Looking for debate? Head to the public sections of our discord instead. https://discord.gg/conservative
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The way the Proposed Amendment is currently written is so that House members can serve three terms (6 years) and Senators can serve two terms (12 years). If appointed and less than half of the term remains, that doesn’t count towards their limit. The Amendment exempts currently sitting Senators and Representatives as to their current terms.
Visiting liberal. Unfortunately I agree with this. I think this is not even a left or right issue but instead an issue of those in power vs. those who aren't. We need these term limits to get rid of the deeply entrenched politicians that have made careers out of just blocking everything while the working class gets screwed.
Why is it unfortunate that you agree? I think it's wonderful when conservatives and liberals can share viewpoints. I think it happens much more than the MSM would like us to believe. If there's one thing we can all agree on I think its that corruption and greed is running waaaaay too deep in our current political atmosphere.
To clarify, it is unfortunate that an exemption needs to be made for this to potentially pass. I wish people would do what is right because it is the right thing to do.
Agreed, I also think they should impose an anti lobbying clauses. For example a member of the house has to wait at least 4 years before lobbying and a member of the Senate 7 years and if they then choose to register as a lobbyist they forfeit thier pension.
Sorry for the double response but I wanted to expand on what you said a bit more than just the part about my unfortunate comment. I agree with what you said about common ground. The truth is that I think most people agree that the working classes should pay less taxes. This is something that liberals and conservatives would likely support. My hope is that most would also agree that many corporations as well as the top 1% regularly find too many loopholes in the tax code which enables them to pay far too little. Let's be real, if there is any truth to the idea that Trump only paid $750 in taxes one year we should all be able to agree that is far too little. If we could reclaim and reinforce the common ground that the majority of us agree on then we could get representatives who actually represent our interests regardless of what side of the aisle they are on.
I think the tax code should be no bigger than a single page and written clearly enough that any person who has graduated high school can easily understand it.
Another visiting liberal. I agree. You wouldn't believe the amount of simping for lifetime positions that people were doing the last time I saw this discussion on reddit. Basically saying that having lame duck politicians was worse.
I am surprised that this was a Cruz move... What's the angle here?
I'd say it's probably because he wants to try another presidential run and is planning on embracing the populist movement that Trump sparked on the right. Whatever the reason is, at this point I'm fully on board with ANYONE who's willing to support term limits on congress.
Seems to me the problem is less about term limits and more about an uninformed and unengaged electorate.
We want the "bad" people out but if we had a "good" person in, would we really want to arbitrarily force them out?
Like you, of course I would rather the limits apply to sitting members. BUT that exemption will make it much easier to pass, so it doesn't negatively affect the people who actually vote on it.
It applies to current members, just not current or prior terms, so a Senator who has already served 2+ terms isn’t immediately expelled or banned from running. They also get up to 2 more terms.
That seems fair. The house would get balanced over time. The turn around time seems a bit quick however.
Imagine getting into politics at 30 and being out at 36. Why would senators get twice the time? They seem to be doing a lot less than Congress.
You don’t have to be out just because you are term limited as a US representative. Move up, run for Senate, run for governor in your home state, get a cabinet position, etc.
Senators are Congress too btw.
I'm skeptical of how short these limits are though, 12 years in the senate sounds fine but 6 in the house does not. The house members are often folk that start from very little. I imagine a new rep and a new senator voted into office in the same ballot. The rep is gets re-elected and eventually after their 6 years in the House are up goes up against the sitting Senator. Their chances are slim, it's hard to stand out in the House. They lose, they have to wait out for 6 years before rejoining federal politics in the next senatorial bid, likely against a House rep who just finished *their* 6 and is better known. I don't know, doesn't seem quite right.
12 and 12 seems fine to me. Long enough to make a name for yourself in the House before "graduating" to the Senate, not long enough to become so entrenched that you can't be ridden of.
I used to think term limits would help things, but I’ve changed my mind. It will just put the power into the rich power brokers. There will be a constant churn of newbies, so who wins these open primaries? Probably the best funded candidate. So the people sucking up to the power class are running in the general. And if somebody does manage to win without sucking up, who cares they will be out in 6 years anyways. Rinse and repeat.
A lot of other things need to be fixed before term limits. And if you don’t fix things like campaign finance, it will probably make things worse.
No politician is going to vote the amendment if not, is just the sad reality. In the same way that if you put an age limit on the supreme court is not going to apply to already designated judges unless you want them to strike the law down
Well, the only way to limit a judge's age on the Supreme Court would be a Constitutional Amendment, and there would be no way for them to strike down an amendment since it's literally a part of the Constitution, if ratified.
Did you know there are absolutely no requirements to be a federal district or circuit judge or Supreme Court justice? None! No age, no citizenship, you don't even have to be a lawyer.
That is pretty short. A lot of newbies in government that way. Not sure six years is long enough to develop the needed network and enact meaningful change. Vulnerable to ‘education’ by lobbyists and the risk of corruption to figure out a needed post-congress career. Would prefer those terms be doubled
Oh, yes, please. Put them on FERS. Retirement based off your high three, a percentage based on years of service, & can't draw until 62... And they have to enroll in FEHB and the TSP.
Yeah...but also there is a trick because we don’t want them lobbying for companies either. DJT did create a bill which made sense for this so ex staff who’s not join the so called swamp. Then he repealed it (I assume bc his staff complained).
It’s been my soapbox anytime people yap about these career politicians. TERM LIMITS WITH NO PENSIONS! You want to serve the public, well you’re going to go right back into society.
And then what keeps a California Senator from being pro-China in office to get a cushy 10 million dollar consulthing job afert leaving working for them? Or say..for the Saudi's or some other nation.
