Three strikes and you are out

There is a lot of talk about term limits for politicians. I can understand the argument. Pro sports coaches, CEOs, even news anchors don't remain in their position forever. Each of these jobs have to stay at the top of their field. If they fail eventually they are removed or fired and someone new is brought in. Take NFL teams, how often does a head couch get to stick around after back to back losing seasons? Sometimes a second or third chance may be given while the team is rebuilt and a new quarter back is found and developed, or a star linebacker is brought on, but after a sufficient amount of time, if the record does not improve then the leadership is removed.

CEOs step down or are fired when companies start to loose money or market position so that a new leader can be brought in and take the company in a new direction, when ideas get stale a fresh perspective is needed.

Why is government not held to the same standards? You can argue that it is. The President is limited to two terms. The President has to only run for re-election once, after that he is done. With a four year term this allows enough time for some longer term planning, prioritization of what policies the President think he was elected to enact but not so much time that he gets complacent and even worn down. Often if a President is reelected much of the staff is shuffled. Many of the cabinet members resign to allow for someone else to come in and take the helm providing the administration with some fresh perspective.

What about the legislative branch? Why is there no term limit? If there was term limits what would be fair? A term in the Senate is six years in the house two years. Each two years the entire house is up for election and a third of the Senate. In the House and Senate there are at least 15 members (out of 535) that have served for over 35 years. The longest in the House being John Dingell for almost 58 years. Just take a second. That means ol Johnny boy has had to make promises to get reelected 29 times.

However, this is not an honest off the cuff rant. I did check somethings before I sat down to write this. The average number of years that the members of the House and Senate have served has actually increased over the past five decades (so we must be even happier with their work than ever before). The median tenure for a House member has been around five-two-year terms and for a Senator has been about two-six year terms.


Prior to reading those facts I had a conversation in my head while walking the dog earlier, and I came to the totally unscientific conclusion that two terms for a Senator should be enough and somewhere between four to six terms the limit for a House member would be equally sufficient (corresponding to the eight year term limit of the President and my suggested 12 year term limit of the Senate). I figure that we want some experience otherwise if we limited terms too much on the House then we could actually see too much turnover and there would be no seniority, that is not conducive to getting some things done. You do need experience. But having 20 or 30 terms might be too much. Also there is some merit to having to run for reelection. So allowing at least one reelection in the Senate can help motivate a little. BUT LETS NOT STOP THERE! Since it is a longer term, and there are some serious responsibilities for the Senate, not the least of which is confirmation of all Court and Cabinet appointees, each Senator should have served at least One term in the House or have served in one of the state legislators, or as a state governor. This may seem to contradict what I am trying to eliminate, which would be cronyism and career politicians. What I am really suggesting is that the House should be more of a peoples house, where non-career positions thrive, keeping a good turnover either from outside contenders or strong term limits and for those that have more to offer can move up to the Senate but if they make it that far the are limited to two terms.

A lot of people say that Congress makes too much money. That may be true, but consider they do not have their own jobs, that it take a lot of money and sacrifice to be elected, and that we actually want these people to NOT be tempted by others with deep pockets. What I do not understand is the lifetime checks they get once they are out of office and many of the other benefits. I think that they should have a retirement system much like government employees - since that is what they are. Do it like the military, if they serve out their entire time (max out their terms) then they are eligible for 50% of their base pay (does not include benefits). Just like in the current military even if someone wants to stick around and are only doing mediocre work (or in some cases are doing outstanding work but the position they fill is overmanned) they are not allowed to re-enlist. Consider a reelection much like this reenlistment. If they do not get the go ahead from the voters to go one more term, then they are out of their pension.

I have a lot of respect for those sitting up on Capitol Hill in DC. But I don't understand how some of them, well actually most of them, have this sense of entitlement. There are much smarter people out there that would do well if they could get elected, but why should they? Blow your family savings, make a bunch of back room promises, and finally make it to the hill and have to wait out senior members that have been there since the great depression since they have the seniority.

George Washington and all his immediate successors informally set term limits for the presidency, few Presidents even attempted to run for a third term, although a few tried. FDR was the first and only president to succeed and soon after he won his fourth term (and then died shortly after), it was Republican Governor to New York Thomas Dewy that suggested a constitutional amendment to limit terms of the President. So even after only ONE president took the liberty to stay around further than any other, the country made sure it could not happen again. We have been sitting too long waiting for someone to do the same for Congress. Even though the median tenure is about what I am suggesting for term limits, there are those that have gone on far too long and gotten too comfortable.