A New Idea for Term Limits!
Many Americans feel they are facing poor government in 2016 because of the political leftovers who are making the decisions for all of US. Normal people can fully sympathize with the notion that all of the members of Congress, no matter whether corrupted in their first term or their third term are corrupt nonetheless. So, what are we doing giving them multiple shots at the nations treasury? If you really look at it logically, we are the fools.
Let me tell you why we do what we do. No matter what bad actors they are when we do not see them, they come back each election cycle and again they are magnificent. They wear their robes of importance. They are addressed as "the honorable," and they are clearly the best we ever could get from our meager population. Some of us are actually ready to thank them for deceiving us and taking our money and spending it unwisely. Are we fools? Maybe! I will regret to say. I say, we are fools because we have the power to vote them out and we do not.
We assign to these nasty creatures of self-indulgence the same attributes as a far-off brother or sister who comes in for the gala graduation as an example. In our hearts, we know that this particular brother or sister is not what mom and dad would have wanted, but, hey, they are ours! We are so glad they came! For Congressmen, the graduation occurs every two years; for Senators, six. Though they mostly ignore our letters, when they do respond, they often demean our arguments to come see mom and dad, when they show up for the next graduation / election many of us somehow can't wait to share the best wine and the fatted calf with our kin (whoops, our prodigal representative). But, then again they have returned, and is that not all that matters. So we can't cast them away, though we should.
Sorry, Charley, that only occurs in real weddings, real graduations, and real relatives. The fact is these guys are creeps, sponges, and exactly the kind of people we would not want at our fests. Yet, we feel honored that these rats have chosen our den, rather than where they belong. I think you got my point by now. How many graduations, first communions, or weddings can a rat attend without ever being seen as a rat? I regret that it can go on for at least thirteen terms as it did with Kanjorski and it is going on with Cartwright who is at two going on thirteen terms. I am here in this essay to tell you that I see it as my job so that the number two does not easily roll into three or thirteen. .
You don't really think I want to have to behave like a rat?
Term limits addresses the problem of lecherous career politicians. Yes, there are such things! Some might suggest that this is just a symptom of voter apathy and disinterest. I disagree. I see the notion of limiting terms in office to reasonable numbers of terms as desirable. It would be nice if the office holder recognized they were no longer welcome, but there is a fat chance of anything ever overcoming their greed.
Why do they keep getting in when smart people like you and I do not want to bring them back? You and I have other jobs. Their job is to snooker us into thinking they are the best... and that any change would be like suicide on our parts.
For the macho among us, the other deal is that they assure the reelection of the undesirable by bringing back the victory of say, '05', and '07,' and the wonderful victory party. As they always do, they make a contest out of the upcoming election and if they have not really messed up (not whether they did a bit of good) , or they just messed up a little, the same guys who were for them last time are for them again this time. We will win! Rah! Rah! And then they disappear again until the next election.
And so it seems in this scenario, that it will always be corrupt. The only solution against this scenario is to think and then vote them out. Voting out the long-term politicians is the best term limit methodology. It works. Rather than complaining two days after the election that the guy you voted for is a creep, check it out ahead of time and send the creeps packing before the election. Don't go winning the big game for the creeps just because it feels good and you had a drink with them at their reelection party. !
Give US an Idea!
I would suggest that each time a candidate for Representative wins a particular office for the second time, in order to be reelected for the third time, they should be required to have 6% more votes (one for each year) than their opponent. Each subsequent attempt at reelection should require a cumulative 2% additional vote separation. If their popularity increases, they stay in office, if it goes down, a lesser person with no giveaways, no people in her pocket, or in their bag, gets to represent the people. The bad guys, the incumbents become easy to throw out.
So, let's say that there is a 13-term Congressman running in your district. That would mean that this Congressman would need to get 6 + 22 = 28 more points than the challenger in order to continue in office. A three term Congressman running for # 4 would need 6 + 2 = 8 more points than their opponent in order to win. For Senators, it would be based on years So to run for term #2 after having served 6 years, a senatorial candidate would need 6 plus 6 = 12 more points than their opponent. For term #3, after having served 12 years, a senatorial candidate would need 18 more points than their opponent.
Many who cast deciding votes believe that this is not their problem. They are America-astute enough to vote in each election and vote for the best person. Politicians often argue that they would support term limits if the people of their district really wanted them. Unfortunately, politicians do not address the underlying issues that lead to a lack of participation by voters in the election process.