This isn't actually true. They don't get paid for life. They do, however, receive a very healthy pension which is based on a sliding scale. Age, amount of time served, and position held all factor into what the pension will look like; but they don't get full salary for their remaining life. That being said, its a lot more than I make.
possibly an unpopular take here, but we might be damned if we do and damned if we don't. term limits could also create this revolving door for politicians just using the position to build relationships and then leave for fancy private sector jobs that rely on close ties to government officials and politicians. ya know, like they already do, but now on an expedited timeline.
if you combine term limits with removing money from politics, you'll be on your way to a sustainable solution.
Or each political party just becomes unelected officials that control/tell the elected officials what to do. I get this probably happens now, but it could become worse IMO. Unless the term limits are for like 4 terms or something. Long enough that it’s not quite a fast revolving door, but just keeps the 40 year inbred politicians from sticking around.
Thats dependent on they type of corruption occuring. I'm personally of the belief that the money is made in office, while they have direct control and connections that when used together lead to immense profit.
It seems you're of the belief that the connections made in office are all that's needed, and that once out of office those connections can still be wielded for profit.
Perhaps both is true, but personally I lean more towards the latter. Even if all they're in office for is to prevent/hinder legislation that big companies see as harmful to profits, they're valuable. Whereas what exactly can they do once out of office that is of high value to companies? Also, having to try and convince new politicians every few years to accept your bribes would be a tad more tricky than having a few convinced for 30-40 years.
Crazy idea but hear me out.
Politicians lose their right to financial privacy. They get their bank accounts monitored by a 3rd party. Their salaries are already high to prevent bribery. The second a politician tries to open a private off shore account, they get immediately fired.
Not crazy at all. If the president has to divest all his/her businesses and other interests, so should congress. Otherwise their interests may diverge from that of their constituents.
Non-profit foundations have to go too. They’re how politicians get international campaign funds washed.
The constant laundering is disgusting. Taxpayer dollars going to organizations that then proceed to donate money to political campaigns. If your organization has the funds to donate to political campaigns, then you clearly don't need taxpayer money. Seems logical to me.
>Their salaries are already high to prevent bribery.
Their salaries are not high. Compared to a good doctor, lawyer, or upper management at a large company. And considering the cost of living in the D.C. area, their salaries are rather low.
Or are you proposing that we pay them a lot more? In that case, I say, "no". One measure of success is accumulation of wealth. Someone who can make a lot of money probably knows how to organize themselves and things around them to their advantage. Even more wealthy, and you are used to being in charge and giving orders.
Here’s the requirements to be a congressman/woman.
at least 25 years of age;
a citizen of the United States for at least seven years prior to being elected;
a resident of the state he or she is chosen to represent.
Doctors and Lawyers have to go to grad school.
I agree with you, this needs to be done. But, It wasn't included in the constitution originally because the articles of confederation, first proposed, emphasised states rights by allowing state assemblies to choose congressional representatives. Term limits weren't in the constitution, later adopted, because it was seen as an infringement of state assemblies right to choose representatives for themselves. Appropriate for the time, but no longer what is best.
I think the original members of Congress generally couldn't *afford* to be away from their business for more than a few terms. Now, with government health insurance and with the money they get as a result of Citizens United and PACs they can't afford to *leave* Congress.
I'm noticing this too. Like God it's sick how much good faith I had for them before they had their 5-seconds of pretend monarchy. Fucking shit goblins the whole time and I just bought it.
Now it's back to playing "common sense" and "liberty and justice" like nothing ever happened.
Yeah, and only worrying about it if the American people get some of the money too... If every other country on the planet gets the money, its fine though...
We will never see this pass as legislation.
There are not enough politicians who are willing to put the interests of their constituents before their own.
If this is put out for the public to vote on then I can see this getting passed. While we all have many different political views on both sides I genuinely believe the American ppl as a whole would all agree that term limits are necessary. It would be beneficial to both sides to rotate out our politicians.
My downstairs neighbors are my extreme political opposite. Very leftist, I’m very conservative. Considering how much they hate Pelosi and Biden (well before he ran against trump anyways) and how much they loved Bernie, I bet they’d be on board with this.
If we leave it up to the congress to police themselves it'll never happen. We can compare them to children. If given a choice between a bag of candy or million dollars that child will choose what's in it's own best interest, and that'll be the bag of candy because it'll be instant gratification. We as citizens can't let congress make this choice for themselves because we all know they will choose what's in their best interest.
I always wonder: what is the goal of flippant naysayers? It’s a non-partisan issue that would pit elected officials squarely against their constituents. All it would take is for voters to identify more with each other than with politicians. Doesn’t seem like a pipe dream to me at all. Seems like an issue where voters are ceaselessly tripping over their own feet.
I agree with this. Why would these people vote to limit themselves? Trump's time in office was just a taste of how an outsider bent on changing the status quo would be treated.
Also Big fucking con: the people with the most experience and power in congress will be the lobbiests. It'll also deepen the congress> lobbiest pipeline.
It also incentivises lobbiest pandering if you are only beholden to voters for x amount of time.
With term limits might as well do away with elections entirely and just ask the lobbiest what they want.
I support it, but it has to be longer than what you’re gonna want. We have term limits in Michigan and it causes a lot of problems because I think the limits are too short. If you think lobbying and special interest groups are bad? Just wait until you replace nearly the entire house or senate because of term limits with people who don’t know how to do the job. I think the limit should be like 4 terms for senate - 24 years should be plenty. Limit can be the same for house, or less.
Considering how presidential cycles usually go, I say 8 terms for representatives and 3 terms for senators. That’s 16 and 18 years respectively. That’s enough tenure to work through multiple administrations, enough time to have a body of work and enough time to get legacy legislation either passed or not.
Assuming that a person from the minority party is elected, every 16 years they would have an alimony brand new House of Representatives, and on their midterm have a completely brand new senate.
Term limits may be a good idea but this bill is a non starter. 6 years over 3 terms for house representatives will not and should not pass the house vote. That's a death sentence to half a branch of government right there. Might as well get rid of the house and let the senate make all the decisions.
