The Ohio Valley Tea Party has announced its’ formation as a political action committee in time for the upcoming election year. This will enable the group to raise money and support candidates for office. Although it’s still in the development stage, the potential of becoming a political party is there. To grow this grassroots movement into a party with its stated ideals of a government of limited size and power, fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and answerable to the citizens of the United States, the Tea Party’s platform should finally embrace the seminal idea necessary to reform government to accomplish its’ goals, that of term limits.
The founding fathers never envisioned the establishment of a ruling class where positions of legislative power would become a career rather than a sacred sacrifice. This would have smacked too much of monarchy in opposition to the form of government that they envisioned: a government that would unshackle their chains and promote freedom and liberty necessary for a citizen to realize their individual destiny. They fought a revolution to create that change, to rest control of their lives from a disinterested, self-indulgent class. To serve as an elected spokesman for their fellow citizens was uppermost in their minds. They would not recognize our current legislative leaders who view service as another rung in their ladder to success, or a lifelong position.
The founding fathers came from a diverse group: farmers, writers, scientist, physicians, surveyors, planters, merchants, teachers, bookkeeper, carpenter, importer-exporter, ministers, soldiers, tax collector, cooper, foundryman, ship’s master, and, of course, lawyers. However, many entered the law profession later in their careers. This diversity brought depth of experience into their ranks, and decisions. According to the latest statistics (2006) 53% of U.S. Senators (now 55%) and 36% of U.S. Representatives, and 26 of 44 Presidents are/were lawyers. Such a preponderance of elected officials from one discipline has created a number of problems and conflicts of interests since many lawyers when they retire from government service either become lobbyists, or align themselves with corporations or law firms that fully utilize their legislative experience and connections. Longevity/seniority in the political arena is power and influence –and it pays!
The idea of term limits has been raised in recent years by the Republican Party as part of their Republican Contract With America, raised but not acted upon. The benefits are a no brainer.
1. Term limits will promote the election of individuals better representing the current views of their constituents. 99% of incumbents who have served 6 years are re-elected and term limits would lessen the seniority penaltyand open the process to other candidates.
2. Term limits would return our government to the founding father’s original conception of the citizen legislator. It would open the process to other professions and trades since individuals could obtain a leave of absence or sabbatical from their private careers to serve. Diversity would open the issues of priority and accountability.
3. Studies have shown that members of Congress become more pro tax-and-spend the longer they stay in office. More junior legislators are incline to support a balanced budget.
4. Term limits limit the value of any one seat to lobbyists and special interest. This results in defacto campaign reform since it breaks the bonds of old relationships between lobbyists and professional legislators.
5. Term limits result in a more deliberative, aggressive, and innovative legislative body, neither mired in the old way of doing things or hampered by precedence that creates inaction, and thereby improves the quality of legislation. Further, it diminishes enaction of last minute pork barrel legislation by an incumbent seeking re-election.
6. Ostensibly, term limits result in a limited government or smaller government.
But As For Me…
We are at a crossroads in our history. The 2008 election was fought and won over the driving idea of change; however, the status quo remains. We have an opportunity to make real, fundamental change and return our government to the purpose it was created. The Tea Party has shown that it can mobilize and give voice to the cries of our citizens for change. There is an opportunity here to create an effective third party of the disenfranchised and the independent, if it has the willpower and courage to seize the moment. All that awaits is it to embrace true reform by supporting term limits–it’s a perfect fit, and it’s time is now!
POULAR POSTS:
- Greenspan “…made mistakes.” You Think?
- Dartmouth Prof: America in Decline, Recession is Just the Tip of the Iceberg, Obama to Blame
- Obama Fumbles and Makes the Case Why Hilary Clinton Should Have Been President as He Announces Volcker Chairman-Designate of the Newly Formed Economic Recovery Advisory Board
- CBS News: Tea Party Movement Q&A with Tea Party leaders Kellen Guida and Michael Johns
- Sebelius ‘Has No Idea’ What’s in Health Care Rationing Bill
- Philippine President Vows to Finish Term Amid Unrest
- Obama: Public health insurance option "good idea"
- Rio Tinto Alcan plant in Sebree, Kentucky signs new long-term power contract
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
Term limits for members of Congress or the Senate would require a constitutional amendment. The first order of business should be something more easily achievable.