Some argue that term limits remove the voter from his/her responsibility to hold elected officials accountable. Some others argue that when term limits is applied strictly, good politicians (perhaps an oxymoron) are tossed out with the bad, strictly based on their years of service. The truth recently is that if the few good politicians were to be thrown out with this lot of mostly bad actors in Congress today, it would be for the good of the country. Our country is falling apart and we have all 435 members of the house, and all 00 Senators, claiming to represent we the people. But, they do not represent us or America would no be so messed up right now. We need to even the score by helping non-politicians get elected. If the politicians are that great then it should not be a big issue for them to get six or even 18 more points than an unknown challenger.
The Founders thought the people would be smarter than we seem to be. They could not imagine that we would put the same corrupt representatives in office time and time again. Term limits were supposed to be determined by the people by not reelecting scoundrels back into office. We the people are at fault for that. We are to blame for sure.
If we limit salaries of representatives, that would make it hard for the middle class to represent us. That is therefore a bad idea. Then, only very rich people could hold office because they'd be the only ones who could afford it. So, we have to be careful. I do think, however, that setting the salary lower for each year in office might be a natural way of creating term limits. I think that would be OK even on a regressive scale. For example, years 2 through 20, $5,000 per year less cumulative. Years 21 though 40, $3,000 per year. I think that would be OK, If after 40 years Congress must work for no salary, fine. Maybe that would be OK. Perhaps a combination of points and dollars would work best.
I would look for other natural mechanisms but again the best control is the people who, hopefully, would be paying attention and keeping the bums, once discovered as bums, from ever getting reelected. Yes, it is our jobs to pay attention to our officials and not to pretend that just because they are on our team, they must be reelected. Bad people are bad people. Corrupt politicians are corrupt politicians, and the longer they get away with corruption, the more corrupt they become. Many of us wish to believe that everybody is honest. Yet, unfortunately, the longer our public servants serve, the longer they want to rule and not serve.
Another issue such as term limits in the House and Senate may have regarding voter perception is that the committee system in place now is seniority based. Therefore, if everybody is getting pork, none would come to Northeastern Pa. -- if, say that Kelly guy became a "first termer." Good point for sure. But, how about this. Even Kelly would not have run for Office if the only concern was local pork. Why send money to Washington to get a few pork chops back? We could set up an citizens pork advisory that must study each bill or perhaps something like that.
Things have gotten so bad that most of us will be second guessing our election decisions. Few, even Democrats like me, think Obama has served us well. Few think Senator Bob Casey has done his job. How much is all the pork in the world worth if you are not free to enjoy it at the exact moment of time that you want it. Is it possible that the liberty and freedom to choose such things are part of this coming election? Go ahead, I dare you to go out and place your tongue on that salt-lick when nobody from the government is looking and when the shakers are no longer lawful.
Term limits, in theory, may result in committee chairmen, such as me if you will vote for me. SO what if we are relative rookies. That could create an issue but would it not be better than the corruption we have now. The committee system should be based on merit anyway, and not necessarily based on seniority alone, Like most well managed businesses in the information technology age, we can figure something better than the system we have. . Anyway, if Americans are all alert, there will be 435 new Congress persons. Would it not be a shame if District 17 made it 434?
The key thing for all of you and I is to assure that the voters are involved. Yes, that is up to all of US. Though in normal elections this would not matter; this time we must make sure all are tuned in enough to be part of the overall process. The objectives of this process are simple: keep 'BAD' politicians from getting voted in again on election day.
In my book, Taxation Without Representation, (www.bookhawkers.com), I spend a whole chapter discussing the notion that "We get the government we deserve." The objective from now on should be that we need to be part of the process so that we deserve better than the poor stock or the recently corrupted stock of politicians we have in office. Then we will get better representation.
So, the solution is probably not limited only to term limits, which puts the election process on an 'autopilot' to no place and in many ways disengages the voter. Yes, you and I will say, But in many ways the voter may have been bought off by jobs, promises and future opportunities. Since most voters admit to not tuning in, my notion, as discussed above, that would extract an incumbent penalty for each year in office, would clearly accommodate voter apathy.
Thus, the notion of incumbents requiring more votes is a very good idea to reduce the advantage of the incumbent entrenched career politician over a challenger from the people. Unless the people really fell for the politician year in and year out, the margin of victory would replace them.
Regardless of whether the government wants to fix this problem or not. The message to us all is that we must pay attention. It is our fault that it got like this and more importantly, it is our fault if it keeps getting worse with our choosing to keep the same bums in office.