Without Term Limits on Congress, You and I Reward Incompetence in Congress
by Jean Purcell(15)OpineBooks.com
American taxpayers are now forced to reward incompetence. That’s the most recent ethical failure of the recent financial crisis that interests us today.
Who led these bailout deals and voted for them? Who signed off on the exemptions for companies like AIG Financial? A majority of the people exerting power in the U. S. Congress right now. Those people were elected by “ the people” to serve “all the people.”
I try to stay out of politics. But I also try not to bury my head in the sand, and you do the same, I’m sure. But this is not only a political or government matter. It is an ethical matter. The privilege of being voted to serve in Congress is being abused by the privileges Congress is taking upon itself to pass legislation carelessly, recklessly, and incompetently.
This is not personal. It is a matter of facing the facts of behavior, judgment, and final decisions.
Increasingly, we see the U. S. Congress, both houses—Senate and House of Representatives—fail us and help wealthy financiers. Even as the Banking and Finance committee chairman and other committee leaders speak about responsibility, they neglect to require the basic terms that you or I would have to abide by. They show a gross neglect of responsibility.
I do not like to speak of the U. S. Congress in this way. Yet, like the failing Roman Senate in the times of the Roman Caesars, they dither while making loud noises. Their dithering makes us rewarders of irresponsible people and institutions.
Do you believe it is over yet, this kind of Congressional rewarding of incompetence? Do you think they deserve a raise, if they, Congress, are incompetent in these matters?
Trillions of dollars of debt mount while we listen and read and watch. We need to do more. Are you willing to make some hard choices? We say “they” should make the hard choices, but will we follow our own advice?
One way, dear reader, to make your voice heard is the key way today: Voting. More important than voting, however, is voting smart.
Voting smart to me means setting up basic principles that can help enforce some taxpayer power controls upon the halls of the Capitol in Washington, DC. A basic principle decided by law years ago, after President Franklin Roosevelt’s death in his fourth (!) term, was term limits.
Term limits in the Executive Branch means that no President may serve more than two four-year terms consecutively. Eight consecutive years was the limit imposed by Congress on any President's service.
Yet, Congress will not impose any limits on itself. The Congress of today, for the most part, does not limit its own excesses, deceits, scapegoating, and perks. The Congress of today would never, ever limit itself on almost anything. Especially term limits.
If Congress will not do it, then there’s nothing to do but accept it, right?
Wrong. If Congress will not do it, we the taxpayers and voters need to do it. We need to impose term limits.
My recommendation is that we decide to follow this basic principle: Regardless of party affiliation, we will not vote anyone back into office who has already served 12 years in Congress.
If eight years are enough for any one person to serve together as President, then 12 consecutive years are enough for any one person to serve as a Senator or Representative in the U. S. Congress.
Term limits like that would not prevent any Senator or Representative to run again the next round after the round when their 12-year terms ends. They can run again and win, if they can convince the people in their jurisdictions that they deserve to serve again.
If we as voters do not do this, we have only ourselves to blame.
Article submitted Saturday, March 21, 2009 & read 418 times.
Leave Your Comments:
» left by Bruce Horst (356 days 2 hours ago.)
I totally agree, Jane. About a dozen years ago in Texas there was a big push for term limits and term limits were set on a number of public offices.Now there is a huge contrast between the offices which have term limits and those that don't. For the most part, the politicians with term limits are popular, have accomplished great things for the citizens, and are known for uniting.Many of the politicians in Texas without term limits are on the opposite end of the spectrum and are known as dividers and have a reputation for serving the needs of special interests.To me the need for term limits is completely obvious.Respond to this comment
» left by Jane Bullard (356 days 1 hour ago.)
Bruno, you make the case with clear facts. It is time to play this record, I think, again and again until it becomes a popular viewpoint. If it's tried, like you I think we could see the differences soon. Thanks for your encouraging comment!
Jane
Respond to this comment
» left by Joel Hendon(754)(356 days ago.)
Hi Jane, this is a really great article and I'm in agreement with you on it. I'm just sorry that people won't vote to limit their terms. A few, very few, are worthy of more time but unfortunately, the voters won't purge the ones who do not deserve more time. Some don't even deserve a second term.
Welcome to Wegazine.
Respond to this comment
» left by Jane Bullard (356 days ago.)
Joel, I look forward to working with you, and am glad to see you managing this new outlet for writers.
Respond to this comment
» left by Terie Jean Carney from Graham Washington (334 days ago.)
I DO SO AGREE! WE NEED TERM LIMITS FOR PRESIDENT AND FOR CONGRESS!Respond to this comment
» left by Jane Bullard (333 days 17 hours ago.)
Hi, Terie Jean,
I am so glad to hear from people who agree with this. I wish people would watch the terms of people they vote for and whomever has served those 12 consecutive years, vote 'em out. Well, you already know I think that would be healthier for everyone. I cannot figure out how we would get Congress to vote limits on themselves.
Thanks for commenting!
Jane
Respond to this comment
» left by Alan Liss (319 days 23 hours ago.)
Jane you are on the right path. The key is to pass the XXVIII amendment that virtually mimics the XXII amendment. Personally I think 2 terms is sufficient, but if we can get it passed with 2 Terms for senators (12 years) and 6 terms for congress (12 years) - OK. There is a way to do this locally by grassroots effort directed at the State Legislatures - 35 States to propose - 38 States to ratify. Sadly, the aphrodisiac of power makes anyone in Congress who talks the talk unable to walk the walk regarding term limits. I refer you to Newt Gingrich's #10 of his Contract with America. That #10 should be re-written to spell out the terms of the XXVIII amendment - with no equivocation!Respond to this comment
» left by Jane Bullard (312 days 22 hours ago.)
Hi, Alan, thanks so much for commenting! You know much more of the ins and outs than I do. Keep working on this, as I imagine you are now. I'll sign petitions if it comes to that or if that even helps.Meanwhile, maybe I'll try to write more on this if ideas or info come...hmmmm you've given more info to use!
Jane
Respond to this comment
130-0-4-1-8-ADSM