The idea of term limits for Congress is not a new or novel idea. When Congress was originally established, the Constitution established no such limits on how long a particular member could serve, but at that time, there was really no need. Our leaders were not so much politician as they were regular men who wanted to serve their country, but were ready and willing to go back to their homes and pick up their lives where they left off. In other words, they were the first and truest examples of a citizen government. What we have today is a completely different sort of individual, the modern politician. Once they arrive in Washington, they seem to find it very hard to leave.
Here is a few tidbits for you, based on the following question. Have you ever stopped to think about how long some members of Congress have been in Washington? We have all heard of people like Senator Robert Byrd, who seemed to have always been in Washington. Looking at his length of service, which stands at 57 years, 176 days, one has to wonder if the man was born somewhere in the halls of the capitol. He isn’t the only one who has served multiple decades and some of them are still serving today. Looking at Wikipedia for a bit of information, here is what we find on a few members of the Senate.
- Daniel Inouye – January 1963 = 47 years
- Patrick Leahy – January 1975 = 35 years
- Richard Lugar – Janurary 1977 = 33 years
- Orrin Hatch – January 1977 = 33 years
- Max Baucus – December 1978 = 32 years
Not to be outdone, here are the top five members of the House of Representatives, by length of service.
- John Dingell – December 1955 = 55 years
- John Conyers – January 1965 = 45 years
- Dave Obey – April 1969 = 41 years
- Charles Rangel – January 1971 = 39 years
- Bill Young – January 1971 = 39 years
By no means are these all of the members of Congress who have in Washington for a lifetime, but I think you get the picture. I am of the firm
opinion that a Congress that is so entrenched and has been for many, many years, is a very big part of the problems we see in Washington. It was never meant to be this way, but allowing members to serve what seemed to be indefinite terms in office, seems to have fostered a mentality of wanting to stay in Congress as long as possible. In turn, this has fostered the ability of special interest groups to gain more and more influence over policy issues. Need I say again, this was not the intentions of our founding fathers when they established Congress in 1789.
If you have been a reader of Political Realities for even a short period of time, or if you happen to live in my home state of Oklahoma, you will most likely know who Tom Coburn is. He first came to the House of Representatives in 1994 and during that campaign, he promised to serve no more than three consecutive terms, a promise he kept. When he ran for the U.S. Senate seat in 2004, he pledged to serve only two terms in the Senate and he has renewed that pledge, saying that if reelected, this will be his last term in the Senate. As he has heretofore kept his promise of self-imposed term limits, I see no reason to doubt him now.
On that note, there was a constitutional amendment introduced in the Senate last year that would limit senators to two six-year terms and representatives to three two-year terms. The bill has four co-sponsors, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Sam Brownback, all of whom are Republicans. Coburn was the first to sign a pledge from Phillip Bumel, President of U.S. Term Limits, promising to back the legislation. It remains to be seen how much support the legislation will garner, but it may be an uphill battle.
There is something else that is sure to factor into the equation, and that is the Tea Party and it’s candidates. From FOX News, here is how it is beginning to shape up for term limits.
The anti-establishment wave that has fueled the rise of the Tea Party has also quietly revived a call for term-limits in Congress even though one prominent Tea Party group actively involved in a number of key Senate races has not forced candidates to make a pledge in return for support.
The Tea Party Express, a national political committee which has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to propel underdogs Joe Miller in Alaska and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware to victory, said it is focused on “first things first.”
“There’s a lot of battles we want to fight. The most important ones are the fiscal ones – cut the spending, stop the encroaching of government,” Tea Party Express spokesman Levi Russell told FoxNews.com, adding that the group supports term limits. “It hasn’t been a front and center issue because there are so many other issues looming large that seem to be a more immediate threat.”
Russell said the focus will shift after the Nov. 2 election from “strictly getting conservatives elected” to “holding them accountable.” Russell said term limits aren’t as important now because in the last 18 months, “there’s been a public awareness of the behavior of individuals in Congress like never before.”
“There’s no reason to assume that will always be the way,” he said. “When the public stops paying as much attention and lawmakers return to overspending and overtaxing, it’s term limits that can put an end to their time in office.”
A lot has been said about the Tea Party and if it’s members will live up to their promises. For that matter, a lot has been said about the Republicans who may win in November. Basically, the question has been asked more than once, what makes us believe the new members of Congress will respond, once they are in office. I think term limits can be part of the answer to that question. However, if we do not have members of Congress who are willing to abide by those limits, even if they are self-imposed, it may go nowhere. As the FOX News article states, that is a problem.
Not all Republican lawmakers support term limits. Several House Republicans in 2006 ran for re-election and won after vowing to leave Congress at the end of their terms, saying they were just getting the hang of the job.
Excuse me, but that is a load of bunk. I don’t buy the argument that you have to be in Washington for years, just to get the hang of the job. If we the people can elect enough like-minded candidates to Congress, this mentality can be changed.
I know there are arguments against term limits. If enacted, all politicians, good and bad, would have to abide by the rules. Some would say that is a bad thing and when I look at someone like Senator Coburn, I would hate to see him go. However, when looking at the balance between the good and bad, I think the balance overwhelmingly comes down on the side of term limits. Better to lose a Coburn than to keep him and allow a corrupt and/or power hungry politician such as Charles Rangel become so entrenched in his seat that it is nearly impossible to root him out.
At the risk of droning on and on, let me close with another quote from the FOX News article.
Russell, the Tea Party Express spokesman, said he expects term limits to pass through Congress once more conservatives are seated after the election.
“The mission of the Tea Party movement is going to transform from getting conservatives elected to holding them accountable and making sure they stay strong and holding them to the promise of their election,” he said.
As a lot of us have been saying all along, that is the key to making sure this works. If there is one thing that is dearly lacking in Washington, it is accountability. Term limits would be one way of assuring that accountability returns to our government. It’s time for the citizens of America to take their government back and send the career politicians, from both political parties, back home.