Archived Articles

ARCHIVES

080316 A REVOLUTION - TO TAKE BACK CONGRESS

I am proposing that we create a popular, bloodless, political revolution in our country. I believe that it is very necessary, very possible, and very doable.

The object of this revolution is the destruction of the professional political class which currently dominates and corrupts the US Congress.

I am convinced, as are many, many voters, that the bulk of our country’s political problems arises out of this ‘permanent’ Congressional political class, and their devotion to party power and to the financial special interests keeping them in power.

There is a simple way that voters can create this revolution.

That way is to...NEVER REELECT any Congressional incumbent, anytime, in the House or the Senate, good guys or bad, in either party. Just NEVER REELECT!

It can be done easily and at no cost. All it takes is a national email campaign by all voters, getting their friends, and their friends, and their friends, to send out this NEVER REELECT message, frequently, thru out 2008, 2010, and 2012, and maybe longer...Just NEVER REELECT!

If we succeed in doing this for two or three election cycles, we would sharply reduce the rate of successful reelections from over 98% in the House. Similarly in the Senate. This leaves room for and encourages ‘citizen’ legislators.

It would break the back of the special interests and allow ‘citizen’ legislators, using the Internet, without the help of special interests, to run for and win office.

The resulting larger contingent of freshman Congresspeople would enable us to call for term limits of “6 Years and Out”, and for publicly funded federal elections. Both of these changes would keep the professional politicians and their financial backers on the sidelines for a long, long time.

Let’s do it!

(Note to all readers: Please feel free to use this message, with or without attribution, for any purpose)

080310 NEVER REELECT YOUR CONGRESSMAN (text)
by nels96 submitted to Digg

As my contribution toward being a good American, instead of sitting on my butt while everything goes to hell around me in this 2008 election, I am going to try to convince you all that it would be a good idea to never reelect your current Congressman. And I mean NEVER, as in “never reelect the incumbent!”

I don’t really care who wins the presidency this time around. I believe that our country is in serious political trouble every which way from Sunday, not because of either Democrats or Republicans, but because of BOTH. And it is because our Congress and our politics is in the grip of an arrogant political class of both parties which is more interested in holding on to their cushy jobs as a career, as opposed to doing the right things for the country.

If the American public would only realize this, and stop reelecting professional pols, they could destroy that political ‘class’, and permit more citizen legislators to run for office.

I fully realize that for many this is a very unpalatable move, since it only serves to give the opposing party the advantage. But think of it this way: They are all professional politicians, on both sides, seeking only to get elected as a job, a career, a livelihood, NOT to do a civic duty to pass good legislation.

Elective public service is not like any ordinary occupation where your employer holds you directly responsible for your performance, and can reward you or fire you accordingly, at will. In a political office it is extremely difficult to perform so badly that it will be obvious to the public that you should be voted out, and that can only happen every 2, 4, or 6 years. By that time the voter has forgotten the bad things about you, and getting reelected is easy.

Remember, elected officials have the power to affect all our lives, in many, many ways. Although they are OUR ‘employees’, we cannot hire or fire them directly. It takes an unwieldy election process, with no clear-cut issues, only shades of opinion. Career pols rely on such gray areas to stay in office.

Therefore, public office should not be permitted to be a career occupation. Public office should only be a temporary civic duty, available to those public-spirited individuals who are willing to leave their regular livelhoods for a short time, in order to do ‘the people’s business’ and to enhance good government.

In other words, Congress should be term limited.

Since Congress will never pass term limits on itself, we have to do it ourselves.

And to do it, we simply have to NEVER REELECT ANY CONGRESSMAN !!!
•••••••••••••••••••••••
Please forward this message to your whole addressbook, repeatedly thru 2008, to urge all your friends to stop reelecting ALL incumbent Congressmen.

For a free ‘NEVER REELECT’ bumper sticker, send your PO address to nels96@gmail.com

The number of websites which promote the reform of Congress by eliminating permanent professional politicians is growing steadily. Some sites are much more interesting than mine. Here are a few if them:

http://www.KickThemAllOut.com
http://www.samadamsalliance.org           http://www.voidnow.org
http://www.termlimits.com                      http://www.goooh.com
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com               http://www.foavc.or

Nelson Lee Walker of tenurecorrupts.com

Those ‘chicken littles’ even maintain that such a convention can make all its own rules which could actually overturn the Constitution! That just shows what ‘looney tunes’ they are! Since when could any bunch of unelected activists make ANY laws ?

It would make NO difference if an Article 5 convention was dominated by nutcases who really wanted to destroy the Constitution. ANY proposals, wacky or not, which come out of the convention, have to be ratified by 3/4 of all 50 state legislatures (38 of them) to become law. Does any one really believe that the majority of politicians in all the state legislatures of this country are nuts ? Or that a majority of the delegates from all over the country who go to the state ratifying conventions are gonna be nutty enough to approve bad amendments? In any case, would there be enough of them to even be a majority in any convention ?

