Please Don’t Limit My Term

Seems the notion of term limitations is back in play – at least on the radio talk shows and probably among a growing number of the electorate.  One can’t be surprised, given the blatant criminality and outright stupidity exhibited by many elected officials.  And, given the fact that so many of our elected “representatives” no longer make any pretense of actually representing the people who elected them.  Many citizens are extremely frustrated and I, for one, can’t blame them.  I am frustrated too.

Yet, before we waste time and effort on a cure for the problem (term limits), are we sure we truly understand the root cause of the problem?

The implementation of term limits would seem to imply the root cause is simply too long spent in office.  While that has a ring of truth (just look at Robert Byrd), it is really the root cause or is it just another symptom?  I contend it is the latter.

Examine the actions of the typical office holder and what do you see?

• The office holders using the resources of the offices they hold to help ensure their reelection,
• The office holders trading/selling the power and influence of their offices in return for contributions to help ensure their reelection,
• The office holders using time and effort to gain reelection that should be used doing the job they were elected to do – the job they are still being paid to do.

I could go on until you are bored stiff but I think the point has been made.  The main recurring theme in an office holder’s life is reelection.  And, doing what is in the best interest of the people in general is not high on the list of activities that help ensure reelection.

From this bit of logic, I easily conclude that the real root problem is incumbency.  Therefore, I propose a “no incumbency” bill.  Some states already have this for their governors and it works fairly well.  However, I would tighten my version up a bit and add a few more rules to make it even better.   The new election rules I propose, for all elected offices in the federal government are:

• No incumbency.  This means that nobody may run for reelection to an office they currently hold.  Further, the ban would extend to members of the current office holder’s immediate family.  The “no members of immediate family” part is to prevent the alternating husband/wife or parent/child nonsense we have seen in the past.  One might reasonably ask “don’t the people have the right to elect anyone they choose, as many times as they choose?”.  In theory, yes they do.  In actual practice, the power of incumbency has become so great that few challengers can overcome it.  How else could one explain how legislators with a less than 10% approval rate get reelected over 90% of the time.  The sad result is far too many people who are, effectively, elected for life.  The no incumbency rule would stop this.  It would not, however, stop anyone from running every other term, so that truly effective people are not barred from the office forever.
• Resign to run.  This means that, should a holder of one elected office decide to run for another, they would be required to resign the existing office before any meaningful actions are taken in pursuit of the new office.  This would include: forming committees, accepting contributions and the like.  Indeed, nobody should be allowed to accept any contribution of money or other support before they are a registered candidate for office.  In addition, resign to run would allow appointment of a new person to the office in question, ensuring the function of the office continues while the previous holder seeks greener pastures.
• No limits on campaign contributions.  Such limitations serve to curtail free speech and encourage “under-the-table” deals.
• Open publication of campaign contributions.  This means that no beneficial use can be made of any campaign contribution before the contributor(s) and the amount given have been openly identified, by individual name, and advertised on the public internet for at least 2 weeks.  In those cases where contributions are made by groups, political action committees or the like, the names of each and every member of the group/committee must be part of the public notice.  I know of no practical way to keep the rich, labor unions, etc. from, in effect, buying political influence through campaign contributions.  However, there is no reason we should not know who our politicians are beholden to – and know it well before any votes are cast.
• Six year presidential terms.  If we disallow a president from being reelected, we should allow them enough time in office to accomplish something meaningful.  Despite what some in the MSM would have us believe, the “ship of state” does not make instant changes of direction on inauguration day.
• Voter initiatives at the federal level.  These could be used to initiate the recall of any elected official, to propose legislation, etc.  However, they should not be used to amend the U S Constitution.
• Eliminate retirement benefits for federal elected offices.  Letting time served be added to that from other federal jobs is reasonable.  Allowing a person to “retire” with benefits after a 2 to 6 year stint in office is ridiculous.  In addition, this would help discourage viewing elected office as a career, rather than temporary service to one’s country.

These rules may seem harsh (as if there were some chance they could actually be enacted).  But, like in every other part of life, rules and regulations tend to be made in response to the failure of some people to exercise restraint, self discipline, honesty, and integrity.  Far too many of our federal elected officials fit this description.

I have heard it said, in quite a few instances, that such-and-such candidate for office “knows nothing about how things are done in Washington”.  Isn’t this a good thing?  A thing that should be encouraged?

Get mad.  Get involved!!

Tweet This Post