Quote:
Originally Posted by Ooper
I agree with you 100% for term limits. But to endorse a complete replacement at one time, I believe, is not a good idea. I would love to see a 2 or 3 term office. Eliminate that 50% of the most senior representatives and senators in 2010 followed by the remaining members when their current term runs out. I think there would be just as many, if not more, problems with a complete greenhorn congress than we have now.
|
Congress will not impose term limits upon itself, so it's up to the citizenry to keep situations like 15-20-30-40-45 year congresspersons from happening. We can't complain that congressional approval rating is <20% and them keep reelecting the same folk.
The Founding Fathers never anticipated that being a Member of Congress was going to be a career, complete with retirement program. The 2 and 6 year terms for Congressfolk were meant to allow for seat rotation.
Key point is that under current rule, Congresspersons have full vesting for retirement at five years. That's three terms for House members and one for a senator. Like any retirement package, it grows with longevity.
So, two terms in the House should be enough. One would like to think that there is more than one person in a congressional district who is qualified to that seat. The alternative is like any business - increased retirement costs, protectionism setting in with the incumbent, and worse is the psychological transition of the person from being a resident of their district to being a resident of the DC area where they spend the majority of their time.
I have no complaint with Ms. Brown-Waite's service, but I don't see her (or anyone else) becoming a career representative for this district.