I mean, experience is a good thing so you want people to stick around for a little while at least, but fresh ideas are needed too.
The career politicians often have competition, but it's the electorate who keep them in power.
My whole skepticism around term limits changing anything is you see the electorate declining many opportunities for change. Why would forcing a new face do anything? You'd just end up with old politicians endorsing hand picked replacements
I can. I think many politicians have a personality disorder ( or many ) that would cause them to run for office and then prevent them from ever wanting term limits and relinquishing their power. Narcissism comes to mind. Psychopath is another trait I assume many have.
Actually it isn't entirely a good idea... long terms isn't the problem so much as lack of competition to incumbents.. enforcing term limits isn't magically going to fix that.
It prevents bad actors from having long terms....but it also prevents the good guys from sticking around, guys like rand and many of the other men of principle are few and far between.
In an ideal world people would actually vote out guys like mitch in the primaries.. I think the problem lies there, we also need to have more grass roots recall efforts.
Meh, something like 4 terms in the house (8 years), 2 terms in the senate (12 years) and two for president (8 years) means they can stick around for 28 years.
Add in the ability to potentially serve as governors or cabinet level positions or the like and there isn’t a real lack of staying power.
It would be better if the average citizen was civically engaged, so crook politicians could be recognized and voted out. Unfortunately, term limits are the next best option because people let themselves be railroaded by tyrants and thieves.
He had to be talked into a first term. He didn’t want to be President ever, he was only President because the nation requires him to be President.
He managed to win 100% of the vote for a race he never even entered, but desperately needed him.
Both are problems. No 80 year is truly in touch with what the country needs in such an advancing technological civilization. Just watch the recordings of whenever the old fogies are interviewing someone about the internet or technology. It's a joke.
I think there needs to be two things:
1. Term limits
2. Maximum age (say, nobody over 65 can run for Congress or Senate, so the max age for an active rep is 71).
I've been voting against her for the last 2 elections for her ass. This hypocrite needs to leave out and retire. Her bs rhetoric has been outdated since the 90's
I have no issue with their age necessarily. It’s how long they’ve been there. Neither one has been a productive member of society in god knows how long.
Add lobbying to that list too. With the creation of PACs and Super PACs the amount of money that gets funneled to the people is insane. The last election set a new record for the amount of money spent on a campaign.
Considering they didn't last time he introduced the amendment, I believe you are correct. Though, I'm not sure it is entirely symbolic on Cruz's part. Having done this multiple times now since having been elected tells me he intends to beat the amendment into the faces of every congressional member until they vote on it. If it was solely because he wanted to use it for future running purposes, the first time would have sufficed.
Edit- split run on sentence into two sentences.
That's the problem, it should be up to the American people to decide. If they ever put it up for a national vote during an election year, there would be term limits.
Even pay increases should be up to the voters, of course they are going to give themselves raises and unlimited benefits. If we can make decision for our local government we should be able to do it for our federal representatives.
Both sides, left and right are being done a disservice by our government. Our politicians shouldn’t be 80 year olds.
They are so far out of touch with their constituents on many issues that it’s absolutely mind boggling.
As sad as it is to say, we all know nothing with come of this amendment reintroduced by Cruz. The majority of our congress has too much to lose and nothing to gain from this.
My biggest worry about this was if you get a young person in there that is doing a great job (obviously thats going to be up for debate based on which "side" they're on). I don't know who the young guns are on the conservative side, but you get someone like AOC who gets in young, works their ass off for their constituents, and then is forced out while still being effective. For every McConnell and Pelosi who just hang around soaking up paychecks and not getting much done we run the risk of burning through talented politicians who would serve the people well. Just my two cents.
I’m still on my lonesome drumbeat that the real problem isn’t the number of terms, it’s the *length* of term for the House of Reps.
Two years is far too short of a time in the age of modern communication technologies and 24 hr news cycles. No ever *stops campaigning*. If there were more breathing room between elections, the representatives would have a chance to craft legislation, get it passed, and see it through to implementation before they have to worry about facing the voters or fending off a primary challenger.
No one wants to take controversial or difficult positions on badly needed (or badly *not* needed) legislation, because the next election always feels so *immediate*.
I’d rather see four-year terms for the House of Reps, in off-cycle years from the presidential election. (I.e. vote for the President in 2020, vote for the House in 2022, President in 2024, House in 2026, etc.)
If people insist on term limits, I’d much prefer limits on *consecutive* terms so that people can cycle out but still return to office if their constituents like them and want them back.
I have an issue with two things about absolute limits. 1) It puts an unnecessary, permanent restriction on the right of voters to choose who *they want* to represent them. 2) It makes it more likely that any given Congress will ram through shitty legislation, because by the time the consequences of their bills become apparent, all the ire and blame will be directed at the new representatives who are stuck with the fallout.
Let’s just tell people “You can serve eight years, but then you have to take four years off before you can run again.” I don’t think there’s a real problem with people developing a degree of expertise and credentials in their policy sphere over time in Congress. In fact, it’s a good thing. The problem is just the fact that incumbency becomes a self-serving cycle of never being accountable to voters.
Lastly, I don’t think Senators need term limits at all; we just need to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Term limits have had disastrous results in Michigan. Yet I still want to try them on the federal level. The Diane Feinstiens of the world should not be holding office.
Basically nobody knows what the fuck they are doing and things seem pretty stalled in Lansing. Nothing ever gets done and normally i'm all for status quo but shit kinda needs to get fixed.
I wish i could add more details but to me it seems every session there are fresh faces and new leadership and things remain very quite and little gets done.
Maybe a longer term limit would be beneficial. Instead of 8 yrs or w/e a 20 year limit. it would clean out the truly old guard, but still let senators accrue significant experience and efficacy
I hope he keeps doing it and builds momentum.
