Term Limits for Congress

#26
#26
BigPapaVol said:
or line item veto
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree. "Line item veto" is only an issue because too many Presidents have lacked the testicular fortitude to continuously veto certain acts of legislation that are loaded with side items and pork. I would like to see a President who will risk shutting down the Federal Government in a stand-off with Congress.
 
#27
#27
I have to support term limits.

Every so often you find a true leader who deserves a long career. However, for every true leader, there are four douchebags of the Ted Kennedy mold.
 
#28
#28
SavageOrangeJug said:
I have to support term limits.

Every so often you find a true leader who deserves a long career. However, for every true leader, there are four douchebags of the Ted Kennedy mold.
Click to expand...
Well, a return to the original system of electing Senators would certainly almost certainly get rid of the Ted Kennedys of the world.
 
#29
#29
Change the whole system.
2 year limits don't elect draft.
For results,put people there who don't want to be there.
:fireworks:
 
#30
#30
CaedmonVol said:
Obstacles: either the Congress would have to impose such limits, which is against their interest, or the states would have to do it on a state-by-state basis (declared unconstitutional in 1995).

Basically, it's like wondering if Congress would ever give itself a pay cut -- ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...

If there's enough pressure, they'll do it. But you're right, the odds are slim.
 
#31
#31
Term limits can either hurt or help depending on the character/intellect of the candidate. Why don't we really get down to the issue and call for a 80% reduction of pay for all elected officials, no negotiation. Then you be more likely to see who really is a patriot and who is a career parasite.:good!:
 
#32
#32
dan4vols said:
Term limits can either hurt or help depending on the character/intellect of the candidate. Why don't we really get down to the issue and call for a 80% reduction of pay for all elected officials, no negotiation. Then you be more likely to see who really is a patriot and who is a career parasite.:good!:
Click to expand...

Don't forget though that Congressional pay, while high, is still much lower than what many of the best people make in the private sector. For top people from the business community, it's a pay cut to run for office. Of course, those coming from academia, the military, other government service, etc. are perhaps lured in part by the pay. And of course the power and prestige of the office should be considered part of the compensation.
 
#33
#33
CaedmonVol said:
Don't forget though that Congressional pay, while high, is still much lower than what many of the best people make in the private sector. For top people from the business community, it's a pay cut to run for office. Of course, those coming from academia, the military, other government service, etc. are perhaps lured in part by the pay. And of course the power and prestige of the office should be considered part of the compensation.
Click to expand...
You are correct that many of our current federally elected and appointed officials make less than they would command in the private sector. However, my overarching problem with them being paid at all is that it allows them to be professional and full-time politicians.
 
#34
#34
therealUT said:
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I am opposed to term limits on any elected official. If that official keeps getting electing, then why limit the people? Is that not a way of limiting the freedom of expression of the people? People can point all they want to the precedent set by George Washington, however, he was a reluctant President in his first term. The man stepped down when he felt that the young republic could finally stand united without having him at the helm.

I think what would fix most of the problems in Washington would be materially lowering, or eliminating, salaries for our Representatives and Senators. Then, they would only propose legislation they felt strongly about and would only vote on highly important issues. Senators and Representatives would have day jobs that would occupy their time...after all, idle minds are the devils handy work.
Click to expand...

Serving the House or Senate is a full-time job. At least, it should be. No way can someone keep a full-time job (or significant part-time job) and be a member of the Congress or Senate. You can't represent 500,000 or so people and go work 40 hours a week or more on something else (plus travel). And I have no problem with their salaries as of now -- Caedmon is correct, they're not doing it for the money, and a 20% pay cut wouldn't do any good.

The answer is term limits. I don't agree with George Will on a whole lot, but on this I do:

Bloomberg Shows Reason For Term Limits -- Courant.com

The fact that someone becomes popular is exactly why we should limit their service. They become entrenched. They feed off big supporters and vice versa. After a term or two, they represent their donors' interests and very little else. Their coffers prevent other candidates from having a shot, and voters think they have a choice but don't really - instead of researching what their rep has done in office, they just vote for the name they recognize. Wouldn't it be refreshing if voters had to examine their candidates more often?

