The Neverending Gravy Train
By Pat Racimora on October 16, 2009 at 12:00 PM in Congress (House & Senate), Current Affairs
I used to be against term limits. I thought the more experienced members of Congress would better understand our needs. But over the last few years it appears that instead they have become insulated from the people they are supposed to care about and represent.
Now the main motivation appears to be to just hang on to their jobs forever. That also means remaining beholden to the party bosses lest they miss out on funding from the DSCC and the DCCC—the holders of the big purse strings.
So, what to do?
Solution #1: Term limits. These candidates would understand from the beginning that they will never be permanent Washington fixtures. They might either interrupt a career that they would likely be welcomed back into (maybe not the same employer, depending) or maybe end the old career and retire after their service. Maybe then we would attract more people who are not motivated solely by power and a perpetual meal ticket.
Notice my toon gives three 3-year terms to members of the House of Representatives. I think two-year terms are silly. It means that our Reps have to campaign full time. No wonder they make such uninformed decisions.
But, sigh… The very individuals who would vote this in are the ones who don’t want it.
Solution #2: The successful emergence of a third party. I imagine the timing has never been better for some strong and proven leader with common sense and more centrist views to attract many millions of followers. We almost had it with Ross Perot in the 90s, but he was too much of an arrogant goofball to make it happen. (His interview with Diane Sawyer pretty much did him in.)
And is there such a person? Hard to find one. Who?
Solution #3: No Majorities. Not as desirable, perhaps, is making sure that no one political party has control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. That would mean that a lot of us Democrats will have to vote Republican in 2010. It could happen since the current executive and congressional branch, all aligned now, are hardly living up to any great expectations. They seem as scattered and ineffective as the previous administration.
Solution #4: Snoozing! What inspired my toon idea was the video below. What if we could put Congress into a deep sleep so they couldn’t do anything. It’s risky (unless Obama dozes off with them), but I sometimes feel we would be better off if the individual states just did their own thing without the feds screwing us up more.
Maybe this guy could do that job? (Do watch—very cute.)
Any other solutions?
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Here’s a thousand word argument in favor of term limits.
Too cute!! And I not a big dog lover. AND totally right on. I have always felt during my long life that we need to be politically active. Now I am ready to throw them all out…dems and reps alike!! I have worked in politics for over 35 years and now I want to have nothing to do with any of them. They are all in it for themselves and until the PEOPLE rise up NOTHING is going to change. Start with seeing Michael Moore’s move, Capitalism: a love story.
Good Job!! Keep it up!!
Pat,
As always, you present excellent ideas. Unfortunately, having been involved with election reform for over 6 years, I have come to learn that we, the people, will never be able to “vote the bums out, because statistics are high that we didn’t vote them in.” The party leaders are the one’s who choose who gets elected into the “exclusive club” we call Congress. They can do this by having total control of the machines, which are “open for business”, for the right price.
I have discussed election reform here on NQ and tried to get the message out that as long as the counting of the votes remains “secret” inside software that’s been proven to be filled with security holes and easily manipulated by someone with minimal computer skills, we will never be able to bring about the legislative change you propose. Why would members of Congress want to leave a “gravy train that keeps on giving?”
America has to follow Germany’s example. The German Constitutional Court ruled voting machines “unconstitutional” under the German Constitution (which the U.S. had to approve of after WWII before it could be implemented) because the machines infringed upon a citizen’s “human rights” to “see” their votes counted at every phase of the counting process and that they should not be required to have a special technical expertise in order to do so. The German court ruled in favor of it’s citizens and banned voting machines and required votes to be counted with a public hand counts of the ballots.
Until we follow their example (and for the same reasons I might add), I’m afraid we will be seeing the same faces in our Congress for many more years to come.
Is this what democracy looks like?
when my daughter was getting ready to vote for the first time I told her only leave them in office for 1 term. This gives them less time to make the contacts, steal the money and cover it up. It saves the taxpayer money. When she went to register she explained my theory to the woman at the desk. After a shocked silence she asked my daughter if she wanted to register as a dem or a rep. My daughter asked which party Regan was. When told he was a rep she replied I better register as a dem or my mother will kill me. Now years later the democratic party has become our worst nightmare and term limits for all are long overdue and needed.
Too many congress critters of both parties have been too long at the fair. It is time to set curfews.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
Term limits are a must! (I like the third party and but it isn’t going to happen unless the Clintons start one.)
To someone who knows more about how laws are made than I do–How can term limits come about given that the people with power don’t want them? Is there a route the people can take?