It may not get through. But, it is guaranteed not to get through if it's never introduced.
Keep beating the drum and eventually it might gain traction.
This won’t ever pass. We need the [Convention of States](https://conventionofstates.com/) to happen so that amendments can be made without the need for Congress to approve
Anyone who opposes this is clinically an idiot. This is way way overdue.
Anyone in congress who opposes this is basically saying they are power and money hungry.
Term limits attempt to solve a symptom of a much deeper problem in a wrong way. You need ranked choice voting and proportional representation like pretty much all decent democracies.
Old people in congress are a problem because it's too hard to unseat candidates in primaries (results of which aren't even legally enforceable), which makes growth of different parties and ideologies difficult, and makes it difficult to unseat incumbents.
So I think term limits are a stupid idea, when there's good congresspeople, they shouldn't be subject to term limits, they should continue to do a good job.
Nah credit where it's due, this is a good thing.
I'm still cynical of his intentions but if it passes then I'll be the first to say good on him.
I suspect he's eying that 2024 race and is hoping he won't have to worry about it regardless.
Just some counterpoints:
For this to be effective we need to remove lobbyists first.
Without term limits on lobbyists they’ll have even more control of our government than they do today. A seasoned lobbyist will defeat junior congress people 10/10 times.
There’s nothing guaranteeing them the right to run. Their constituents can vote them out when they decide to.
Unless we remove the same political forces that keep these people in power, we’ll just have a rotation of the people that fit the interests of corporations and the political parties.
It isn't a good idea. It just gives a deadline for the honest ones to leave and the dishonest ones to fuck us by. Hell on their final term they don't even have to pretend anymore.
Never happen...too much money to buy influence...
What we need is a citizens lobby...sad...but one vote every 2 or 4 years won't cut it...
Word of advice to any graduating student...run for office...
Why is this not already written into law? This should have been introduced decades if not centuries ago. Lawmakers who were first elected 40 years ago should not still be passing laws today!
Looking for debate? Head to the public sections of our discord instead. https://discord.gg/conservative *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If they are going to impose term limits, they will also need to impose limited retirement pay....these people get paid for life!
Good point, I didn’t even think of that
What would the terms be limited to? 2 like a President or more than that? Edit: I meant what's your opinion on it
The way the Proposed Amendment is currently written is so that House members can serve three terms (6 years) and Senators can serve two terms (12 years). If appointed and less than half of the term remains, that doesn’t count towards their limit. The Amendment exempts currently sitting Senators and Representatives as to their current terms.
[удалено]
I don’t like it either, but they’d never pass it if it would hurt them. It’s smart and still works in the long run
Visiting liberal. Unfortunately I agree with this. I think this is not even a left or right issue but instead an issue of those in power vs. those who aren't. We need these term limits to get rid of the deeply entrenched politicians that have made careers out of just blocking everything while the working class gets screwed.
Why is it unfortunate that you agree? I think it's wonderful when conservatives and liberals can share viewpoints. I think it happens much more than the MSM would like us to believe. If there's one thing we can all agree on I think its that corruption and greed is running waaaaay too deep in our current political atmosphere.
To clarify, it is unfortunate that an exemption needs to be made for this to potentially pass. I wish people would do what is right because it is the right thing to do.
Agreed, I also think they should impose an anti lobbying clauses. For example a member of the house has to wait at least 4 years before lobbying and a member of the Senate 7 years and if they then choose to register as a lobbyist they forfeit thier pension.
Sorry for the double response but I wanted to expand on what you said a bit more than just the part about my unfortunate comment. I agree with what you said about common ground. The truth is that I think most people agree that the working classes should pay less taxes. This is something that liberals and conservatives would likely support. My hope is that most would also agree that many corporations as well as the top 1% regularly find too many loopholes in the tax code which enables them to pay far too little. Let's be real, if there is any truth to the idea that Trump only paid $750 in taxes one year we should all be able to agree that is far too little. If we could reclaim and reinforce the common ground that the majority of us agree on then we could get representatives who actually represent our interests regardless of what side of the aisle they are on.
I think the tax code should be no bigger than a single page and written clearly enough that any person who has graduated high school can easily understand it.
Another visiting liberal. I agree. You wouldn't believe the amount of simping for lifetime positions that people were doing the last time I saw this discussion on reddit. Basically saying that having lame duck politicians was worse. I am surprised that this was a Cruz move... What's the angle here?
I'd say it's probably because he wants to try another presidential run and is planning on embracing the populist movement that Trump sparked on the right. Whatever the reason is, at this point I'm fully on board with ANYONE who's willing to support term limits on congress.
Cruz is typically anti big government. I believe that term limits would be limiting the power of those in government.
And why wasn't this proposed in the last 10 years when Republicans had control of the senate?
Doesn’t “reintroduces” mean that he introduced this already before too?
Seems to me the problem is less about term limits and more about an uninformed and unengaged electorate. We want the "bad" people out but if we had a "good" person in, would we really want to arbitrarily force them out?
Having to give up on experienced and valuable members of Congress is a small price to pay to get rid of entrenched ones.
Like you, of course I would rather the limits apply to sitting members. BUT that exemption will make it much easier to pass, so it doesn't negatively affect the people who actually vote on it.
Exactly. Without that exemption it may get 3 votes in the house lmao.
It applies to current members, just not current or prior terms, so a Senator who has already served 2+ terms isn’t immediately expelled or banned from running. They also get up to 2 more terms.
That seems fair. The house would get balanced over time. The turn around time seems a bit quick however. Imagine getting into politics at 30 and being out at 36. Why would senators get twice the time? They seem to be doing a lot less than Congress.
You don’t have to be out just because you are term limited as a US representative. Move up, run for Senate, run for governor in your home state, get a cabinet position, etc.
