Should senators and congressmen have a term limit?

No

1 of 21

by Bobby Keith

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Ever since the 1994 Contract With America, I, like many other conservative minded Americans, have been in favor of term limits for both houses of Congress. The abuse of power in Washington, D.C. seems to increase each time a Congressperson is re-elected to another term.

I recently attended a political forum in my city in which several potential candidates were asked questions in a format similar to that in which John McCain and Barack Obama answered questions from Pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church during the 2008 Presidential campaign. One of the questions was in regard to term limits. Two candidates, both of whom had impressed me up to that point, said that they did not support term limits, and both gave different reasons. I have to admit, I was turned off to both candidates after they answered the way they did.

However, later I began to think about their response to the question, and I received a "revelation" that changed my opinion concerning term limits for members of Congress. I am now opposed to term limits, and I would like to give you four reasons why, as well as tell you what I think should be done to control the abuse of power that has become the norm.

The first reason that I am opposed to term limits in Congress can be summed up in two words: "lame duck".

During the second term of any President, especially if the opposing party is in control in Congress, what gets accomplished? Very little. Why? Because Congress knows that all they have to do is bide their time, and very soon a new administration will be in power. Lame duck Presidents have very little success in getting their agenda through Congress, unless of course members of Congress think it will help in their re-election bid.

So, if those in Congress were limited to a certain number of terms by law, they could go into their final term with very little power to get anything accomplished. We all know that getting things done in Washington is all about compromise. If a Congressperson was in the final months or even the last year or two of their term, others may just as soon wait for the next person to be elected from that district instead of working with the current Congressperson from that area.

Second, term limits could lead to more corruption. If a Congressperson knows that after their final term they can no longer be elected to the office they are holding, then they may be more tempted to "pad" their own pockets. Not having to worry about being re-elected could mean that the politician would no longer be worried about doing what is in the best interest of the voters, but instead doing what is in the best interest of the politician.

The third reason is very similar the the second.

If the Congressperson does not have to worry about being re-elected by the voters, then they can turn a deaf ear to those same voters. I know that many of us feel that this is done anyway; however, if we speak loud enough, they will listen. Remember Immigration Reform just a couple of years ago?

Congress was bound and determined to pass this legislation, even though all of the polls showed that the American people were against it. Once the voters started lighting up the switchboard in Washington, Congress finally decided to listen to us, because they were all worried that they might lose their jobs.

If several of those in Congress had been in their final terms, then maybe the calls from the voters would have had little to no influence on them.

Finally, term limits may cause Americans to be less involved than they already are in government.

The things that have been happening over the last year or two, with the struggling economy and multi-billion dollar bailouts, has awaken the American people in a way that has not been seen for many years. Whether it's attending a tea party, or an "average Joe" deciding to seek political office, the American people have decided to get involved in their government once again.

If Congress has term limits, we may become apathetic once again. Why get "fired up" over the type of power abuse we see now if we know that the rascal in office cannot run for that office again? It would be so much easier to turn a blind eye until the next election.

So, if we do not have term limits, how can we control the power abuse that seems to run rampant in our nation's capital?

First, we have to realize that we have the power to end the term of our members in Congress at anytime through the power of the ballot box. We have to exercise the privilege that we have to vote for those who go to Washington and work for us. Yes, remember, they do work for us.

And, since they work for us, we should have something to say about their pay. We need to elect representatives that are willing to go to Washington and vote for legislation that will once again make those in Congress true "public servants".

If we can cut their pay, cut their staffs and their office budgets, and end the health care and retirement benefits that they now enjoy, maybe we can get back to the type of government that our founders envisioned.

Members of Congress receive $175,000 per year. I believe that they should be paid only for the days that they are actually working for us. We should not be paying them for the times that they are out campaigning, or the time that they are on "break".

If we pay each member $300 a day, and the members of Congress work 300 days a year, that $175,000 a year salary now become $90,000 a year. That's a savings of $85,000 a year per member. Of course, if they are working less than 300 days a year for us, their pay will be less.

Also, current members of Congress receive $2 - $4 million per year for office and staff. I really do not understand why Congressmen and Congresswomen need so many staff people. If each member of Congress was limited to 7 staff members, paid $65,000 per year (just over what the average American makes), that would total $455,000 per year for staff.

I believe that an office budget (rent, furniture, and office supplies) of $6,000 per month is more than generous. That would be a total of $72,000 per year.

We have now taken a $2 - $4 million per year staff and office budget, and turned it into $527,000 per year, for everymember of Congress. That's a savings of 73% - 87%!

We also need to have a law passed that would prohibit any member of Congress from making large amounts of money by traveling across the country to give a speech. I believe that those who do give speeches should be given transportation (coach seating on an airline), decent hotel accommodations (no more than $150-$200 per night), and receive a fee of no more than $500 per speech.

Other things that could be done would include making sure that Congress has a health care plan, and a retirement plan similar to that of most working Americans, not allowing spouses to accompany them on "working" trips, and taking away other special perks, such as special parking at the Ronald Regan Airport.

The fact that those who are elected can become rich, and have a life of ease after they leave office, makes those who are elected more concerned about staying in their positions than doing the job we elected them to do. If we take away some of the riches and privileges, while still paying them fairly for the job that they do, then maybe we would once again have "public servants" and have many fewer "career politicians". Term limits would then take care of themselves.

They work for us. They need to remember that.

More importantly, WE need to remember that.

Learn more about this author, Bobby Keith.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.