Something on which I've changed my mind.

I used to be staunchly against term limits for Federal office (other than the Presidency). Additionally, I was also against any limitations on who could run for office. My thought was that term limits come every election. Also, I thought the American people were wise enough to never vote for a name over policies.

What do we have today? 90% of incumbents are re-elected for Congress. And we have a situation where Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are considered realistic candidates for the 2016 election. There are rumblings that Michelle Obama may run for Illinois senate and Chelsea Clinton and the third generation of the Bush family are being groomed for political office. Enough.

We are a nation of 315MM people. Do we really think this political class is the best we can do? They certainly haven't shown themselves to be. We were supposed to be citizen legislators, not groom families to be part of an informal monarchy.

Here are my proposals:

1. A term limit of four terms for the House of Representatives (8 years). This term is in total. No Medvedev/Putin switch for a term to re-start the term limit.

2. A term limit of two terms for the US Senate (12 years). This term is also in total.

3. Any relative out to first cousins would be ineligible to run for 12 years for any Federal office after the term of a relative expires. That would have meant that George W. Bush could not have run for President until 2004 and Hillary Clinton would have been ineligible to run for Senate until 2012. Second cousins wouldn't be affected by this rule.

4. It's primarily Glenn Reynolds' idea, but we need to enact a "revolving door surtax". To add onto it, any President or relative of a President will in perpetuity give 50% of every dollar they make after the salary of the President (currently $400K) of any speaking fees, board seats, executive positions and book advances/royalties back to the US Treasury. Members of Congress would simply be bound by Professor Reynolds' proposal.

I have no problem with someone serving eight years in the House, twelve years in the Senate and then eight years as President, if that's what the American people decide. That's 28 years, which is a good part of a career.

I also have no problem with a former President enriching themselves. However, their expertise was made possible by the taxpayer. We should get a piece of the action.

I don't see any of my proposals as being too hard on the political class. If you wish to dedicate your life to such an endeavor, these limits don't seem to crimp your style too much. Perhaps it would serve to make state offices more attractive. In any case, it would likely make people more tied to their states.

I think we need to return to the idea of a citizen-legislator. Professional politicians haven't done squat for us. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, these names will never be mistaken for any of our Founding Fathers. This nation would somehow manage to carry on without their counsel.

/Rant

 

I would add that if a sitting elected official wants to run for a different office, that official must resign his/her current office.

 

Agreed and repped.

 

Thomas Jefferson had it right from Day One.

 

I'm trying to remember who was the last sitting pol who resigned their seat to run for President.

Obama didn't
McCain didn't
Kerry didn't
W. Bush didn't
Gore didn't
Clinton?

 

I believe this is law for Portland City Council. Someone is running for council chair, and had to basically give up their current chair to do so.

 

I like all of these rules Maxie. The only thing I have always disliked was the 2 year for representative. I think they end up wasting too much of their time trying to get re-elected. Also how many terms could a senator serve after they were a Rep for 8 years, in Maxie America?

 

Agreed for the most part. I would like to see 4 year terms instead of 2 with this proposal also, it just feels like they spend all their time in perpetual campaign mode, and not enough time in work mode.

 

The House was set up to reflect the present concerns of the populace, while the Senate was set up to be more stable. Somewhere in the last 30 years, that idea has been done away with.

 

That was my first "solution" as well. The better one, I think, is to restrict campaigning to only ~3 months before election.

 

Im all ears on this stuff, but I dont see how you could actually do that and enforce it. Seems to me it would be just open another avenue for the politicians to sue their opponents over petty bias interpretations on the new law.

 

I agree and it is a change for me also. Far too much party loyalty with an eye to getting reelected. I might even change it even more restrictive. Two terms consecutive for the House seats. Multiple terms then would be alright. I also think we should return to having Senators appointed for a six year term by the Senate of the State legislature rather than a popular vote of the people. The Senators should represent the State, not a couple counties or a political party.

 

Still the issue of these shlubs taking office and basically working for a company or organization knowing that when they leave office they will make millions a year as a lobbyist or something similar. I'd like to see some way to fix this without harming ones right to earn. I just want their acts in office to have the people in mind more than whomever will pay their future pay checks.

 

Making them less of an insider seems to be the only way to make them less attractive to the grafters. What else could do it other than term limits?

 

I don't know but quid pro quo is screwing us over

 

Have to agree with you and Maxie on this. I used to believe that the longer they were in the more power they could wield for their represented citizenry..but as we all know, they truly give zero fucks about anything but being re elected

 

The only issue I have with this vaguely, is when people talk about not wanting an "insider" the way some parts of the right try to always go for a fresh face. I am okay as long as the elected official has some legal background (lawyer/judge), but I feel like that is rarely the case. I suppose College professors with a Masters degree or higher would also be good candidates. Anyone (not just AbarahamJones) have thoughts/comments on that?

 

Wait, so you think that politicians should all have law degrees, or at least a Masters degree? What? The entire administration right now is filled with academics and lawyers, and other than partying down with Katy Perry, I'm not sure what they've done that would make me say "yeah, we need more of these types in power!"

 

Nice.

As per the post I was responding to, we've finally found the guy who wants MORE lawyers involved in politics.