rarely) because Congress will ALWAYS do things that we, as individuals, consider less than ideal. That should be obvious – Congress is the place we go to in order to COMPROMISE with each other.
I have an agenda, I work hard to get a representative to push that agenda, then in the end, the Congress passes some weak, watered down thing that I can barely recognize. Thats because a deal had to be made with YOUR representative, representing the fact that you want something totally different than what I do.
This is the way democracy works though. Its a feature, not a bug.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Tano, I support term limits mainly to get rid of my own worthless GOP “representatives”. Nice try though.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
GetReal,
Clinton’s approval ratings rose after his second victory. He left office with an approval rating in the high 50′s. In 1995-96, they were not anywhere near that level.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
The country wasn’t set up to be a pure democracy.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
The country wasn’t set up to be a pure democracy.
What’s your point? It wasn’t set up to be a country that neither needs nor particularly wants voters, to paraphrase Jon Stewart.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
^
To those complaining that term limits are undemocratic and should be avoided because of it.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Oh, ok. I thought you were actually trying to make a point to the contrary.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
It was all a conspiracy by the Republicans! Like George Washington and every other American president prior to FDR…
February 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
I am against term limits because I think we ought to let people make a decision on a case by case basis. If incumbents are so bad, corrupt… than there’s no reason we can’t vote them out, but why make a blanket rule that will effect the good with the bad?
February 26th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
“Point A- No term limits likely would’ve meant a third and probably fourth term for Bill Clinton, who left office with large approval, and who said he would’ve loved to run again had he been legally able to.”
Accept for the fact of Roberts and Alito, I don’t see why that would have been so bad. At least Clinton didn’t run up huge deficits like Bush and Obama.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:28 am
53 – True, he did find huge savings by closing down so many of our military bases, plus we had that awesome, totally solid dot-com based economic boom!