The best nuclear option for the senate--term limits

from JoeUser Forums
It's take a lot of work and self control to hold back from letting lose with a bad joke that the best option would be to have all of Congress (House and Senate) laid waste, but seeing the newest threads complaining about the possibility of the so-called "nuclear" option for the Senate, I'm reminded that the best option for the Senate (and the House also) would be the implementation of hard and fast term limits.

Personally, I'd love to see limits of no more than 18 consecutive years (3 current Senate terms) for any elected office in the country -- applicable to all levels. 18 years -- for most people approximately 1/4 of an average life -- should be enough to accomplish everything you might ever wish to accomplish. I'd apply the same standard to all elected offices, and even do away with the current limits we have on the office of President of the United States. By allowing Presidents to serve more than the current 8 years, we'd help get rid of the "lame duck" syndrome that attacks and befalls many of our Presidents as they enter their second terms and get closer to the second half of those second terms. I expect that most citizens would be smart enough to dump a candidate that was truly doing a bad job as they go on through additional terms, even though currently our citizens could that for their Senators and Representatives and very few ever exercise the priviledge.

Still, putting limits on the time that any person could stay in any one office would mean that they'd hopefully be forced to try harder to please their customers (us), in the hopes they they could move on to the next higher office. At 18 years, Representatives would have the opportunity to serve through several House terms while trying a run at the Senate above them, and the Senate seats would open up along the way thanks to the term limits there also.

I suppose, thinking about it, that this stance makes me somewhat hypocritical as I think of my reply to Draginol's article supporting Inheritance taxes. In effect, I'm supporting a similar concept by saying I want to force people out of office along the way, but again, the thought is that in doing so, our politicians would have to try harder for us, and would be less likely to spend their time arguing over the jobs they are supposed to be doing.

I can dream a little, I guess.
politics
1,758 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would be for term limits legislation only if:

1) It was presented as a Constitutional Amendment. The requirements of a Senator and Representative are State issues. Therefore, the only way term limits could be Consitutional is to amend the Constitution to include them.

2) The Senator's or Representatives could bring in their own staff. It would be really counter productive to elect new Politicians every few terms, but leave the staffs intact. After awhile, the elected official would be reduced to being the spokesman for a very powerful staff.

I am all for term limits, as long as the laws requiring them are passed by legal means.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Is an interesting idea, and I have mixed feelings on it. On the one hand, term limits would let more people hold office thus bringing more opinion/viewpoints to the show. Keep people from abusing the power of office to stay there for their whole lives. Sounds good and all. But on the other hand, if someone is doing the job that well, shouldn't they be able to stay in office to keep doing it? And is it really the governments place to tell us who we can elect and for how long? Shouldn't the people be smart (or stupid) enough to figure that one out on their own and deal with whatever results they get? So I can see good and bad to both, so I say I have mixed feelings.
But more importantly, what does this have to do with 'nuclear'? I was reading somewhere else about 'nuclear' options and it sounded like they were talking about filibusters, which made no sense to me. What does talking for hours on end have to do with anything nuclear related? Oh well, probably one of those silly political things that don't make sense and arn't supposed to.
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
But on the other hand, if someone is doing the job that well, shouldn't they be able to stay in office to keep doing it?


Greetings Danny, thanks for the comments.

Just to continue the discussion a bit, consider my general suggestions about this issue. Lets say someone is actually doing a job as you suggest, then would you not rather have them move up to the next higher office where they could hopefully be equally as effective for say another 18 years worth of service?

If you elect someone to any office, say local zoning board, school board, city council, mayor, district attorney or whatever, would you not want them to be ambitious enough to try to do an impressive job so that they'd be electable to the next higher office? Is it acceptable that you'd have someone just doing an "average" job or "effective" job so that they could stay in the same position forever?

Draginol complained about the aristocracy that controls much of the property in the United States unless we use inheritance taxes to keep that from happening. Personally I'm far less worried about issues like that then I am at issues such as knowing that there are people like Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd and others in the Senate that are elected time and again, even if they aren't effective.

Again, use my 18 year figure and assume as an example that someone got elected to some local office, then about 8 to 10 years in, the next higher office opened up and they were elected as a Congressional Representative. If they stay there for say 12 years before being elected into the Senate above, and then stay there for 18 years, you have someone who will have served in elected offices for 38 - 40 years of their life. Is that not enough time considering a life expectancy of approximately 80 years, and a retirement age (for most U.S. citizens) of 67 - 72 years of age? (and for many, early retirement between age 62 and age 67). Assuming we're electing people who have college educations, most individuals aren't really ready to run for office until they are 22 - 24 years of age. With that 38 - 40 years of service in various offices at various levels, you will have gotten the benefit of (hopefully) an effective politician for as long as we should be expecting from an average citizen. If, somehow, your favored politician is good enough to be electable to the office of President of the United States, you're looking at someone that could go into their 70s in elected office, and who hopefully will have had the benefit of representing many people along the way.

As things stand now, we have politicians that buy their way into offices and then, thanks to a lazy and ill-informed electorate, stay there forever because people are loath to vote against the incumbent always assuming that their own political representatives are doing a good job and someone else's representative or senator that is bad and must be tossed.

Well I say that many of them are bad, and most -- if not all -- should be tossed and forced, like most real workers in this country, to work harder for us and really represent the public rather than selling out to groups like the RIAA, MPAA, ATLA and every other ASSociation out there that has money to wave in front of them to help them get re-elected again and again.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'll agree, they should work hard, and is doubtful many of them do. And no, 'average' job shouldn't keep you in office, hopefully the other canidate would get the chance to see if they can be better. The two real problems I see with term limits is that 1) should someone that is truly great at the job come along I would want them to be able to stay in the job for as long as they wanted, and 2) they feel like a rather arbitrary and undemocratic way to do things. But at the same time, a reasonable limit shouldn't run into those problems very often, while the abuse of the lack of term limits, well you pointed that out yourself.