Back in 1995, when the new Republican Congress was pretending to debate Term Limits for itself, people realized that Congress was NOT serious. An Article V Convention was proposed, as provided for in our Constitution, to get around a reluctant Congress. Suddenly, an army of “chicken littles” arose, hollering that such a convention was going to destroy our Constitution! Chief among them was Phyllis Schlafly, who wrote a long article in her conservative ‘Freedom Forum’, about how dangerous such a convention would be. I studied that article at length, looking for reasons to be concerned. It was all smoke, all scare tactics, no substance. “The sky is gonna fall! The sky is gonna fall!” was figuratively repeated every which way from Sunday. All baloney!

Currently, 80% of Americans agree that we should have Congressional Term Limits. Congress won’t vote on it, and refuses to call the Article V convention to let us vote on it. However, when a few of our future elections result in 100% reelection rates in Congress (including all the crooks among them), the growing arrogance and dysfunctionality of our Congress will frustrate us the people to such a degree that we’ll eagerly listen to some opportunistic, demogogic, charismatic future presidential candidate, acting as ‘a man on a white horse’, who will promise us, if elected, to get rid of ‘the permanent dictatorial Congress’, by forcing an Article V Convention out of Congress. It may create a ‘Constitutional crisis’, but he’ll win by a landslide!

That scenario may happen in the not too distant future. The House recently has already had a number of 99% reelection years. The Senate is well into the 90’s. Then what are the ‘chicken littles’ gonna do? Take up arms ? I doubt it, since most of them are too chicken-livered (pun intended) to do anything at all.

An incumbent who seeks re-election cannot freely vote his conscience, or his principles, for fear that he is going to offend some slice of the electorate, reducing his chances of re-election.

Obviously,one way to correct this problem is to reduce or eliminate eligibility for re-election. In other words, establish either a one or two term limit on all offices in government.

In all the the noise among the pundits, editorialists, and bloggers about the significance of any election, nowhere does anyone address the the most obvious characteristic - that the bulk of the failings of our American electoral system is due to careerism and long tenure in the body politic, particularly in Congress.

No one has stood up and yelled “It’s about re-elections, stupid, not issues!"

No one seems to recognize that, in the desperate struggle to hold on to their extremely ‘cushy’ jobs, career politicians will vote, not on principle or merit, but on their ‘re-election odds’ only.

Those that do it successfully, go on to lifelong tenure (e.g. Byrd, Kennedy,Stevens, Domenici, et al). Those who try to hold to principle invariably serve very short terms.

In other words, if your first concern is re-election, rather than the what is best for the country, you reap the rewards of a long tenure. Is this any way to run a country?

The fundamental reason we need Congressional Term Limits is simply that Congress is no longer doing its job. Instead, it is working very hard at keeping its job.

Of the many hot issues actually ‘debated’ by Congress and passed, most have been so chewed up, amended, and emasculated, that they are often not worth the paper they are written on. Congress will do anything it can to avoid making clear-cut decisions to get good legislation, in order not to offend or lose the voters they need for re-election.

Some people would say that’s the way a democracy works, and to some degree that is true. However, I take issue with that way of looking at what is actually happening. Rather, I believe that what we are seeing is the result of the emergence of a Congressional class which is overwhelmingly committed to re-election first, all other considerations, especially good governance, last. This is true on both sides of the aisle.

The best evidence of this is the fact that in two recent (‘02, ‘04)elections, Congressional incumbents won re-election at a 99% rate. Before 50 years ago, that rate was about 50-60%. Do you really believe that 99% of incumbents deserved re-election ? In two successive elections?

The ‘06 election was merely a bump in the road. Things have not changed. A great majority of the really long termers survived. They always will, thanks to gerrymandered districts, name recognition, and other incumbent advantages. We still have a virtually permanent Congress.

How this has come about can be understood by examining Congressional voting patterns on the major issues in our current political environment, allof which are now routine, and all of which have arisen during the last part of the 20th century, as Congress has learned how to ‘game the system’.

•They don’t reform Soc Sec to get personal retirement accounts. They might lose voters for re-election

•They don’t reform health care to get personal medical accounts. They might lose voters for re-election

•They don’t stop earmarks, because they want to spend federal money (for local votes) for re-election

•They don’t vote school choice, because they want teacher’s union money for re-election

•They don’t vote for tort reform, because they want lawyer money for re-election

•They don’t vote for right-to-work, because they want union money for re-election

•They don’t want computer neutral redistricting, because they want safe seats for re-election

•They don’t deregulate campaign financing with instant disclosure, because they lose contributors for re-election

•They won’t lower taxes, because they won’t be able to vote irresponsible ‘goodies’ for re-election

•They won’t reduce the size of government, because that would reduce their control of voters for re-election

•Last,but not least, Congressional office has become a livelihood, which is in itself, a conflict of interest, because incumbents become more interested in holding on to the job than passing good legislation. Unlimited reelections should not be allowed.