“I like the third party and but it isn’t going to happen unless the Clintons start one.”
… or Sarah Palin.
I love the cartoon and some of the suggestions.
I have always been in favor of term limits because it is a fallacy that if someone does a bad job they will be voted out. They may be voted out for cheating on their spouse, but not for cheating the people they are supposed to represent. Most people do not even know that their representatives are doing a bad job unless the TV or newspapers tell them so, and even then they often get voted right back in again on the false belief that the devil they know is better than the unknown. Yet time and time again we find that it is in the unknown that we find solutions to most of our problems.
With term limits we continue to bring in new ideas, and it is harder to lock in power and stop creativity. The parties are not driven by what is best for America, but what is best for getting reelected and gaining power in the system. To this end, pork is often used to buy reelections regardless if it whether hurts the American public.
I still do not understand why people feel that it is OK to limit the terms of the president, but resist limiting the terms of legislatures. Maybe the reason is because in one case they are limiting someone else’s job and not their own. Who would vote for a change in the law that would cause them to be out of a job? The answer may be only someone who cared about the greater good for America, and that is probably the person who one would not care how long they were in office.
Rich
I’ve always been in favor of term limits. After they get to be in office for awhile, they often lose sight of why they are there and, as we’ve all seen, tend to get too cozy with lobbyists and corporations that line their pockets and influence their votes.
Great toon and issue. Term limits make sense but are unlikely to happen for the reasons indicated. It wouldn’t hamper a Representative in the House from running for the Senate at the end of their term. However, if they were considered inept or self-serving in the House, it might be unlikely they could win a Senate seat.
I’m sick and tired of both corrupt parties….HEY, haven’t you noticed?????? There is no change! It’s time to get a NEW voice into this system……..aren’t you tired of this Shit????????
wouln’t it be neat if Hill and Sarah started a new party..yipee
Great toon, great post, and SUCH a cute video! Having had my own puppy experience this year, it just warmed my heart. Thanks, Pat – well done!
I like all your suggestions!
Think about it. One can hardly claim W VA has been so rewarded by their representation, Byrd and Rockefeller.
Throw them OUT.
I think many changes need to be made. Starting with a change of their terms. Senate should have to run ever 4 years, alternating half on off election years. I would be open to term limits. Like 3 for Senate and 6 for House, or something around there.
Woot! And, 401k okay. Retirement pay until they die – NOt!
My concern with built-in term limits has always been that we might get a quick turn-over of slick carpetbaggers who wouldn’t give a d-mn about the people who elected them, once there was no re-election to worry about.
We would also be compelled to get rid of those who turned out to be genuinely exceptional representatives, in favor of new people who would be unknown quantities.
Name one, troll. But if they’re one of your idols, they aren’t exceptional but pedestrian–like you. You’re just another example of the lowest common denominator who come to this blog under many aliases knowing full well that you’re not wanted but so inherently anal retentive and of such a control-freak nature that you feel compelled to force us to pay attention to your vapid opinions so you won’t feel so alone in your self-inflicted delusional state.
Go get yourself some treatment or get that bottle of Thunderbird and tie one on. Do anything but put us out of your misery, skippy.
in defense, Ferd…name one you say?
how about Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)who recently was on this site with her harsh words against the financial industry and Fed indifference if not outright corruption?
( see http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/10/13/kaptur-and-johnson-detail-wash-wall-dysfunction/)
If your point is such are few and far between, I agree. But there are some…
PS how about a supermajority override of the term limit in the later years IF one is so popular that we want them to stay on?
Say 67% or more to get another term.Pollsters would tell Rep. Windbag well in advance that the jig was up and open the field to the new blood while making room for the exceptional ones as above
Thoughts anyone?
Our system was not designed with the intent to have people serving a lifetime in elected office. Indeed, the issue of being good or bad doesn’t come into the equation because your good might not coincide with my good. I stand by my comment.
That certainly disposes of any unresolved questions I might have had concerning the pros and cons of term limits. Thanks for the input.
Here’s a challenge for you–define what constitutes good, zippy. Then define exceptional as it relates to the good. I won’t wait for a response because you won’t understand the question.
You use a lot of words without understanding them and many of them represent judgments of value. What you value does not coincide in any way with those attributes I value such a honor and character because if they did have value to you, you wouldn’t support That One in any way form or fashion because he does not have them.
Stop clouding the issue with vague terms such as “good” and “exceptional” unless you are willing to actually define in concrete terms what you mean by those words. Anything less is as empty as That One’s rhetoric and does not form the basis for rational discussion.
