Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any politician who would vote against this risks being labeled a 'fat cat career pol'. They are in a real catch-22......I hope it goes through.
and with the mood in the nation not the greatest this was an intelligent move by the Republicans. A year form now some of those fat cats may pay the price.
Any politician who would vote against this risks being labeled a 'fat cat career pol'. They are in a real catch-22......I hope it goes through.
Well, it certainly won't go through in the near future.
And those fat-cat career pols certainly aren't going to support it, because to do so doesn't just put their personal careers in jeopardy, it undermines their constituents' power in Congress. Power in Congress is accrued. You get key appointmens on important committees by waiting out the competition. You get leadership positions by virtue of your seniority. And those leadership positons, those key appointments, mean that your constituency has an edge over constituencies represented by novice lawmakers. Republicans and Democrats alike know this. Neither party wants term limits, but politicians are always eager to pay lip service to the idea, in order to win votes.
Well, it certainly won't go through in the near future.
And those fat-cat career pols certainly aren't going to support it, because to do so doesn't just put their personal careers in jeopardy, it undermines their constituents' power in Congress. Power in Congress is accrued. You get key appointmens on important committees by waiting out the competition. You get leadership positions by virtue of your seniority. And those leadership positons, those key appointments, mean that your constituency has an edge over constituencies represented by novice lawmakers. Republicans and Democrats alike know this. Neither party wants term limits, but politicians are always eager to pay lip service to the idea, in order to win votes.
Of course neither party wants this --- they are in it for personal power and power for their party. Do you really think it has jack all to do with their constituents? Much less the nation as a whole?
The system you outlined above is not one that I would brag about. It is not one that is worthy of protection. It pitts Americans against one another and rewards jackals for accruing power. Basically it promotes corruption. And we have seen that, time and again. If career senators and congressmen actually had only a set time to achieve something, chances are better that good for the entire nation will be acheieved, by promoting working together and not siding with one camp or the other. Change and hope is not just for the campaign season --- and if we were smart we would be howling for term limits.
Of course neither party wants this --- they are in it for personal power and power for their party. Do you really think it has jack all to do with their constituents? Much less the nation as a whole?
The system you outlined above is not one that I would brag about. It is not one that is worthy of protection. It pitts Americans against one another and rewards jackals for accruing power. Basically it promotes corruption. And we have seen that, time and again. If career senators and congressmen actually had only a set time to achieve something, chances are better that good for the entire nation will be acheieved, by promoting working together and not siding with one camp or the other. Change and hope is not just for the campaign season --- and if we were smart we would be howling for term limits.
Of course neither party wants this --- they are in it for personal power and power for their party. Do you really think it has jack all to do with their constituents? Much less the nation as a whole?
The system you outlined above is not one that I would brag about. It is not one that is worthy of protection. It pitts Americans against one another and rewards jackals for accruing power. Basically it promotes corruption. And we have seen that, time and again. If career senators and congressmen actually had only a set time to achieve something, chances are better that good for the entire nation will be acheieved, by promoting working together and not siding with one camp or the other. Change and hope is not just for the campaign season --- and if we were smart we would be howling for term limits.
While I am not bragging about the system, what way besides seniority would be a fair way to determine committee appointments and leadership positions?
You suggest that limiting terms would impose a time constraint on lawmakers so that they would no longer waste time, but this ignores the basic fact of government, that laws are the result of negotiation. Every lawmaking body in the world passes legislation after hammering out the details by extensive debate and negotiation. Does that make the process seem suspect, and even corrupt at times? Yes. But put 50 people in a room and ask them to make rules for the Girl Scouts of America, and those rules will still be the result of people debating and negotiating and making deals. That's what people do with power, and there's no getting around that basic fact.
I don't think term limits are a bad idea, but I think there are drawbacks, and honestly discussing term limits has to look at the drawbacks. Term limits probably wouldn't make government more efficient, but instead less efficient. Take away the seniority system, and you have an even more cut-throat, political environment with legislators competing for those key positions more viciously than before. Impose term limits, and you have a much higher percentage of legislators who aren't familiar with House and Senate rules, who have to learn how laws are written, who have to learn to navigate committees, who have to learn how to balance their time and responsibilities. Bigger learning curve, more people on it, equals less efficiency. Impose term limits, and you remove the relationships, the alliances, the simple knowledge of who you are dealing with. And you take the incentive to build relationships and alliances away as well. You take trust out of the equation and hope for the best.
Like I said, I don't think term limits are a bad idea, but there are drawbacks as well. Maybe the current system is too vulnerable to corruption, and I certainly think that lobbyists have too much influence. But I think that if we are going to discuss term limits, we need to look at exactly what we want to fix, and whether term limits is the best way to fix the problems, or if there are better ways. I personally don't want to use a hammer to fix a problem when a screw driver will do a better job.
While I am not bragging about the system, what way besides seniority would be a fair way to determine committee appointments and leadership positions?
You suggest that limiting terms would impose a time constraint on lawmakers so that they would no longer waste time, but this ignores the basic fact of government, that laws are the result of negotiation. Every lawmaking body in the world passes legislation after hammering out the details by extensive debate and negotiation. Does that make the process seem suspect, and even corrupt at times? Yes. But put 50 people in a room and ask them to make rules for the Girl Scouts of America, and those rules will still be the result of people debating and negotiating and making deals. That's what people do with power, and there's no getting around that basic fact.
I don't think term limits are a bad idea, but I think there are drawbacks, and honestly discussing term limits has to look at the drawbacks. Term limits probably wouldn't make government more efficient, but instead less efficient. Take away the seniority system, and you have an even more cut-throat, political environment with legislators competing for those key positions more viciously than before. Impose term limits, and you have a much higher percentage of legislators who aren't familiar with House and Senate rules, who have to learn how laws are written, who have to learn to navigate committees, who have to learn how to balance their time and responsibilities. Bigger learning curve, more people on it, equals less efficiency. Impose term limits, and you remove the relationships, the alliances, the simple knowledge of who you are dealing with. And you take the incentive to build relationships and alliances away as well. You take trust out of the equation and hope for the best.
Like I said, I don't think term limits are a bad idea, but there are drawbacks as well. Maybe the current system is too vulnerable to corruption, and I certainly think that lobbyists have too much influence. But I think that if we are going to discuss term limits, we need to look at exactly what we want to fix, and whether term limits is the best way to fix the problems, or if there are better ways. I personally don't want to use a hammer to fix a problem when a screw driver will do a better job.
A terrific, well thought out post that brings up very valid points.
I want term limits - but there are drawbacks (still worth it though in my opinion).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
