TexasCHLforum.com

fickman wrote:I left the poll open so that you can change your answers. . . for any of those who might have been swayed by reading through the discussion.

OK, I voted "undecided." That'll learn yah!

rotor wrote:Basically the question should be, do you want more government or less government? Do you want more ridiculous laws or less laws? Think about it. Originally the concept was that people served part time in the congress and went back to their real jobs, much like the Texas legislature which meets every two years. When you have career politicians, what do they do? They pass laws, many of them sound good on paper but in reality are nightmares, like Obamacare, like assault rifle bans, etc. If you believe in a conservative view of government perhaps we should take more of the libertarian view that the sole purpose of government is to provide a military to protect us from foreign invasion, provide a banking and currency system and perhaps not a lot more. Right now we concentrate on "gun control" in this group, adding more stupid laws to the tons of other stupid laws out there. Don't forget, CHL was the reversal of previous law banning conceal carry- passed by the legislature. I think we should lean to less governmnet, fewer laws, end career politicians existence and let them return to a real job instead of vegetating and controlling our lives for example like Harry Reed does. Might as well be a dictator. So, I support term limits, less government, fewer laws especially those that make progressives feel good but take away my constitutional rights (Ms Feinstein are you reading this?)

I'm with you in sympathies, but that is because of frustration. Others are right that if we had term limits, it would remove the "need" politicians feel to get reelected. It is that "need" which moderates their behaviors......in some cases. It encourages their behaviors in others. For instance, the more radically leftists Nancy Pelosi behaves, the more she guarantees her reelections. So whether or not term limits affects reelection is largely a product of the rationality or insanity of their constituencies. For instance.......and I never really liked the guy as a politician.......I would wager that during his many terms in Congress, Ron Paul's supporters would not have supported term limits because it would have eliminated their "spiritual leader" (in political terms), who was a major figure in libertarian history. And yet, because they are also strongly libertarian, they would have likely supported term limits for everyone else. So this is a classic example of term limits cutting both ways for the same voters. I think Charles and others are right.....if we had term limits right now, with nothing to lose in terms of reelection, all those "blue dog" democrats who consistently vote pro-gun might very well have helped to pass an AWB.....not to mention those squishy republicans who are often categorized as RINOs.

That's why I don't think term limiting is ultimately a good idea. And yet, we still have a need to prevent the venal and the corrupt from getting elected. That is why I believe that the answer is to make the job unattractive on its face, so that only those who are properly motivated would want the job. Right now, congresspersons live like royalty.......on our nickel. Let them live like royalty on their nickel. Cut the pay in half. In 1789, a congressman received a $6 per diem. That was it. Any expenses beyond that came either out of their own pockets, or out of subsidies paid for directly by their own states. The citizens of VA were not required to subsidize the activities of the representative from MA, beyond the cost of a boarding house and paper pens and ink. Today, a congressman makes $174,00/year, paid for by ALL the taxpayers, PLUS all of their operating costs, paid for by ALL of the taxpayers, plus healthcare for life, paid for by ALL the taxpayers, plus a retirement package available only to themselves, in which they are fully vested before having completed one single term. If Obama had lost his first presidential campaign, he would have had these benefits for life by virtue of having served 2 years of a 6 year senatorial term.

Cut that $174,00/year in half, and now you have $87,000/year, which puts a congressman squarely into the middle class. Take away their ridiculous perks, and now they have to live like the rest of us live. Alternatively, $87,000 is $7,250/month....so limit their pay to only while congress is actually in session. Then, the rest of the year they have to live like the rest of us, and have a JOB. And several million residents of the DC area manage to live on far less than $7,250 per month, so if a congressperson can't do it, then there is good reason to not trust them with the nation's pursestrings. In other words, take away every incentive they have to STAY in DC.

Here's why: They think their job is to pass laws. Therefore, they justify their existence by passing lots of them. We are in trouble because we have too many laws. Since term limits affects good representatives as well as the bad, the answer is to stop giving bad people a reason to run for office. Let them give their energies to some other enterprise. They only enter politics because it is profitable for them. Making it unprofitable eliminates them, and leaves only those with servant hearts.

steveincowtown wrote:If term limits were in place right now, I would be willing to bet wide and sweeping gun control would have passed this year.


Having Politicians worry about getting reelected isn't necessarily a bad thing....

That's a very good point. My frustration levels tell me that term limits are a good idea. My brain tells me, like Fickman says, that it might have unintended consequences. I think there are possibly viable alternatives that might have the intended effect of term limits without the possible pitfalls.

One idea might be to set a limit to the number of terms that an elected official can serve consecutively with a set number of terms before they can run again. For instance, set a limit that restricts representatives to 5 consecutive terms and senators to 2 consecutive terms, and make them ineligible to run again for 4 terms and 2 terms respectively. Or something like that.

Another idea: take away their pensions, and only give them healthcare insurance while they're in office, and then pay them less. Make the pay enough for a strictly middle class income, pegged to the national average (not the DC average), and forbid them to receive any other kind of current or deferred compensation or gifts of any kind outside of their congressional salaries during their employment as congressmen. The point being that nobody would want the job except for those who really have a servant's heart.

Another idea: take away their staff. Allow them one secretary and one file clerk apiece, and remove the locks from all their doors. Forbid their staffers from being involved in writing legislation.

Another idea: Require all submitted legislation to be handwritten, either in the congressperson's handwriting (of which a sample will be kept on file), or in the handwriting of the lobbyist who wrote it, certified as his/her writing, and the final copy of the handwritten bil goes into the national archives, with the congressperson's signature and date affixed. Require all submitted legislation to pass a 60 day long period of review after coming out of committee before it can be voted up or down on the floor. Require all congresspersons to pass an exam administered by the CBO to display competency for every piece of the legislation that comes up for a vote, before they can vote on it.

Another idea: Require all legislation to include its constitutional justification in specific detail in the first paragraph of the bill, then make the text of the bill available on the home page of the congressional website, with the CBO's analysis of the bill.

I could go on....but the point is that it is not enough to force accountability at election time. What happens between elections counts more, and for decades the vast majority of these folks have demonstrated themselves to be unworthy of the public's trust. Therefore, we demonstrate that we trust them no more by requiring day by day accountability from them.