It is of course possible that Congress could sell its recording studios, restrict the frank to answering letters received, fire the two-thirds of its staff it doesn’t need for legislative purposes, close its District offices, and do all the other things necessary to eliminate its overwhelming election advantages. In my judgement, lack of accountability is a plague on Congress’ house which is worse than ethics problems, worse than campaign financing, and worse than polarizing party squabbling. But, usually those rare losses require a massive redistricting, 200 rubber checks, a conviction, or some other egregious hand-in-the-cookie-jar event.Ī Member of Congress who can’t be defeated is not accountable. It is, of course, possible for incumbents to lose. Because many of us have been beneficiaries of that system, we all know the success ratios. Even in recent years, after bank scandals, the Keating Five, and whatever else is happening now to bruise the people’s confidence in its Congress, incumbents have been, and are being, reelected with relentless regularity. The rest of the usual pros and cons seem to range from fun debating points to personal speculation.įor me, the clincher has always been that without term limits, the Congress is immortal. For me, there is one overpowering argument for term limits, and one interesting argument against. Term limits will neither perfect the Republic, nor tear it to pieces. I don’t want to start any fights, but I really believe that most of the arguments I read and hear on both sides of this debate are not terribly persuasive. Term limits should neither be a hair shirt nor an instrument of torture.Īfter the definition comes the argumentation. It is not necessary to be punitive, to abuse legislators, or to destroy the legislature. The idea is to restore mortality, and accountability, to Congress. Persons should be able to move to the other body when their time is up in one chamber, and should be able to run for the same chamber again after broken service. Other conditions should not be unnecessarily restrictive. Twelve years is a nice round number, and, for those who want action rather than an issue, the one most likely to succeed. But my old eighteen year model won’t work, either. Short terms look extreme, probably because they are extreme. Purists like short term limits, but versions under twelve years are asking for trouble. Term limits still polls well, and old friends, like myself, remain steadfast in their support of the concept.įirst, we ought to define the concept. Support, and certainly intensity, may be on the wane now, but the issue is still lively. I suspect that support peaked sometime in 1994 when the public became very impatient with what it saw under the Capitol dome. In the 90’s, the issue picked up some smarter proponents state referenda were passed the idea began to attract the support of a strong majority of Americans. Obviously, term limits was not the stuff of legislative dreams in those days.īut, the worm turned. ![]() Sometime in that period I testified before a crowd of two at a desultory hearing in the Senate. ![]() I introduced it each biennium thereafter, always seeking co-sponsorship from my colleagues. Any term limits proposal sounded fierce in those days, but, in fact, mine was a sissified eighteen year version. I introduced my first term limits Constitutional Amendment soon after I was sworn in, in January of 1971. First, however, I must make the usual disclaimer that the views presented here are my own, not those of the Brookings Institution. ![]() Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this distinguished Subcommittee in support of Congressional term limits, an attractive butterfly I have chased unsuccessfully for many years.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |