Term Limits and 1951

1951 was the year we amended the constitution to limit the President to two terms. 1951, not that long ago.

The only serious opponents of term limits are incumbent politicians and the special interests, particularly labor unions, that support them. The people who have something to lose. If the case was actually about 'public service' than the pols who sit in the cushy jobs getting nothing done term after term would have no objection to term limits. Dick Durbin, the Senator of the broken socialist state of Illinois has been in congress since 1996 (he is still one of the newer members) and has no tangible accomplishments. His biggest success has been his ability to remain in congress, raking a great salary and an amazing load of perks that comes with the job. An even more shocking example is Danny Davis. A career Chicago machine pol (he could work in the public sector without the influence and power he has amassed rom his time in politics) he can also count his greatest achievement remaining in office. (as a side note, his 'Doctorate Degree is from an online school where he does not rate a place on their 'Faces of Distinction - Alumni' page) Having lived in Illinois for the entire term of both of these examples, Illinois is in worse shape now then when they were elected. Term limits would have saved Illinois the generational incompetence of these two men and the enormous waste of money they both represent.

Sitting congressional representative have compared the term limits movement to Nazism. Yep not popular with the club members. Special interests know term limits will hurt them, as well as cost them even more money (it is cheaper to buy votes over time than it is to break in new members of congress every 12 years or so). The major contributors to an anti-term limits campaign include Chrysler Corporation, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, Southern California Edison Company, Kellogg Company, and USX Corporation. Large, federally regulated businesses. Also note that the Teamsters, the United Auto Workers, teachers unions, and the AFL-CIO, who spend millions controlling democrat votes in congress. Term limits would also go a long way towards neutering Highly paid lobbyists who steer millions into to coffers of 'reelection campaigns' in exchange for special treatment for their clients. Note that this is not you or me, actual tax paying citizens. We are the suckers in this scheme. There has to be a sucker. Term limits that would force lobbyists to relearn the priorities of new Members and make arguments on the merits, not on the strength of personal connections. The number of lobbing groups has grown from less than 5,000 in 1956 to over 22,000 today as special interests power and inflence has grown and shown real results for groups with deep pockets.

Term limits are needed at all levels of government. This is a simple fact. However, because of the large electoral advantages wielded by incumbents, the historically low rate of turnover, the greater threat from special interests, and the unique power that federal legislators hold, it is especially important to apply term limits to Congress. Term limits counterbalance incumbent advantages. Congressional term limits are a necessary to correct the imbalance which hamstrings all challengers and aid incumbents. Every House Member receives nearly a million dollars per year to pay for franked (free) mail, staff salaries, office and travel expenses. While campaigning, incumbents continue to receive salaries over $130,000 a year, with many, many extra benefits; which dwarf the income of most challengers (imagine looking for a new job, full time, while expecting to be paid for your current job; that is the reality of incumbents). An army of congressional staffers do 'volunteer' work during campaign season; makes sense, they are working to protect their jobs. The power of the franked mailing permits each Member to send thinly disguised reelection propaganda to every residence in his district several times per term. The money allotted to each incumbent for franking alone, over $160,000 per year, is higher than the average challenger's total campaign expenditures. State legislators, who recognize the benefits to their state from long-term congressional incumbency, redraw election districts (gerrymandering, very popular in Illinois) to maximize incumbents' reelection prospects. Crazily, both the House and the Senate have authorized taxpayer-funded lawyers to intervene in term limits litigation. We are paying with tax dollars to prevent term limit legislation. Bizarre. When all of these advantages are added up, name recognition, media access, and higher political contributions, it is no wonder that incumbents lose so rarely. It certainly is not because they are getting any meaningful work done. Despite increasing complaints about how hard the work in Congress is , they all sure seem to want to stay. Who wouldn't, paid handsomely, great perks, and no accountability. Sounds pretty great to me. Term limits ensure congressional turnover.

The turnover rate for House incumbents who attempt reelection is below 10%. This is in shocking contrast to the first century of America's government. In the nineteenth century, the average turnover in each new Congress was over 45 percent, and this ensured a continual influx of Members free from the institutional biases that long-term incumbency brings. Today, however, there is little or no turnover among those who set Congress's agenda: the committee chairmen and other members of the Democratic leadership. In the House of Representatives, for instance, the average job tenure is ten years. However, the principal leaders (the committee chairmen, speaker, majority leader, and whip) have served an average of twenty-seven years -- which means that the average member of this group has been in the House since the Johnson Administration. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. For every congressional election in the last twenty years, incumbents running for reelection in the House of Representatives have been returned to office at rates averaging higher than 90%. THis is sounding less and less like democracy. Term limits would end such entrenchment and concentration of power. There is a very real danger that Congressmen will become enmeshed in a culture that is overfamiliar with the federal government and insulated from the communities they ostensibly represent. Public sentiment in favor of term limits is likely influenced by the fear that Congressmen will become captured by this alien federal culture, as well as by frustration with the watered-down representation that we all get from incumbents of all political stripes routinely getting reelected. Term limits are a reality check providing inescapable, bracing reminders of what life in the real world is like. After former Senator George McGovern tried (and failed) to succeed in small business after spending eighteen years in Congress, he observed: "I wish I had known a little more about the problems of the private sector.... I have to pay taxes, meet a payroll -- I wish I had a better sense of what it took to do that when I was in Washington." Ensuring that Members eventually are exposed to life outside of Congress should inculcate a more sophisticated understanding of the logic and the limits of federal regulation. Term limits minimize Members incentives for reelection-related "pork- barrel" legislation. As government needlessly grows larger, legislative careerism has become more prominent in Congress. Because long-tenured Congressmen have increasing power over the fate of federal projects due to the seniority system, senior members of both parties now routinely campaign by stressing their ability to bring federal projects to their home districts rather than by explaining their views on the important issues of the day. When Members express their preferences in committee assignments, they are aware of the electoral impact of federal spending directed at their districts. After the 1992 elections, so many freshman Congressmen chose the Public Works and Transportation Committee that new seats had to be created, making Public Works the largest committee in Congress. Term limits, by eliminating incentives for careerism, would curb reelection-oriented federal spending which is targeted to particular districts but contributes little to the general welfare of the country. Long-term officeholders, less vulnerable because of a well-honed reelection machine fueled by public resources, come gradually to identify their interests more and more with those of the federal government. They work for each other, not for us, the people who elected them. There is a strong correlation between length of legislative service and votes in favor of more public expenditures. Longer-serving Congressmen are also more hostile generally to other fiscally conservative measures, such as a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, Term limits would push numerous other congressional votes in a more fiscally conservative direction.

Term limits would restore respect for Congress by arresting the decline of congressional legitimacy, ensuring that Members would be more truly representative of their communities, and would renew American citizenship by writing into law the principles that people can govern themselves -- and that this representation falls within the competence of any reasonably interested and well-educated citizen. The objection that long service is essential to understanding the complex legislative process says far more about the current congressional system than it does about the concept of term limits.

At the heart of it. the best way to correct our government is to bring in legislators with fresh outlooks, new ideas, and better incentives. Term limits are the only realistic way to change the culture of legislative careerism in Congress -- a culture that undermines the public interest. Kick the bums out, as they say.

(information in this post has been gleaned from multiple sources. The interweb rules)