But any political party must have a larger philisophical base. Individual issues can be achieved under the umbrella of term limits. The Tea Party should endorse candidates that support term limits. Simply “voting the bums out” has not worked or we wouldn’t be where we are now! Also, we need a vigilant news media uncontrolled by the government. Power of the entrenched has circumvented the freedom of the press. Until we have the political process accept the idea that public service is not a lifetime career, but a sacred duty, our liberties will be consistently eroded and our freedom placed in jeopardy.
The movement needs to stay focused on stopping big government, big spending, and socialism and not get side tracked into issues that can be dealt with later.
***Sarcam On**Term limits have worked really well in California***Sarcasm Off***
I think term limits are vastly overrated.
Problem is, you would have 100% inexperienced congressmen and senators, relying for everything on ‘expert’, entrenched, and completely unaccountable staff.
They would be at the mercy of staffers . . . and the staffers are overwhelmingly liberal.
No, thanks. If we can hold re-election over our congressmen’s heads, we have more control over them than over hundreds of nameless, faceless paper-pushers.
I don’t see how term limits are the panacea some believe them to be.
Once you set term limits, the parties will come to “own” the seats, and groom corrupt douchebags to auction the seats off to.
Once seated, those who purchased the seats will vote exactly as commanded to by the party leadership, with promises of high paying public and corporate positions once their term of service to the party is complete.
We’ll simply replace permanent hacks with a rotating series of hacks.
On top of all that, it’s unconstitutional.
BUT, HOUSTON, WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM!
What is to be done about the HILL RATS? These are the allegedly “professional” staffers who are so named because after the election their current boss loses, they scurry like rats to a new member – ANY MEMBER (his politics frequently don’t matter) – just to remain close to the power. Most are flaming liberals and, after the “experienced” staffer shows the new guy where the john is, because they have been up there for decades, far too many of these new members rely on them for how to vote and get along in the thoroughly corrupt system of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” that has caused the mess in which we now find ourselves.
IT GETS WORSE!
Let’s say the new guy needs an “expert” on tax policy. Well, son-of-a-gun, the professional staffer JUST HAPPENS to have a college chum who works at the IRS! Need an “expert” on education policy. Darned if that secretary he just hired doesn’t just have an old teacher friend who works over at the Department of Education!
NOW YOU KNOW WHY THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME – ESPECIALLY IN MALFUNCTION JUNCTION.
Looks like we will also need TENURE LIMITS on the Hill Rats with stiff penalties for breaking the rules!
I recently heard Gingrich tell Hannity that—horrors — the alleged Health Care Bill was almost certainly written at 3 am by 25 year-old liberal staffers, groggy on beer and pizza. Not sure why that was so shocking. HELL, that’s how nearly ALL the so-called legislation has been done up there for decades. It’s why there are two things one should never watch being made: SAUSAGE AND LAWS.
One of the KEY THINGS we all need to do BEFORE we get behind a new candidate to replace the 8 term retread who has sold us out nearly every term up there is to INSIST THAT HE DRAW HIS KEY STAFFERS FROM LOCAL FOLKS WHO MAY STILL HAVE A GRASP ON REALITY OUT HERE IN FLYOVER COUNTRY — THEN HOLD HIS FEET TO THE FIRE ON THAT PLEDGE — OR REPLACE HIM NEXT TIME!
Sadly, it’s the ONLY WAY THINGS WILL CHANGE UP THERE!!
You’re right, term limits should become part of a trickle down movement for all levels of government. Plus reform of the civil service system needs to be initiated. We need to rid the system of 1) unclassified positions that allow the hiring of political appointees, and 2) we need to reverse the current hiring from tests to select the top scorers in order to hire the best and the brightest. You may recall that this last step was abrogated in order to open up government positions to women and minorites, a noble attempt; however, this loophole has corrupted the system by allowing the people in charge to hire friends, relatives, and others regardless of their scores for a particular position.
Make these “public servants” both civilly and criminally responsible for their actions and you will find that “term limits” will take care of itself.
