High time for term limits in Congress
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Milton Denson
Published: October 7, 2008
After looking at the futility of our Congress to get anything done, whether it being Republican or Democrat, I truly believe that one major problem with our Congress are career politicians.
It is hard to get any real change in our country when you are stuck with the same cast of characters, which I believe are not the most honest people in the world and are more interested in their
pocketbook instead of what is right for the country.
What we should do is limit the Senate to two terms (12 years) and the House to six terms (12 years).
If anyone has different ideas, I am open to hear them, but we have to start somewhere.
MILTON DENSON
Manassas
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( gwenandgary ) on October 08, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I agree completely with Mr. Denson. I also understand, however, that the obstacles to passing an amendment to this effect would be nearly impossible.
Unless…
Unless voters recognized the power they have to effect sweeping change upon the current makeup of both houses of Congress.
Unless those voters refused to accept the status quo and voted according to the perceived needs of their district.
Unless voters held members of Congress accountable for their actions (or lack thereof, in many cases).
An amendment? Not very likely.
Voters sensing their power and using it to effect change? That would be something to see.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( rafaelva ) on October 08, 2008 at 7:55 am
ray, members of congress prior to 1984 were covered under CSRS, now they are covered under FERS or Social Security.
Basic guidelines are, they may retire at age 62, with five years service, or
age 50 with 20 years service, or at any age after 25 years service. So that is standard FERS. This is about standard for a government employee.
I forget the exact numbers, but as of 2006, there were only 425 retired members of congress, 130 of them receive annual retirement checks of 32K a year, the rest receive an averate of about 65K per year.
This applies to Presidents and Vice Presidents too. Jimmy Carter was not eligible for Federal Retirement, he only had 4 years federal service.
All members of the govt regardless of who must pay social security and medicare taxes, just like everyone else.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on October 08, 2008 at 6:20 am
First and foremost is a change to their retirement program that currently gives anyone that serves lifetime retirement, regardless if only one term. With term limits, we can toss out ANY retirement program. You serve because you love your country, not because of the health care benefits, retirement or speaking fees.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( rafaelva ) on October 08, 2008 at 4:56 am
It’s a good idea, and it’s been bandied about for years. The only problem would be getting an Amendment to the Constitution through both houses of Congress. It’s not the sort of dicipline they would willingly impose upon themselves.
Resorting to the convention method of amending the Constitution has never been used, so that is pretty much out.
There remains only one method, and that would be that the individual states impose limits on the number of terms an individual may be sent to Congress. Since the Constitution does not give the Power to set term limits to the United States, it is safe to assume it is a power reserved to the States.
I feel we should limit an individuals legislative service time to 12 years absolute. That would mean 6 terms in the house, or two terms in the Senate. However, by limiting a person to 12 total in Congress, a person having served 6 terms in the House is not eligible to serve in the Senate, or having served 2 terms in the Senate not being eligible to serve in the house. It would allow a person 3 terms in the House, and one term in the Senate.
By restricting it to 12 years, it also says that an individual appointed to serve out the term in the House or Senate looses time. A Representative would still only be eligible to run for 5 times, because a 6th election would push him over the 12 year limit.
Senators would only be eligible to run for one term, because a second term would exceed 12 years. However, a Senator having served part of a term, plus one term, could still be eligible to serve in the House up to the point were serving another term would exceed 12 years.
One additional thing, the wording would have to be such as to say “A Person”, not “A Resident”. This would prevent an individual from serving say
12 years from the State of Maryland, and then transferring their residence to Virginia and being eligible to serve
12 years from Virginia.
Comments?
Report Inappropriate Comment