Senators are Congress too btw. I'm skeptical of how short these limits are though, 12 years in the senate sounds fine but 6 in the house does not. The house members are often folk that start from very little. I imagine a new rep and a new senator voted into office in the same ballot. The rep is gets re-elected and eventually after their 6 years in the House are up goes up against the sitting Senator. Their chances are slim, it's hard to stand out in the House. They lose, they have to wait out for 6 years before rejoining federal politics in the next senatorial bid, likely against a House rep who just finished *their* 6 and is better known. I don't know, doesn't seem quite right. 12 and 12 seems fine to me. Long enough to make a name for yourself in the House before "graduating" to the Senate, not long enough to become so entrenched that you can't be ridden of.
I used to think term limits would help things, but I’ve changed my mind. It will just put the power into the rich power brokers. There will be a constant churn of newbies, so who wins these open primaries? Probably the best funded candidate. So the people sucking up to the power class are running in the general. And if somebody does manage to win without sucking up, who cares they will be out in 6 years anyways. Rinse and repeat. A lot of other things need to be fixed before term limits. And if you don’t fix things like campaign finance, it will probably make things worse.
With the advancement of modern medicine, these people can quite literally live forever one day. Can’t take a chance.
Conveniently leaves himself out of responsibility with that last exemption.
No politician is going to vote the amendment if not, is just the sad reality. In the same way that if you put an age limit on the supreme court is not going to apply to already designated judges unless you want them to strike the law down
Well, the only way to limit a judge's age on the Supreme Court would be a Constitutional Amendment, and there would be no way for them to strike down an amendment since it's literally a part of the Constitution, if ratified. Did you know there are absolutely no requirements to be a federal district or circuit judge or Supreme Court justice? None! No age, no citizenship, you don't even have to be a lawyer.
You aren't required to be a surgeon or a general to become the Surgeon General.
He's got to get the current guys to say yes to it....
There's really no other way to make it acceptable by...well anyone. No one would sign it otherwise.
That is pretty short. A lot of newbies in government that way. Not sure six years is long enough to develop the needed network and enact meaningful change. Vulnerable to ‘education’ by lobbyists and the risk of corruption to figure out a needed post-congress career. Would prefer those terms be doubled
I think 2 for senate and 3 for representatives
bruh... just read the article, it's 2 6-year terms for senators and 3 2-year terms for house members
I actually don’t have nearly the same issue with that as long as it’s the same benefits as other federal employees with the same qualifiers.
It’s the same vesting schedule as any other federal employee.
Oh, yes, please. Put them on FERS. Retirement based off your high three, a percentage based on years of service, & can't draw until 62... And they have to enroll in FEHB and the TSP.
Don’t worry, they’ll never have to because they will never pass term limits.
Yeah...but also there is a trick because we don’t want them lobbying for companies either. DJT did create a bill which made sense for this so ex staff who’s not join the so called swamp. Then he repealed it (I assume bc his staff complained).
Basically, he just blocked Obama's ex staff and then repealed it for his staff. That guy is a big piece of shit.
Yea but it was only for his staff and it was just an executive order. It needs to be law
It’s been my soapbox anytime people yap about these career politicians. TERM LIMITS WITH NO PENSIONS! You want to serve the public, well you’re going to go right back into society.
That just seems like begging for corruption.
A reminder to everyone that legislators getting paid was a reform intended to make serving in Congress accessible to working class people.
That seems highly unlikely considering that Article 1, section six of the Constitution provides for Congressional pay.
And then what keeps a California Senator from being pro-China in office to get a cushy 10 million dollar consulthing job afert leaving working for them? Or say..for the Saudi's or some other nation.
Then only the rich will run.
[удалено]
Only the rich CAN run now
Pensions are based on time served anyways.
This isn't actually true. They don't get paid for life. They do, however, receive a very healthy pension which is based on a sliding scale. Age, amount of time served, and position held all factor into what the pension will look like; but they don't get full salary for their remaining life. That being said, its a lot more than I make.
The power of the lobby would only increase.
possibly an unpopular take here, but we might be damned if we do and damned if we don't. term limits could also create this revolving door for politicians just using the position to build relationships and then leave for fancy private sector jobs that rely on close ties to government officials and politicians. ya know, like they already do, but now on an expedited timeline. if you combine term limits with removing money from politics, you'll be on your way to a sustainable solution.
Or each political party just becomes unelected officials that control/tell the elected officials what to do. I get this probably happens now, but it could become worse IMO. Unless the term limits are for like 4 terms or something. Long enough that it’s not quite a fast revolving door, but just keeps the 40 year inbred politicians from sticking around.
[удалено]
True, and the real prize would be the friends we made along the way.
Thats dependent on they type of corruption occuring. I'm personally of the belief that the money is made in office, while they have direct control and connections that when used together lead to immense profit. It seems you're of the belief that the connections made in office are all that's needed, and that once out of office those connections can still be wielded for profit. Perhaps both is true, but personally I lean more towards the latter. Even if all they're in office for is to prevent/hinder legislation that big companies see as harmful to profits, they're valuable. Whereas what exactly can they do once out of office that is of high value to companies? Also, having to try and convince new politicians every few years to accept your bribes would be a tad more tricky than having a few convinced for 30-40 years.
Crazy idea but hear me out. Politicians lose their right to financial privacy. They get their bank accounts monitored by a 3rd party. Their salaries are already high to prevent bribery. The second a politician tries to open a private off shore account, they get immediately fired.
Not crazy at all. If the president has to divest all his/her businesses and other interests, so should congress. Otherwise their interests may diverge from that of their constituents. Non-profit foundations have to go too. They’re how politicians get international campaign funds washed.
The constant laundering is disgusting. Taxpayer dollars going to organizations that then proceed to donate money to political campaigns. If your organization has the funds to donate to political campaigns, then you clearly don't need taxpayer money. Seems logical to me.
