KillingtonZone.com

......who has never before sought public office

This just popped into my head. Do we need restrictions on how long you can serve in elected office, period? Like say, 8 years. So, if you are a Senator for 6 years, you automatically can't run for Governor, President, etc...but you could do a 2 year term in the House. You could have a single term Governor run for President, but they would only be able to serve one term. This would basically wipe out career politicians, and ensure a regular flow of normal people in and out of government. Eh?

YES, That was the original intent when our country was founded.

Term limits would solve the problem of our elected officials spending most of their time raising money to get re-elected.

Limit the presidency to 1 term of 6 years. Completely fore go the unproductive and absolutely silly re-election cycle. 6 years is long enough to actually get something done with Congress but not too long to cause permanent damage.

The original plan was part time legislators who went home to take care of business, not get paid at the trough. 4 year sessions or 6 year sessions, either way end them. 6 years works out as the Senate is on a 6 year schedule. Change the Amendment for President to ONE 6 year term and set the Congress at no more than 3 two year terms. Senate gets one shot at it, not 40 f'n years, with a single 6 year term.

heiusa wrote:YES, That was the original intent when our country was founded.

Term limits would solve the problem of our elected officials spending most of their time raising money to get re-elected.

There is absolutely nothing I know of from the Constitutional Convention to indicate that our founding fathers wanted term limits. In fact, it was only George Washington's declaration that he wouldn't run for a third term that set the precedent adhered to by all subsequent Presidents until FDR ran for a third and fourth term, after which the Constitution was amended to limit the President to two terms only.

What WAS expected, however, was that we would have a "citizen" legislature, where people would serve for however long they liked but, since it was expected that the job was part time, legislators would "keep their day jobs" and go home when Congress was not in session. That seemed to end this past century once the Capitol became air conditioned and folks could stay in Washington all summer without suffering the heat. I'm still convinced that the worst thing we ever did was add A/C to the Capitol building.

Dr. NO wrote:The original plan was ... not get paid at the trough.

Rules on politicians prohibited from becoming lobbyists or consultants, better campaign financing regulations, shorter election seasons, and better enforcement of prompt FOIA requests would all help get (some) money out of politics.

But I agree on more term limits.

My take:

Congress should have no term limits, but will need to earn a continually higher margin to retake the seat. After some point you will need 5 % more votes each election to win. IE after 2 terms of either Senate or House, you need 55% of the vote to retain the seat. After 3 terms you need 60%. Only by doing an outstanding job can you stay in office for 30 years.

Term limits would accomplish nothing. Any person with 1/2 a brain would never go into politics. Rotating dimwits isn't the answer.

steamboat1 wrote:Term limits would accomplish nothing. Any person with 1/2 a brain would never go into politics. Rotating dimwits isn't the answer.

Why not? The pay is OK and plenty of reasonable people could take off 4 or 6 years from their normal jobs to serve their country. It would take a cultural change though.

Highway Star wrote:

steamboat1 wrote:Term limits would accomplish nothing. Any person with 1/2 a brain would never go into politics. Rotating dimwits isn't the answer.

Why not? The pay is OK and plenty of reasonable people could take off 4 or 6 years from their normal jobs to serve their country. It would take a cultural change though.

$174k/yr to have your face (and probably families face) all over the news and to deal with all the sh*t that comes with it ... isn't even close to enough to attract the people you might want serving in these positions. You can easily make this and more leading a private life in the private sector.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

Highway Star wrote:

steamboat1 wrote:Term limits would accomplish nothing. Any person with 1/2 a brain would never go into politics. Rotating dimwits isn't the answer.

Why not? The pay is OK and plenty of reasonable people could take off 4 or 6 years from their normal jobs to serve their country. It would take a cultural change though.

$174k/yr to have your face (and probably families face) all over the news and to deal with all the sh*t that comes with it ... isn't even close to enough to attract the people you might want serving in these positions. You can easily make this and more leading a private life in the private sector.