Deliberate disregard of our Constitution and the laws of this land, should be actionable… Simply voting the crooks out does little good because they are just replaced with more of the same.
Lady Justice is supposed to be blind….
Agreed, terms limits are a must.
Term limits are catchy sounding, but the political machines and the special interest groups will simply line up a row of approved candidates.
Limits will change almost nothing. Tea party should concentrate itself to hounding the repubs into following the constitution and stopping it’s war on regular America.
A term limited congress would only allow the guys behind the curtain to let you vote in a new face every few years. But always a face they approve of.
This article is pure genius. It should be included in the founding documents.
Simon
This is a the work of a mastermind. I will become a regular follower of this very powerful and masterful blog.
Ms. King
Brilliant!
I brought up these points at a meeting last night and everyone thought I was a genius. They had no idea I was standing on the shoulder of a political thought giant who writes at ButAsForMe. Thank you.
Americans who are hurting get angry when they learn that Timothy Geithner, as head of the New York Fed before becoming Treasury secretary, caved to the insistence of Goldman Sachs and other A.I.G. trading partners that they get 100 cents on the dollar when he could have struck a far better bargain for taxpayers. Term limits do nothing when people like Geithner get appointed to positions that screw the tax payers by multiple politicians. Shame on you for thinking term limits could solve everything. You are very simplistic and a canker for true patriots. Shame on you. Shame. Shame. Shame.
Any democracy, pure or representative, requires knowledgeable and vigilant citizens. An independent media is vital in revealing potential conflicts of interest as in the case of Mr. Geithner. The legislative branch that reviews nominees of the President will be more inclined to do a thorough job of advise and consent if they are not “in the pockets” of corporations or special interests. Mr. Geithner did not “cave” to the corporations, he was part of them all along.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.
Did you hear something?
I overall agree that politicians should be limited in the fiefdoms that they are prone to create. But I don’t like the idea of voters being punished because of politicians’ weaknesses. After all, if you happen to get a Winston Churchill who has a chance at a third term would you really want to tell him, “Sorry – your terms are up. You’ve gotta make way for Chamberlain.” Not me. I’d want to be able to vote for Churchill again. So what to do? I propose this: after the 2nd term, make the amount you have to win by greater and greater for each successive term. So for the third term, you have to win more than 50% of the vote. For the fourth term, you have to win 75% of the vote. For a fifth term, 90%. If a politician can get 90% of the vote, he or she has to be doing something right, wouldn’t you agree? So this gets rid of the jerks but lets people who are truly stellar continue on. The percentages should probably be tweaked, but I think my suggestion is a good start. Thoughts?
FDR had a 3rd and 4th term as President; however, his last term was marked by ill health that proved disastrous for our foreign policy when dealing with Stalin at the Yalta Conference. U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd will be 95 at the end of his current term and not to sound ageist, but does he give the appearance of physically and mentally being able to carry out all his duties? The Brits have a system for removing unpopular or out-of-touch elected officials by a vote of no confidence, and immediately a new election is called for in a timely manner. We have to wait to the end of their term to vote our representatives and senators out-of-office. We would have to change our entire system to be able to do that and I am not sure that we want to see the U.S. Senate become the House of Lords–although it appears that’s what we have now. Lastly, do you know of a statesman or stateswoman in the U.S. Congress equal to a Churchill? The present system doesn’t allow for it. The only one that I met personally in the last 2 decades was killed in a plane crash.
Having said that, I appreciate your thoughts and that now we are having a dialogue on this issue.
I don’t know of anyone in Congress right now who has a Churchillian mettle. But as you say the *current* system apparently doesn’t allow for it. I think that if you change the system, maybe you change the people who rise to the top. If you know that being an American stalwart will be rewarded, but that you truly have to earn it with 90% of the vote, someone that sincere in his or her efforts to do right by the American people would likely be noticed. Then other politicians might realize that this is actually good for the country AND their own careers and legacies. And again – if they can’t muster the 90% in that fifth term – out they go. It surely would require a Constitutional amendment to make this reality; that alone would cause this idea to be debated – which would be for the good, yes?