A great many state and local offices are already term limited. Why not Congress ???

I recently came across an interesting new website, www.foavc.org . It’s focussed on the idea that Congress is already so out of control that it has been violating the Constitution for many years now. In what way? Let me explain:

Article V of the Constitution, which sets out how the Constitution can be amended, says very clearly that “ The Congress...on the Application of the Legislatures of 2/3 of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments...” There are no ‘ifs, ands, or buts’ in that statement in the Constitution. It’s as plain as the nose on your face. It does not require that there be any specific subject, or unanimity of agreement among the states as to what subjects the Convention would address, nor any time limits for the applications.

Yet, in the over 200 years of our history, during which all 50 States have sent in 567 legitimate requests to Congress to call for an Article V Convention (all requests are in the Congressional Record), never once has the Congress responded to the States’ requests to call a Convention.

Until now, I had no idea this was going on! And I am certain that none of you did either. I always thought that there was no call for a ‘Convention to propose Amendments’ because not enough state legislatures had applied. They have applied in spades, ‘out the gazoo!’ The documentation is at www.foavc.org

And Congress has ignored every single request. And I believe that the basic reason is that one of the most popular subjects for amendments is electoral reform, such as term limits. And Congress knows it would happen, ending their gravy train, so they grimly stand pat, ignoring the States and defying the Constitution, as long as they can get away with it.

If Congress can ignore the Constitution on amendments, what is the next Constitutional guarantee will it ignore ? Freedom of speech ? Fair trial ?

Well, one citizen, Bill Walker of Seattle (no relation), who is a co-founder of foavc.org, has taken it to the 9th Circuit Court twice, where he lost on some technicality, and to the Supreme Court in 2006, which refused to hear the case! (on another technicality)

Hopefully, Bill Walker, or some other group, will reorganize for another run at the courts.

But don’t you agree that this is the best reason yet, and proof positive, that we badly need Congressional Term Limits ?

Our Founding Fathers visualized Congress made up of ordinary citizens, elected by their peers, to serve one, two, or three terms, then returning to their ordinary previous pusuits, such as being farmers, artisans, merchants, or other private activities. They certainly did not think of Congress as a permanent career opportunity for a class of professional politicians. In those days, Congressmen were paid only a token salary, had very poor accommodations, no perks, and very little press. The Founders knew from their English history, that tenure corrupts. They expected that elected representatives, whether good or bad, had best serve for only a brief period, and then leave office in favor of fresh faces, and fresh ideas (and be glad to go home).

The Founders did not believe legislators would or could serve forever. Voters wouldn’t allow that !

Some people think that the Founders left term limits out of the Constitution because they didn’t think it would be a good idea. Quite the contrary!. Rotation in office was a very important issue for them. It was an unfortunate incident which caused them, in 1787, to postpone deciding the issue.

During the Founders’ time under the Articles of Confederation, which did include term limits for legislators, an ugly debate occurred when the Rhode Island delegation refused to vacate their seats when their terms expired. It was the residual effects of the very bad feelings from that incident which caused the Convention to omit any reference to term limits in the new Constitution. Rather than risk undoing all their hard work with a 'failed' Convention, they opted to leave that issue for another day.

Apparently, for all their intellectual brilliance, the Founders never suspected that Congress would learn how to ‘beat the system’, make their jobs very rewarding, and fix it so that they could stay in their jobs indefinitely. They assumed that the voters would not let that happen, and that future voters would use Article V to amend the Constitution to include term limits in some form.

However, they made one mistake. When they composed Article V in the new Constitution, they left the ‘real power' of amendment almost completely in the hands of Congress. Thus, it is difficult for voters to get a Term Limits Amendment directly out of a very reluctant Congress, and it is difficult for voters to indirectly get Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments.

It is past time for the voters to re-enter this debate, and to finish the job. Many of the Founders wanted ‘rotation in office’, but could not win it at the time. Now we can see that they were right. Congress is virtually a permanent ruling class (99% reelected in 3 of the last 4 elections!).

Voters must fight for a Congressional Term Limits Amendment.

Nelson Lee Walker
tenurecorrupts.com

It is a mystery to me that, in all the new ‘good government’ websites that I come across, I never find any that stress the fact that, in order to effect REAL reform, it is necessary to have a Congress made up of ‘citizen’ legislators, rather than the current crop of careerist professional politicians who grimly hang on to their jobs and the status quo. [1]

Additionally, in all the ‘sound and fury’ in editorials and blogs on all the issues on both sides of the political spectrum, nowhere does one see any suggestion that the overriding problems of good governance lie with the professional politicians, who are more interested in holding their seats permanently, than in constructively addressing the country's issues.

