I would like to hear some new opinions on term limits. I am a huge proponent of term limits and think that having them would solve a huge amount of our current problems, both financial and other.
I suggest 8 year terms for Senators and 6 year terms for Congress. Once elected to one of these positions, you can not be relected to either again but could run for President.
I would increase salaries to $350K/year for Senators and $275K/year for Congress. I would offer health benefits to 65 and pensions of $75K/year to 65.
There would be ZERO campaining by these elected officials for themselves which means no receiving of political contributions of any kind.
I think the benefits of this would be tremendous and include the following:
1) An overwhelmingly better pool of candidates running for office. There are a ton of very qualified, successful people who would never even consider running for office because of the low pay, constant campaining for re-election and general goofiness of the system. I honestly think that this one benefit alone could solve almost all of our financial problems. The biggest thing holding back progress is pressure for campain money and re-election worries.
2) With no chance for re-election, decisions would much more often be based on the good of the country. Every deal made now is tied to getting elected and raisng money.
3) Lobbyist influence reduced. There will always be a need for lobbyists and, in theory, they provide a very important service for the country. The elected officials can't possibly be proficient on every issue they face. Lobbyists provide that information. What is happening now is that lobbyists are really just conduits to election money and the actual issue is secondary. Of course there might be some out there that will angle for jobs after their terms are over. This can never be avoided. However, if the lobbyists promise a job to one guy, he still has to convince a majority to go his way. And, with this sytem I have proposed, he can not influence them with money. He can only influence on the merits of the bill.
4) Greater change. I love when people say we already have term limits and they are called elections. First, especially with congress, they are in campain and re-election mode all the time. They never get out of it. Is that really what we want our elected officials to be focusing on? Of course not. Second, the deck is satcked so heavily in favor of the incumbents that a sitting politician has to be beyond incompetent and beyond an embarassment to get voted out. It happens some (like the last election cycle) but not nearly enough.
5) An end to "cronyism" and the "I'll scratch yours if you scratch mine" mentality. As mentioned above, so many bad deals are out there simply because all the politicians work together to keep their pet projects. They do this because they get funding from their pet projects. if they are no longer getting any funding, there is no reason to vote for bills that have no betterment to the country.
Challenges I have heard to term limits include:
1) Staffers would run everything. I reject this completely. Staffers carry out the wishes of the officials. They do what they are told. They might be great at navigating the system (which is another reason FOR limits) but they accomplish what the elected official wants. You think any successful, accomplished, smart person would allow their staffers to make decisions on important matters? Of course not. It happens now because all the official cares about is getting re-elected.
2) We have term limits with elections. Already addressed above. The system is rigged too much.
3) If ny guy is really good why should he have to leave? We term the president for a reason too. If your guy gets 8 years and is doing a great job, then elect the guy who best matches the qualities and opinions of the current guy at election time. Make them run on a platform that matches the things you like.
4) No control over their work if they don't have to be re-elected. Having a better pool of candidates would virtually eliminate this worry. If a prominent Texan was elected, it is doubtful he would start doing things to hurt Texas. You are going to get honest, straightforward people elected and we will have to put our trust in them. Certainly some shaky characters would slip through the cracks, but they are only 1 of many. They can't really do anything by themselves and the people will be smarter in who they pick next time.
Anyway, these are my thoughts. I am interested in haveing a discussion with anyone that has contrary opinions.
I suggest 8 year terms for Senators and 6 year terms for Congress. Once elected to one of these positions, you can not be relected to either again but could run for President.
I would increase salaries to $350K/year for Senators and $275K/year for Congress. I would offer health benefits to 65 and pensions of $75K/year to 65.
There would be ZERO campaining by these elected officials for themselves which means no receiving of political contributions of any kind.
I think the benefits of this would be tremendous and include the following:
1) An overwhelmingly better pool of candidates running for office. There are a ton of very qualified, successful people who would never even consider running for office because of the low pay, constant campaining for re-election and general goofiness of the system. I honestly think that this one benefit alone could solve almost all of our financial problems. The biggest thing holding back progress is pressure for campain money and re-election worries.
2) With no chance for re-election, decisions would much more often be based on the good of the country. Every deal made now is tied to getting elected and raisng money.
3) Lobbyist influence reduced. There will always be a need for lobbyists and, in theory, they provide a very important service for the country. The elected officials can't possibly be proficient on every issue they face. Lobbyists provide that information. What is happening now is that lobbyists are really just conduits to election money and the actual issue is secondary. Of course there might be some out there that will angle for jobs after their terms are over. This can never be avoided. However, if the lobbyists promise a job to one guy, he still has to convince a majority to go his way. And, with this sytem I have proposed, he can not influence them with money. He can only influence on the merits of the bill.
4) Greater change. I love when people say we already have term limits and they are called elections. First, especially with congress, they are in campain and re-election mode all the time. They never get out of it. Is that really what we want our elected officials to be focusing on? Of course not. Second, the deck is satcked so heavily in favor of the incumbents that a sitting politician has to be beyond incompetent and beyond an embarassment to get voted out. It happens some (like the last election cycle) but not nearly enough.
5) An end to "cronyism" and the "I'll scratch yours if you scratch mine" mentality. As mentioned above, so many bad deals are out there simply because all the politicians work together to keep their pet projects. They do this because they get funding from their pet projects. if they are no longer getting any funding, there is no reason to vote for bills that have no betterment to the country.
Challenges I have heard to term limits include:
1) Staffers would run everything. I reject this completely. Staffers carry out the wishes of the officials. They do what they are told. They might be great at navigating the system (which is another reason FOR limits) but they accomplish what the elected official wants. You think any successful, accomplished, smart person would allow their staffers to make decisions on important matters? Of course not. It happens now because all the official cares about is getting re-elected.
2) We have term limits with elections. Already addressed above. The system is rigged too much.
3) If ny guy is really good why should he have to leave? We term the president for a reason too. If your guy gets 8 years and is doing a great job, then elect the guy who best matches the qualities and opinions of the current guy at election time. Make them run on a platform that matches the things you like.
4) No control over their work if they don't have to be re-elected. Having a better pool of candidates would virtually eliminate this worry. If a prominent Texan was elected, it is doubtful he would start doing things to hurt Texas. You are going to get honest, straightforward people elected and we will have to put our trust in them. Certainly some shaky characters would slip through the cracks, but they are only 1 of many. They can't really do anything by themselves and the people will be smarter in who they pick next time.
Anyway, these are my thoughts. I am interested in haveing a discussion with anyone that has contrary opinions.