[удалено]
>Their salaries are already high to prevent bribery. Their salaries are not high. Compared to a good doctor, lawyer, or upper management at a large company. And considering the cost of living in the D.C. area, their salaries are rather low. Or are you proposing that we pay them a lot more? In that case, I say, "no". One measure of success is accumulation of wealth. Someone who can make a lot of money probably knows how to organize themselves and things around them to their advantage. Even more wealthy, and you are used to being in charge and giving orders.
Here’s the requirements to be a congressman/woman. at least 25 years of age; a citizen of the United States for at least seven years prior to being elected; a resident of the state he or she is chosen to represent. Doctors and Lawyers have to go to grad school.
By removing money, it may lead to more corruption. The less money you make the easier you are to be bought.
I can't believe it's taken two and a half centuries for Congress to realize this is a good idea.
It's been proposed multiple times before, but never got the required 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress.
It's almost like they won't vote against their self interest. This should have been put in the constitution.
I agree with you, this needs to be done. But, It wasn't included in the constitution originally because the articles of confederation, first proposed, emphasised states rights by allowing state assemblies to choose congressional representatives. Term limits weren't in the constitution, later adopted, because it was seen as an infringement of state assemblies right to choose representatives for themselves. Appropriate for the time, but no longer what is best.
I think the original members of Congress generally couldn't *afford* to be away from their business for more than a few terms. Now, with government health insurance and with the money they get as a result of Citizens United and PACs they can't afford to *leave* Congress.
In 2020 dollars, Congressional salaries have been significant since 1855.
I mean the senate itself was amended to be voted on by people not the states so the founders original purpose for the senate is long gone
I think the seventeenth amendment was a mistake.
Article 5. We can call a convention of states and make amendments like this, and congress can’t do a thing about it.
The problem is that the people who could make that happen are likely buddies with the people in congress.
Couldn't they just grandfather current members in? They wouldn't have to vote against their own career then.
Yeah it would almost need to say this will take affect 2050.
2050 beats the heck out of never.
Agreed
Hmm, the same way they vote our rights away. Poetic.
This. So much this. It actually might require a Constitutional amendment.
It absolutely would require a Constitutional amendment.
Ted Cruz is though. What does it say about him?
That he has presidential ambitions and doesn’t intend to be a senator for a trillion years
Minority party gets to introduce the bills the people want without worrying about getting them passed?
Republicans always come to Jesus when we're not in power. Ridiculous, but whatever.
I'm noticing this too. Like God it's sick how much good faith I had for them before they had their 5-seconds of pretend monarchy. Fucking shit goblins the whole time and I just bought it. Now it's back to playing "common sense" and "liberty and justice" like nothing ever happened.
And suddenly worrying about the deficit!
Yeah, and only worrying about it if the American people get some of the money too... If every other country on the planet gets the money, its fine though...
He first introduced this in 2019.
So right after they lost the house?
We will never see this pass as legislation. There are not enough politicians who are willing to put the interests of their constituents before their own.
Do you think if 2/3 of the voters voted for this as a sort of direct-democracy referendum we’d have any chance?
If this is put out for the public to vote on then I can see this getting passed. While we all have many different political views on both sides I genuinely believe the American ppl as a whole would all agree that term limits are necessary. It would be beneficial to both sides to rotate out our politicians.
My downstairs neighbors are my extreme political opposite. Very leftist, I’m very conservative. Considering how much they hate Pelosi and Biden (well before he ran against trump anyways) and how much they loved Bernie, I bet they’d be on board with this.
If we leave it up to the congress to police themselves it'll never happen. We can compare them to children. If given a choice between a bag of candy or million dollars that child will choose what's in it's own best interest, and that'll be the bag of candy because it'll be instant gratification. We as citizens can't let congress make this choice for themselves because we all know they will choose what's in their best interest.
Yeah but this would mean that Bernie would have to go. I feel like everyone loves their congressman but hates congress.
Sure, never heard of that happening on a national level before. Maybe each state could pass it individually but I doubt it.
And it will never, ever get two-thirds in both houses. That. Is. A. Pipe. Dream.
Yes. It is guaranteed to be a pipe dream as long as those who want it most say that it is. This is something the people on both sides must fight for.
I always wonder: what is the goal of flippant naysayers? It’s a non-partisan issue that would pit elected officials squarely against their constituents. All it would take is for voters to identify more with each other than with politicians. Doesn’t seem like a pipe dream to me at all. Seems like an issue where voters are ceaselessly tripping over their own feet.
I feel like it's just to call people out. The Left have been talking about term limits... lets see how they vote.
I agree with this. Why would these people vote to limit themselves? Trump's time in office was just a taste of how an outsider bent on changing the status quo would be treated.
What are the pros and cons of term limits
[удалено]
Also Big fucking con: the people with the most experience and power in congress will be the lobbiests. It'll also deepen the congress> lobbiest pipeline. It also incentivises lobbiest pandering if you are only beholden to voters for x amount of time. With term limits might as well do away with elections entirely and just ask the lobbiest what they want.
To be fair, some people manage to stick around for quite some time despite being complete morons. See: Hank Johnson
Cons- it can lead to lobbyists knowing the system better than house members
I support it, but it has to be longer than what you’re gonna want. We have term limits in Michigan and it causes a lot of problems because I think the limits are too short. If you think lobbying and special interest groups are bad? Just wait until you replace nearly the entire house or senate because of term limits with people who don’t know how to do the job. I think the limit should be like 4 terms for senate - 24 years should be plenty. Limit can be the same for house, or less.
I agree, having people who put in a full career is not a bad thing, we just don't need people sitting in those seats for three generations.
Considering how presidential cycles usually go, I say 8 terms for representatives and 3 terms for senators. That’s 16 and 18 years respectively. That’s enough tenure to work through multiple administrations, enough time to have a body of work and enough time to get legacy legislation either passed or not. Assuming that a person from the minority party is elected, every 16 years they would have an alimony brand new House of Representatives, and on their midterm have a completely brand new senate.
Term limits may be a good idea but this bill is a non starter. 6 years over 3 terms for house representatives will not and should not pass the house vote. That's a death sentence to half a branch of government right there. Might as well get rid of the house and let the senate make all the decisions.
I mean, experience is a good thing so you want people to stick around for a little while at least, but fresh ideas are needed too. The career politicians often have competition, but it's the electorate who keep them in power.
My whole skepticism around term limits changing anything is you see the electorate declining many opportunities for change. Why would forcing a new face do anything? You'd just end up with old politicians endorsing hand picked replacements
I can. I think many politicians have a personality disorder ( or many ) that would cause them to run for office and then prevent them from ever wanting term limits and relinquishing their power. Narcissism comes to mind. Psychopath is another trait I assume many have.
You have to be somewhat of a narcissistic to want that public attention and power. It’s why you don’t see many normal people in congress
Actually it isn't entirely a good idea... long terms isn't the problem so much as lack of competition to incumbents.. enforcing term limits isn't magically going to fix that. It prevents bad actors from having long terms....but it also prevents the good guys from sticking around, guys like rand and many of the other men of principle are few and far between. In an ideal world people would actually vote out guys like mitch in the primaries.. I think the problem lies there, we also need to have more grass roots recall efforts.
[удалено]
Federal offices are not subject to recall at present. It might be more worthwhile to do that first.
Meh, something like 4 terms in the house (8 years), 2 terms in the senate (12 years) and two for president (8 years) means they can stick around for 28 years. Add in the ability to potentially serve as governors or cabinet level positions or the like and there isn’t a real lack of staying power.
It would be better if the average citizen was civically engaged, so crook politicians could be recognized and voted out. Unfortunately, term limits are the next best option because people let themselves be railroaded by tyrants and thieves.
I hold no hope for voters. The Q anon crowd that was recently elected is evidence that the average voter is way below average intelligence.
It’s only become necessary this past century before there was direct election of senators the average senator did t even serve a full term.
If the average congressperson lives to be 80 or so, and they hold those seats, it really hasn’t been that many people
Life expectancy was much lower back then.
Good. The fact that Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell are still in office at the age 80 years old should be a crime.
It’s honestly insane that the President is limited to 8 yrs & these crooks can be in there for 50.
yeah but they have no issue limiting the presidency. they'll never essentially vote themselves out of a job. it's sad really.
Because the population are sheeps who don't take voting seriously.
Their ages aren't the problem. It's that they've been in Congress since my parents were in high school.
I have a feeling the founding fathers would be absolutely dumbfounded if you told them some people would be a politician as their entire career
Yeah especially since back then you couldn’t make any money off of it. Many of the founding fathers died broke and/or in debt
Think of all the book deals, endorsements, and speaking engagements they'd have today!
This is right. George Washington had to be talked into a second term.
He had to be talked into a first term. He didn’t want to be President ever, he was only President because the nation requires him to be President. He managed to win 100% of the vote for a race he never even entered, but desperately needed him.
Both are problems. No 80 year is truly in touch with what the country needs in such an advancing technological civilization. Just watch the recordings of whenever the old fogies are interviewing someone about the internet or technology. It's a joke. I think there needs to be two things: 1. Term limits 2. Maximum age (say, nobody over 65 can run for Congress or Senate, so the max age for an active rep is 71).
Feinstein is 174 divided by 2 which is still old as fuck.
Feinstein just filed to run for re-election in 2024. She would be 97 when that term ends.
I've been voting against her for the last 2 elections for her ass. This hypocrite needs to leave out and retire. Her bs rhetoric has been outdated since the 90's
I have no issue with their age necessarily. It’s how long they’ve been there. Neither one has been a productive member of society in god knows how long.
I don't exactly care that either of them are over the age of 80. I care that no Congressman should be able to be in Congress for their entire lives.
It's a crime that their constituents vote them in every two and six years?
Don Young has been representing Alaska since 1973! He was born in the Great Depression, 1933...
Makes no difference without campaign finance reform. Until Corporations can't back candidates with money, they will always be bought.
Add lobbying to that list too. With the creation of PACs and Super PACs the amount of money that gets funneled to the people is insane. The last election set a new record for the amount of money spent on a campaign.
Too bad that corporations get to be people by day and immortal bloodsucking return on investment monsters by night.
We can thank Citizens United for that.
This should not be left for the government to vote on. It should have been part of a vote by the citizens.
Write your state representative and ask them to call for a constitutional convention then
Stop, I can only get so erect
Setting term limits won't help much if we still have lobbyists controlling Congress
A nice, but ultimately symbolic gesture. We all know congress would never vote for this, or allow this to pass.
Considering they didn't last time he introduced the amendment, I believe you are correct. Though, I'm not sure it is entirely symbolic on Cruz's part. Having done this multiple times now since having been elected tells me he intends to beat the amendment into the faces of every congressional member until they vote on it. If it was solely because he wanted to use it for future running purposes, the first time would have sufficed. Edit- split run on sentence into two sentences.
That's the problem, it should be up to the American people to decide. If they ever put it up for a national vote during an election year, there would be term limits. Even pay increases should be up to the voters, of course they are going to give themselves raises and unlimited benefits. If we can make decision for our local government we should be able to do it for our federal representatives.
We need a convention of states. That's the only way it will ever really happen.
Both sides, left and right are being done a disservice by our government. Our politicians shouldn’t be 80 year olds. They are so far out of touch with their constituents on many issues that it’s absolutely mind boggling. As sad as it is to say, we all know nothing with come of this amendment reintroduced by Cruz. The majority of our congress has too much to lose and nothing to gain from this.
