Vote Out Those Who Have Served 12 Years in Congress

by Jean Purcell⁽⁵⁾
OpineBooks.com

Normal 0

We, as voters, need to impose by our votes maximum 12-year term limits on both houses of the U. S. Congress.

The obvious first reasons are that most offices in the U. S. have term limits. Governors and state elected officials usually cannot serve more than a limited two terms. Even in New York City, a liberal place if ever there was one, Mayor Bloomberg was not able to convince even his fans that he should be allowed to break term limits and run again for mayor.

The most important reason behind the official terms limits should motivate voters to impose them where they do not exist in law. Anyone in one job too long gets either arrogant, careless, stale, or tired. Most tend, perhaps, to fit all of those descriptions.

Watch committee hearings and meeting on C-Span. God bless Brian Lamb for starting C-Span over twenty years ago. I don’t know how Mr. Lamb did it, but he successfully outdid the objections that “public business” should not be carried to the public.

Yes, many politicians now play to the cameras. But eventually they have to vote, and we can compare what they say and what they do. A gap traditionally yawns between what even the best politicians say and do, but at least we get to see, know, follow, and make or refine our judgments.

Watch C-Span and see the tiredness on the faces of even the best public servants. They have served well. But even those I admire have served too long. It is unnatural. It is not good for vital debate and balance in governance. It is not good for the American people.

Today, due to entrenched power, which more than 12 years in Congress usually leads to, the people feel increasingly powerless. The old guard does such a good job of claiming more experience than we. They cannot, however, claim better judgment, as the records show.

People on Capitol Hill right now are reviewing the President’s 2010 proposed budget. They are voting on amendments made by people in Congress. They are on C-Span part of the time, casting their votes.

They are playing with our lives. They are about to vote on caps that will determine behaviors in the U. S. that may not be agreed by other countries. If other nations do not agree, having to do with carbon emissions, then the full burden and loss will fall on us. Yet, the budget proposes the caps now and many in Congress, probably most, will go along.

Go along-ism is something that I was raised to dislike with something close to disgust. My parents always wanted to question, think for themselves, and act as they, not a group or crowd, determined to be right according to reason and conscience.

Congress, on both sides, is full of go-alongism. Right now the Go-alongers threaten basic freedoms. So entrenched in power, they've lost touch with how their votes influence and put further limits on our lives. They make new laws and regulations that force us to go-along, to obey or pay. Then, they often find ways to exempt themselves. Such imbalance comes from entrenched power in Congress.

In the past days, something unimaginable has happened. A cabinet member of the White House, the Treasury Secretary, opened the door to the idea of an international, or global, currency to replace the U. S. dollar in the world's economy. The dollar fell immediately upon the report of that opinion by one close to the President. Those close to the President speak for, not against, the President’s ideas and views.

A person to watch on the international scene is a 37-year-old member of the British Parliament. He recently gave an impassioned and highly critical verbal pounding to the views of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. He did it to the Prime Minister’s face, and the reaction has been in favor of his comments.

Why would a young Member of Parliament let go in such a way? He says that England is closer to bankruptcy and disarray than the U. S., though he sees the U. S. quickly going that way. Bailouts and buyouts are destroying every country that employs them. “You cannot borrow your way out of debt,” the young man said to the Prime Minister.

Borrowing our way out of debt is exactly the new path of the new U. S. administration, taking the bad choices of the previous administration much farther and faster regarding debt policy. Also, you cannot spend your way out of debt. That was another of the Parliament member’s points.

Yet, we are being ask to go out and spend and borrow more, individually.

No. Many of us will not do that. And many of us will not continue to send to Congress people who have served 12 years. It’s for their good. We want to help them keep their normalcy, to the extent a politician has any. And, we want to protect ourselves from the inevitable character flaws that bud and grow when people spend more years in power.

The first few years of power can be horrendous for some people. One term is enough for them, but if they make it through to another, that should be it.

It is not a matter of changing party votes to vote 12-year-officials out. We can encourage and support both parties putting up new people for office. Otherwise, regardless of party affiliations, I am not voting against anyone in my state who has served 12 years already in Congress.

I hope you will consider this. I'm not asking you to go along with my view. I'm just asking your to reason it out for yourself. Think it through as you watch and listen to what is changing quickly in this nation. Then, do not be entrenched in the old ways, but try a new way. Voluntary imposition of term limits, by voters, can make this country wake up and become strong again.

Article submitted Wednesday, March 25, 2009 & read 104 times.

Please log in to leave your comments.
No comments yet.

47-1-3-0-4-ADSM

Most Recent

Sponsors: