Throw’em All Out, Like Clockwork
Peggy Noonan reports from SOTU:
As the TV cameras panned the chamber, I saw a friendly acquaintance of the president, a Republican who bears him no animus. Why, I asked him later, did the president not move decisively to the political center?
Because he is more “intellectually honest” than that, he said. “I don’t think he can do a Bill Clinton pivot, because he’s not a pragmatist, he’s an ideologue. He’s a community organizer. He mixes the discrimination he felt as a young man with the hardship so many feel in this country, and he wants to change it and the way to change that is government programs and not opportunity.”
The great issue, this friendly critic added, is debt. The public knows this; Congress and the White House do not. “To me the Republicans are as rotten as the Democrats” in terms of spending. “Almost.”
“I hope we have big changes in 2010,” the friend said. Only significant loss will force the president to focus on spending. “To heal our country we need to get the arrogance out of the White House and the elitists out of the Congress. We need tough love. We need a real adult in the White House because we don’t have adults in the Congress.”
Over the last ten years, I’ve become convinced that term limits are absolutely vital to the health of the Republic. They aren’t the only step, but they are a necessary step.
I don’t believe that the GOP has any credibility to address the spending-debt-corruption issue: they are polling very badly. Therefore, I don’t see that the GOP can attract voters. Further, I don’t believe that the Tea Party movement can get organized enough to put together a slate a challengers that the public will vote for by 2010. Therefore, I believe that their best plan is to educate the public and encourage them to vote all incumbents out of office. Target all existing members of the House and Senate – no matter what party they are from, no matter how popular they may be locally, and no matter what they cost.
Forget term limits: clean house in 2010.
Throw them all out? And replace them with what….good, honest citizens, who will be converted to blood sucking leeches by all the lobbyists in less than six weeks. How to throw out the lobbyists is the problem.
Throw out the lobbyists? So then no one is allowed to speak to elected reps? That’s really what lobbying comes down to. At least with proper term limits we don’t have these guys marinating in special interest ash for lifetimes. What term limit though? 2 terms for senator and 4 terms for rep?
I think term limits are wrong. They say we’re too stupid to know who to vote for so we have to be saved from ourselves.
You can’t save people from themselves. If you have term limits, all you’ll do is create a class of “aides” who create the continuity we used to have with decadal Congresscritters. When the Dem (or Republican) is term-limited out, his successor (from the same party) would just go on in the same vein.
Gerrymandering is what should be stopped.
Get rid of “safe” seats so people have to actually campaign and convince people to vote for them.
If there were no gerrymandering, it would be nearly impossible for Congresscritters to be elected every 2 years for decades.
“he’s not a pragmatist, he’s an ideologue. He’s a community organizer. He mixes the discrimination he felt as a young man with the hardship so many feel in this country, and he wants to change it and the way to change that is government programs and not opportunity.”
Ahhh, the Obomunist Manifesto…
zot:
RE: How to throw out the lobbyists is the problem.
The existence of lobbyists is an economic problem. Washington passes out favors (e.g. tax breaks and subsidies) and changes the regulatory environment. That attracts professionals who try to use money to buy influence to change the rules of the game to benefit their clients.
If you shrink Government, you reduce the benefits that lobbyists can lobby for: there is a lot less meat for the fat cats to feed on.
If you have another way to throw out lobbyists, I’d like to hear it. But the only practical thing that I can see that the voters can do in 2010 is to throw out incumbents – at once. They could then try to reduce the size of government. Besides, it’s a sure bet that term limits won’t be supported by existing members.
RE: “Honest citizens, who will be converted to blood sucking leeches by all the lobbyists in less than six weeks”
A wise man one said, “The word ‘politics’ is derived from two parts: ‘poly’, meaning many, and ‘tics’, meaning blood-sucking parasites.”
RPD:
If we could eliminate lobbyists, the public would always be able to talk to their representatives, unless they are Democrats who run from townhall meetings or use them as platforms to abuse their constituents.
general discussion point:
I believe that term limits have already been looked at by the courts, and it has been determined that they are unconstitutional.
The term limits idea is a seductive one but I’m with Veeshir on this. The entrenched bureaucrats and staffers will run rings around the inexperienced congress critters and just when they start getting the place figured out, they’re gone. Both Veeshir and Kevino have a major piece of the solution here; Veeshir, end gerrymandering, Kevino, shrink the government, but most important and what will happen faster is an engaged citizenry that is paying attention. The Tea Parties are an example of this. Look what they have accomplished in less than a year.