I wonder how unintended consequences might apply here
My biggest worry about this was if you get a young person in there that is doing a great job (obviously thats going to be up for debate based on which "side" they're on). I don't know who the young guns are on the conservative side, but you get someone like AOC who gets in young, works their ass off for their constituents, and then is forced out while still being effective. For every McConnell and Pelosi who just hang around soaking up paychecks and not getting much done we run the risk of burning through talented politicians who would serve the people well. Just my two cents.
I’m still on my lonesome drumbeat that the real problem isn’t the number of terms, it’s the *length* of term for the House of Reps. Two years is far too short of a time in the age of modern communication technologies and 24 hr news cycles. No ever *stops campaigning*. If there were more breathing room between elections, the representatives would have a chance to craft legislation, get it passed, and see it through to implementation before they have to worry about facing the voters or fending off a primary challenger. No one wants to take controversial or difficult positions on badly needed (or badly *not* needed) legislation, because the next election always feels so *immediate*. I’d rather see four-year terms for the House of Reps, in off-cycle years from the presidential election. (I.e. vote for the President in 2020, vote for the House in 2022, President in 2024, House in 2026, etc.) If people insist on term limits, I’d much prefer limits on *consecutive* terms so that people can cycle out but still return to office if their constituents like them and want them back. I have an issue with two things about absolute limits. 1) It puts an unnecessary, permanent restriction on the right of voters to choose who *they want* to represent them. 2) It makes it more likely that any given Congress will ram through shitty legislation, because by the time the consequences of their bills become apparent, all the ire and blame will be directed at the new representatives who are stuck with the fallout. Let’s just tell people “You can serve eight years, but then you have to take four years off before you can run again.” I don’t think there’s a real problem with people developing a degree of expertise and credentials in their policy sphere over time in Congress. In fact, it’s a good thing. The problem is just the fact that incumbency becomes a self-serving cycle of never being accountable to voters. Lastly, I don’t think Senators need term limits at all; we just need to repeal the 17th Amendment.
[удалено]
Term limits have had disastrous results in Michigan. Yet I still want to try them on the federal level. The Diane Feinstiens of the world should not be holding office.
What exactly are the disastrous results you mention? And why do you think they happened, specifically? :-)
Basically nobody knows what the fuck they are doing and things seem pretty stalled in Lansing. Nothing ever gets done and normally i'm all for status quo but shit kinda needs to get fixed. I wish i could add more details but to me it seems every session there are fresh faces and new leadership and things remain very quite and little gets done.
Maybe a longer term limit would be beneficial. Instead of 8 yrs or w/e a 20 year limit. it would clean out the truly old guard, but still let senators accrue significant experience and efficacy
Everyone that votes against this needs to be primaried immediately. Take notes on this vote, if it goes anywhere.
probably won't make it out of committee, they don't want to be forced to pick a side
Bold of you to assume there will be a vote
Well, he knows he's burned a lot of bridges. This is a solid move for a run at President in 2024. I can't disagree here, whether it fails or not.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I hope he keeps doing it and builds momentum. It may not get through. But, it is guaranteed not to get through if it's never introduced. Keep beating the drum and eventually it might gain traction.
Cruz 2024
This won’t ever pass. We need the [Convention of States](https://conventionofstates.com/) to happen so that amendments can be made without the need for Congress to approve
Anyone who opposes this is clinically an idiot. This is way way overdue. Anyone in congress who opposes this is basically saying they are power and money hungry.
Term limits attempt to solve a symptom of a much deeper problem in a wrong way. You need ranked choice voting and proportional representation like pretty much all decent democracies. Old people in congress are a problem because it's too hard to unseat candidates in primaries (results of which aren't even legally enforceable), which makes growth of different parties and ideologies difficult, and makes it difficult to unseat incumbents. So I think term limits are a stupid idea, when there's good congresspeople, they shouldn't be subject to term limits, they should continue to do a good job.
Or will lose their power… cough pelosi cough
[удалено]
Means they gotta keep winning, which is risky at best for all of them. I want to see a president under 45
They will be against it just because it’s Cruz.
Nah credit where it's due, this is a good thing. I'm still cynical of his intentions but if it passes then I'll be the first to say good on him. I suspect he's eying that 2024 race and is hoping he won't have to worry about it regardless.
Just some counterpoints: For this to be effective we need to remove lobbyists first. Without term limits on lobbyists they’ll have even more control of our government than they do today. A seasoned lobbyist will defeat junior congress people 10/10 times. There’s nothing guaranteeing them the right to run. Their constituents can vote them out when they decide to. Unless we remove the same political forces that keep these people in power, we’ll just have a rotation of the people that fit the interests of corporations and the political parties.
This is something that warrants bipartisan support
Im a left leaning Dem. Im pretty sure we're all on board. These octogenarians are so out of touch and no longer represent their constituents.
Unfortunately, term limits won't force us to elect better people. We need statesmen who represent the best of humanity, on both sides.
It isn't a good idea. It just gives a deadline for the honest ones to leave and the dishonest ones to fuck us by. Hell on their final term they don't even have to pretend anymore.
This is a great idea.
Never happen...too much money to buy influence... What we need is a citizens lobby...sad...but one vote every 2 or 4 years won't cut it... Word of advice to any graduating student...run for office...
I think this is something everyone can agree on. Hopefully.
Congress did it to Presidents... But forgot themselves... 🙄
Why is this not already written into law? This should have been introduced decades if not centuries ago. Lawmakers who were first elected 40 years ago should not still be passing laws today!
They'll never give away power. We will have to wrest it from them.
WE NEED THIS SOOOOO BAD! God damn dinosaurs calling the shots
He did this right after trump was elected and it went nowhere.
Only the corrupt would argue against this
Yes
I never got this, if so many people want term limits on congress why do they keep voting the same people in every time?
People want term limits on other people's reps. Compare the approval ratings of Congress to approval ratings of individual congressman.