By that logic, XJ, we would have almost no one volunteer for the military, with the risk and low pay that comes with it.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

Highway Star wrote:

steamboat1 wrote:Term limits would accomplish nothing. Any person with 1/2 a brain would never go into politics. Rotating dimwits isn't the answer.

Why not? The pay is OK and plenty of reasonable people could take off 4 or 6 years from their normal jobs to serve their country. It would take a cultural change though.

$174k/yr to have your face (and probably families face) all over the news and to deal with all the sh*t that comes with it ... isn't even close to enough to attract the people you might want serving in these positions. You can easily make this and more leading a private life in the private sector.

HAHAHHAHAHH! Omg, you're a moron. Talk about republican blinders.

If it was so easy, everyone would be doing it. $175K per year is 98-99% percentile in income.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_ ... ted_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household ... ted_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mister Moose wrote:

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

Highway Star wrote:

steamboat1 wrote:Term limits would accomplish nothing. Any person with 1/2 a brain would never go into politics. Rotating dimwits isn't the answer.

Why not? The pay is OK and plenty of reasonable people could take off 4 or 6 years from their normal jobs to serve their country. It would take a cultural change though.

$174k/yr to have your face (and probably families face) all over the news and to deal with all the sh*t that comes with it ... isn't even close to enough to attract the people you might want serving in these positions. You can easily make this and more leading a private life in the private sector.

By that logic, XJ, we would have almost no one volunteer for the military, with the risk and low pay that comes with it.

I see a lot of differences between campaigning and possibly being elected to represent your state and volunteering to become an enlisted man/woman. I also think the requisite skill set necessary for each position is significantly different, too. I think that's why the pay rates are different because our gov't acknowledges the different skills needed for each position.

My comments were directed at HS's assertion that people would leave their private life to serve congress because the pay is good. Throughout our history, most of those who left private life to serve in Congress were not doing it because the money was good, but because they were already wealthy and it was another challenge in their career or a desire to fulfill some (or many) civic duties (or something else).

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

Mister Moose wrote:

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

Highway Star wrote:

steamboat1 wrote:Term limits would accomplish nothing. Any person with 1/2 a brain would never go into politics. Rotating dimwits isn't the answer.

Why not? The pay is OK and plenty of reasonable people could take off 4 or 6 years from their normal jobs to serve their country. It would take a cultural change though.

$174k/yr to have your face (and probably families face) all over the news and to deal with all the sh*t that comes with it ... isn't even close to enough to attract the people you might want serving in these positions. You can easily make this and more leading a private life in the private sector.

By that logic, XJ, we would have almost no one volunteer for the military, with the risk and low pay that comes with it.

I see a lot of differences between campaigning and possibly being elected to represent your state and volunteering to become an enlisted man/woman. I also think the requisite skill set necessary for each position is significantly different, too. I think that's why the pay rates are different because our gov't acknowledges the different skills needed for each position.

My comments were directed at HS's assertion that people would leave their private life to serve congress because the pay is good. Throughout our history, most of those who left private life to serve in Congress were not doing it because the money was good, but because they were already wealthy and it was another challenge in their career or a desire to fulfill some (or many) civic duties (or something else).

you "misunderestimate" or fail to acknowledge the immense power and influence that comes with public "service"...the 174k is merely icing on the cake...

Me saying "the pay is OK" is a pretty serious understatement - it's very good pay in the scheme of things. That's not a real deterrent from any professional person taking the job for 4 to 6 years. Not to mention ALL the other perks.

madhatter wrote:you "misunderestimate" or fail to acknowledge the immense power and influence that comes with public "service"...the 174k is merely icing on the cake...

That was kinda my point ... the money doesn't really matter because no one's doing it for the money. The median net-worth of a congressman is ~$1M.

Highway Star wrote:Me saying "the pay is OK" is a pretty serious understatement - it's very good pay in the scheme of things. That's not a real deterrent from any professional person taking the job for 4 to 6 years. Not to mention ALL the other perks.

The deterrent is all the other sh*t. It's not about the money.