That’s why you elect inexperienced congresscritters who will vote to reduce the size and scope of the government so the bureaucrat and staffer populations get trimmed down to unsustainable levels.
We can already do that now, but once they’ve stayed in office a few years instead of being inexperienced naifs easily outwitted, they become willing co-conspirators.
Do you seriously think willing co-conspirators are better?
McGehee, I recognize the co-sonspirators problem, but I think the “inexperienced naif” one is worse. If we, the voters, are paying attention we have a lot more influence on the elected office holder. The one that knows the ropes is less easily taken advantage of than the naif and if he/she/it fears the voters enough he’s less easily co-opted. It’ll never be perfect. That’s why a wise man once said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilence. The citiznery has been complacent for too long and we have what we have as a result.
True enough, but in the real world neither abstinence education nor freely available birth control will ever eradicate teen pregnancy — and in the real world the vast majority of people in any electorate are going to be vastly more interested in living their own lives than in supervising their elected representatives.
If he knows he has to go back and live among those voters after his current term, he’d have to be an idiot to think he can just do what he damn well pleases until then. On the other hand, by the time someone “knows the ropes,” he also knows how to insulate himself from voters’ wrath a hell of a lot better than the naif.
” They aren’t the only step, but they are a necessary step. ”
You are right. Go to the Alliance for Bonded Term Limites, Inc, http://www.bondedtermlimits.org/ , a grassroots, non-profit here in Pinehurst, NC. We give candidates the opportunity to pledge term limits and to then put their money where their mouths are.
We are getting ready to sign our third Congressional candidate. See the video at the link above.
We can ‘prime the pump’ for an eventual Constitutional amendment.
Go to our web site. Join us. (free) Donate, if you see fit.
We will make a difference.
Does anyone remember a recent scandal/scam
which relied in large part on getting the
common man to believe that only his highly
experienced betters were qualified to have
an opinion of, and take action on, a certain
crisis ?
The incumbent CongressCritters only expertise
is in operating the controls from behind the
curtain; That game is over. The new players will
have no time or opportunity to be corrupted;
The voters will be hurting, calling for economic
reform, and willing to recall nonperformers.
Veeshir,
Dead right. The best answer in my opinion is an amendment that limits each district boundary to something like 10 segments, either straight lines or natural boundaries (although better worded so some evil bottom feeding lawyer (but I repeat myself) can’t cleverly evade the wording to gerrymander by another name ). That gives enough flexibility to distribute population in the districts but prevents selectively choosing neighborhoods. In theory at least, if you have to compete in every single election, you don’t need term limits, because if you suck, you’re going to lose a competitive election. And if you have to compete in every election, well, um, isn’t that kind of what representative democracy is supposed to be all about?
The problem with term limits in Congress is — once elected to their last term — what do they have to fear?
They could do anything at all — with no consequences.
Perhaps the answer is not term limits per se, but what I think of as an “incumbency limit”: Congresscritters may serve as many terms as they may convince their constituents to elect them to, but no two terms may be consecutive ones.
term limits don’t work….Florida was much better before term limits gave all the power to lobbyists and staff…
My state enacted term limits a few years ago, and two years ago all the “old guard” was out. The “grand spending schemes” of the past are GONE. The state has to balance the budget, and cannot incur direct state debt. Under Republican leadership, if the revenues are down the legislature is called back and the spending is reduced, much to the chagrin of the bureaucrats who whine like little babies.
I’m sorry, Stephen, but this:
“Over the last ten years, I’ve become convinced that term limits are absolutely vital to the health of the Republic. They aren’t the only step, but they are a necessary step.”
is patently wrong. It has helped California not at all.
I think Veeshir has it exactly right. Props to Brian as well. We enacted term limits in CA a number of years ago without fixing the gerrymandered districts. The result – a Democratic controlled legislature with politicians perpetually campaigning for their next position and inexperienced leaders unable to solve the problems facing the state.
I agree with Akatsukami, no consecutive terms. I also think that the states should individually set the pay for their representatives and the staff should be state employees. That should at least align the manderins with the state’s interests.
If you can get the fed’s out of the business of handing out money, the lobbiest and manderin problems should solve themselves.
As far as experience goes, it cuts both ways. A more experienced legislator also knos more tricks to working the system and robbing it blind.