Ferd–I don’t think ziggy is a troll or deserving of being put down. He/she is raising the issues that are valid for the other side of the coin. This is a devate after all.
I do believe in term limits but, like ziggy, I am sure we would lose some very good people in the process.
However, it seems to me that 12 years in the Senate and 9 (Pat’s idea) or 10 years in the house is a long time and a good person could do a lot before having to step aside.
Solara 9, I’m reposting what I posted above.
Our system was not designed with the intent to have people serving a lifetime in elected office. Indeed, the issue of being good or bad doesn’t come into the equation because your good might not coincide with my good. These fossils who serve for decades on end are no longer our representatives but ersatz rulers.
Moreover, unless there is a definition of “good” that we can all live with, I’m afraid using that ambiguous term does us no good in determining whether an elected official could or even should should be allowed to serve for a lifetime or even a single term. Good resides in the eye of the beholder. Finally, I believe if they will not limit themselves to a few terms, then we should do it for them via a Constitutional Amendment.
Well, we have term limits for president for a reason. We lose good presidents, but we have more freedom of representation.
If you had term limits for Congress, then people in both parties would have more chance to vote in someone to represent them. I think of these states that have had the same Senator for 60 years (West Virginia)… how UN-represented I would feel as a Republican.
Term limits work in governships. Just look at Virginia. They seem to go back and forth between Democrat and Republican, meaning every four years you have a prayer of getting your guy/gal in. There is more idealogical balance.
Without term limits, incumbents win 98% of the races. It’s just reality.
I WISH we could have Congressional term limits; the Republicans made it part of their contract in ‘94 but it disappeared down the memory hole as soon as they took power. Not suprising, asking politicians to limit how many terms they can serve is like asking bank robbers to limit the number of banks they loot. The police eventually stop the bank robbers but who the hell is going to stop the politicians? It is up to us. Vote “no” on every incumbent. Even (especially) super genius president Obummer.
Pat, I really agree with your assessment!
In particular, one party rule is damaging to the country. We need checks and balances to promote real debate and oversight.
The problem starts at the precinct level where a small group of party operatives determine the candidates for office.
We have had major legislation passed with one or two republicans joining democrats.
That leaves so many with no input into the process. It is disturbing and annoying!
First–I love that video–thank you!
I’m not sure about term limits. It’s not working very well here in CA –people do learn more from experience and if they have to work for because they are leaving they have nothing at stake; no reason to compromise, etc
I voted for Nader this year (even though I was furious at everyone who did so in 2000) and I think I like some of his ideas: we need a viable third party and we need to TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!
Shorter campaigns, free tv and radio time, no perks. We won’t have real democracy until the $$ are taken out of our government and our politics.
I am in greater favor of getting rid of the party system all together and forcing those who hide behind the curtains of their respective party’s agenda made accountable to the people they represent.
George Washington didn’t want parties.
Here is a quote from his farewell address:
Furthermore,with our technological advancements, we no longer need Congress to meet in D.C. They can and should conduct their votes and other business from their home states. In turn, they would likely be more in tune to their constituencies. This, also, would give them less chance to be persuaded by outside interests that have proved problematic.
I like this comment Ginger. Very astute.
We have term limits her in Missouri. Now the lobbyists lead the legislators around like sheep because there are no legislators around who have been in office long enough to become experts in anything. So the legislators look to the lobbyists, and the lobbyists run both houses of the darn legislature. Just how do we impose term limits on lobbyists? It’s worse that it was before.
Some great commentary on this page.Term limits,all but eliminate campaign contributions,short campaigns,balanced budget amendment with few allowances,ban on being a lobbyist before or after your govt.service.Free tv,radio and internet for candidates.You are in office to serve your country not to set yourself up financially for the duration of your life.Creative destruction for govt. at every level.States rights,only 5% of federal laws have follow up studies.Shrink govt. to the bone.I would gladly give up years of my life to get back the freedoms we have already lost.I am a life long republican but will vote Libertarian where a candidate is available .Worrying about losing good or knowledgeable legislators is not a valid point in my mind.We need more people in office from different professions.We have an abundance of intelligent talented people here.Our Legal System seems to exist mostly for the benefit of lawyers and billable hours.The Government behemoth exists only to feed and grow itself.We all dropped the ball and let it run rampant while times wre good.No public employee unions as well.In Asia many govt. leaders have an engineering background.What was Harry Truman? A hatmaker .Goodluck to all.Being a lifelong politician is not something to strive for from where I sit .