Term limits don't prevent good people from serving their community, city, district, state, etc. - they just limit how much they can serve in that specific role.
 
#35
#35
TennNC said:
Caedmon is correct, they're not doing it for the money, and a 20% pay cut wouldn't do any good.
Click to expand...

Many are doing it for the money - the pay is only part of the money. Most leverage this into perks, influence and $$$ after the job.

Look at B. Clinton - the man is making a fortune because he took the paltry pay of POTUS for 8 years. It was an investment.
 
#36
#36
therealUT said:
You are correct that many of our current federally elected and appointed officials make less than they would command in the private sector. However, my overarching problem with them being paid at all is that it allows them to be professional and full-time politicians.
Click to expand...
but most would only command such pay due to their ties to the money train. Some are clearly very bright and could do myriad things, but I wouldn't tag the majority with that description, especially in the house.
 
#37
#37
BigPapaVol said:
but most would only command such pay due to their ties to the money train. Some are clearly very bright and could do myriad things, but I wouldn't tag the majority with that description, especially in the house.
Click to expand...

of the 435 house members, I bet 80% of them would be making as much if not more than $169K doing something else (like practicing law or running a business).

I would classify about 50% as "bright."
 
#38
#38
TennNC said:
of the 435 house members, I bet 80% of them would be making as much if not more than $169K doing something else (like practicing law or running a business).

I would classify about 50% as "bright."
Click to expand...
you act as if $170K is the extent of their pay package. It isn't.
 
#39
#39
volinbham said:
Many are doing it for the money - the pay is only part of the money. Most leverage this into perks, influence and $$$ after the job.

Look at B. Clinton - the man is making a fortune because he took the paltry pay of POTUS for 8 years. It was an investment.
Click to expand...

For every example you name, I can name several who made more in annual income in their job BEFORE taking office - Herb Kohl, John Edwards, Jon Corzine for starters.

Clinton's after power. Money is a nice side effect. I think that's the goal for most of them. Ergo, term limits.
 
#42
#42
BigPapaVol said:
sure it is, but they have enormous retirement plans, HC plan that puts all others to shame, travel, perks. Their pay package is worth much more than 170K
Click to expand...

Travel? really Big Papa? Does your work not pay for your work-related travel?

Of course there are perks, but there are also limits against gifts - that's a matter of enforcement.

If you limit their terms, then by consequence you limit their retirement plans, health care plan, etc. once they leave office.
 
#43
#43
TennNC said:
Travel? really Big Papa? Does your work not pay for your work-related travel?

Of course there are perks, but there are also limits against gifts - that's a matter of enforcement.

If you limit their terms, then by consequence you limit their retirement plans, health care plan, etc. once they leave office.
Click to expand...
I'm all for term limits and never said I'm not. I'm just saying that their gig is worth much more than the face value because of the ridiculous benefit plans, travel and perks.
 
#44
#44
BigPapaVol said:
I'm all for term limits and never said I'm not. I'm just saying that their gig is worth much more than the face value because of the ridiculous benefit plans, travel and perks.
Click to expand...

it's a stretch and distracts from the real solution - term limits.
 
#45
#45
TennNC said:
it's a stretch and distracts from the real solution - term limits.
Click to expand...
it's not a stretch. Tell me what you would expect to spend in generating their benefits plans. I bet when you're finished, you'll find it's a very hefty post tax pile of money.
 
#46
#46
BigPapaVol said:
it's not a stretch. Tell me what you would expect to spend in generating their benefits plans. I bet when you're finished, you'll find it's a very hefty post tax pile of money.
Click to expand...

you seem to know the answer already.
 
#48
#48
TennNC said:
If you limit their terms, then by consequence you limit their retirement plans, health care plan, etc. once they leave office.
Click to expand...

:cray: boo hoo, those poor politicians who have to re enter the job market because they can't rely on the taxpayers to provide them with a retirement plan.
 
#50
#50
MG1968 said:
:cray: boo hoo, those poor politicians who have to re enter the job market because they can't rely on the taxpayers to provide them with a retirement plan.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this one.

sounds like you agree with me too.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top