Limiting terms for CongressFollow

I have a short paper due tomorrow (which coincidentally I haven't started), the topic being limiting terms for those serving in congress (3 terms for the House, 2 terms for the Senate), and it got me thinking; would limiting the number of terms for congressmen/women really change anything?

The House would still have an overwhelming number of "safe seats", they'd just go to another member of the incumbent party. Specialization would likely suffer since members would have less time to become involved in commitees, but overall, not much would change. House members would still be extremely partisan, and redistricting would still be just as vital.

The Senate would be much of the same. They'd still have to appeal to the entire state, forcing more moderate politics, although it would force out some of the older senators. Bringing in new senators would only further set back the agenda, and even less would get done.

I'm not asking for you to write my paper for me, but I thought that, since most of you are in the mood for arguing politics today, I'd let you have at it.

In Congressional elections from 1976-2000, the gross change of seats (from one party to another) was 23.1, and the net change of seats was 7.5. Only an average of 7-8 seats changed from one party to another in those years each election. Out of 435. I'd say that the incumbent advantage is pretty strong.

Data taken from The Stagnation of Congressional Elections by James E. Campbell.

Problem 1; you have to get Congress to enact it's own term limits.

Problem 2; Pensions.

Members of Congress are vested after they have served for five years. They are then eligible for a reduced pension. To take a full pension they have to meet additional requirements.

- 5 years minimum service to become vested.
- 20 years of service grants a full pension at age 50 or higher.
- 25 years of service grants a full pension at any age.
- Can claim pension at age 62 and higher so long as 5yr minimum is met.

The pension is generated off a formula that takes into account years of service (at 158k per year for Representatives, currently - more for Senators), their max salary at the time of retirement, etc. Starting pensions cannot exceed 80% of their maximum salary at the time of retirement.

Keep in mind that 'service' means 'any federal service' - including military service. It isn't hard to log five years in the federal sector, particularly with the incredible amount of bullshit dead-weight employees you typically find there.


When you propose term limits, you are threatening someone's cash cow.

I always hoped term limits would get the Strom Thurmonds of the world out of DC and into a home somewhere, a place where orderlies could neglect them and where their families would forget to call. I would prefer that the government be in the hands of people with a fresher vision.

The sad part is, even if we manage to pass term limits, the parties likely will retain their incumbent seats -- and will give congressional duty to the old men and women in federal service, the ones who are ready to stick their handout for their pension meal ticket.

The average pension is currently something like $46k per year for congressional retirees (post the 1984 law change). Those poor dears - how do they ever survive? *sniff, sniff.*

There are no provisions I know of to stop someone with a military record from taking a military pension, joining congress and taking a congressional pension, then coming back as a consultant or lobbyist for some truly ballsy triple-dipping. We are all obviously in the wrong fields.

Well, in Bush's case, he has no Federal Congressional experience at all. Neither did Clinton for that matter. Or Reagan. Or Carter. That's as far as I felt like looking but it makes my point. The public seems to elect governors over senators for President (all four were state governors).

So we have our options. We can elect stately gentlemen with long DC histories, fronting well padded resumes and (hopefully) good speaking ability, who are nearly guaranteed to be beholden to some corporate interest or other and who will lead us in the fashion to which we have unfortunately become accustomed.

On the other side of the coin we can elect political nobodies who don't realize how the game is played - people who will not have the political capital required to force consensus, people without the connections to bridge diverse ideologies, people who are ill equipped to play on the world circuit.

Which way shall we be damned? :)

Brad Pitt for president?

Sounds alot better then Alan Keyes.

Sadly the guy won't go away and lives by running for office. Surpise he hasn't throw his hat in for the Senate here in Maryland, with Sarbanes is retiring.

I think the whole special interest influence would be a wash at best. Lobbying groups have a set amount of "budget" to play with that presumably doesn't change based on whether they're supporting an incumbent or a replacement.

I'd actually see the special interest groups gaining power with term limits. With a long term representative, you can look at the guys record and decide if you like him, or want to vote for him. If you increase the number of "fresh faces", then the value of marketing becomes more significant to the ability of those faces to gain office. So the relative need for the special interest dollars is increased. Mr. Smith is going to have to go, hat in hand, to whatever lobbying group he can get fund from in order to win that election. The 5 term guy probably has a much more powerful bargaining position and is less likely to bend over for that same group.



You also assume that short term somehow means "honest". We could just as easily end up with a bunch of guys who know that no matter how good or bad a job they'll do, they're only going to be doing it a maximum of 9 years, so they don't really care about the long term effects of their actions, and perhaps might take a "get while the gettings good" approach.

A guy who know's he's got a maximum of say 9 or 12 years in the House would seem to be *far* more likely to take a bribe then one who could serve for the next 30 years.

I just see that the one thing you're guaranteed to lose with term limits is experience, and I've yet to see a really compelling argument that says that corruption and special interest influence is actually decreased. Dunno. I think it's one of those things that sounds really great until you really look at it closely...


Not totally opposed to the idea though. I don't think it goes far enough. Couple it with campaign reform and we might be getting somewhere. If the goal is really to put fresh faces with fresh and non-purchased agendas into office, then how about we elminate campaign donations entirely? Eliminate all electioneering. Provide a small amount of public funds for each candidate on the ballot. Enough to put a couple advertisements out there and maybe an appearance. Heck. Let's use the power of the internets to allow each candidate to write up something about himself and what he wants to do, and why people should vote for him. We could cut the cost of these things down dramatically. And we might actually get candidates with new ideas that appeal to the public rather then the same old bought and paid for people.


I just think that term limits by themselves is like closing the barn door after the horses have already gotten out.