Why is there no recognition in the political media that we need Congressional Term Limits ? Why does no one recognize that Congressional service is not a legitimate permanent livelihood or career? Why do they not recognize that we need to churn the occupants of Congress to get fresh blood to keep our democracy healthy ? [6]

To eliminate professional politicians, it is necessary to change politics from being a livelihood or career, to merely a civic duty, where persons will try to change government for the better during a short stay, then return to private pursuits. That’s the way it was for the first 150 years of our history, before the enticements of politics became too good to give up. [2]

Politics as a livelihood, or a career, is a fundamental conflict of interest. When one is supposed to be a representative of the people, putting the people’s interest, or the country’s interest, before his own, he should not be in a position to be concerned about his job, or his reelection. [3]

In an attempt to correct this flaw in our country’s political framework, we should be stressing the idea that, to improve our government, we must change the character of our Congress, and the most direct way to do that is to enact a Congressional Term Limits Amendment. We must end the idea that Congressional service is a career, or that it is permissible to be reelected forever, even if you have the votes.

The voting public should be made aware that ever longer terms in Congress is dangerous to their freedom. Experience has shown that tenure corrupts ! And it is the duty of the editorial media and the blogosphere to end their silence, and to remind the voting public that entrenched power is dangerous.

It is toward this objective that the tenurecorrupts.com website [4] is dedicated. The site contains arguments (pro and con) for Congressional Term Limits, optional amendment wordings, links to similar sites, suggested actions people can take to help, etc. The site blog list has accumulated over two dozen articles on this one subject. (Boring perhaps, but focussed!). Recently, we have begun offering free Term Limits bumperstickers to all requesters. [5]

We would very much like to have you join us in discussions to exercise and expand on this idea, and to help spread the word !

If you REALLY want to get Congressional Term Limits enacted, you have got to commit to a plan of action, even if you have to hold-your-nose while doing it!

Are you ready to vote out YOUR incumbent ?

Many voters agree that Congress is made up of a bunch of sleazy professional politicians who have been in power much too long. And voters want them OUT!

But when it comes election time, voters can’t make up their mind to VOTE OUT THEIR OWN incumbent Senator or Congressman, because that might let the challenger from the OTHER party win!

Because of that kind of thinking, the career professional politicians get reelected 99% of the time, and stay in office forever.

But there is a way out of that box. It’s called the next-best-choice method.

Democrats should vote for Green Party (or equiv) candidates, instead of their incumbent Democrat candidate. Republicans should vote for Libertarian Party (or equiv) candidates, instead of their incumbent Republican candidate. And Independents should vote for anybody but the incumbent.

In the last few years, Senate incumbents have been reelected over 90% of the time! And House incumbents have been reelected 99% of the time! If enough voters use the next-best-choice method of voting, those high reelection rates will come down. If we do it for two or three elections in a row, we will get their attention. And the attention of the media. Even the challengers who got elected will know that the voters want Term Limits.

When voters get into the habit of voting out incumbents, then we will see a bill for a Term Limit Amendment in the Congress. And by that time, voters ‘will have the bit in their teeth’, and demand that it passes, and is sent to the states for ratification.

So voters, are you ready to vote out YOUR party’s incumbent ?

NELSON LEE WALKER
Comment by email. Remarks will be selectively added to each blog entry Back to top

I have been noticing that, in lots of elections lately, the race as been very, very tight.

This should be looked on, by voters who want to shake up the system, (such as us term limiters), as a golden opportunity to evict the incumbent.

Do you realize that, in close races, it only takes a ‘few’ voters to swing the results?

For example, when 100,000 or 1,000,000 voters are almost tied on each side, it could be a difference of 10, 100, or 1000 votes which make the difference.

When a challenger is in a reasonably close race with an incumbent, a concerted effort by voters who want to vote out incumbents, even if they don’t like to vote against their party, can defeat the incumbent by voting for a ‘next-best-thing’ challenger. (Even if they have to hold their nose while doing so!)

For example, a Democrat voter could vote for a Green Party challenger. A Republican voter could vote for a Libertarian challenger. An Independent voter could vote for either of those 3rd party challengers.

Besides helping to defeat incumbents, this also serves to raise the profiles of the 3rd parties, which would also get the attention of the dominant parties. If we do this to a noticeable degree, it will be analyzed and remarked upon by all the media, the pundits, the bloggers, and even the general public. If so, the battle is half-won. We got their attention!

And if we continue it for two or three more elections, we will get more and more voters doing the same. By that time, all hell will be breaking loose! And finally, the major media will be addressing Congressional Term Limits in their editorial columns.

Nelson Lee Walker
Comment by email. Remarks will be selectively added to each blog entry Back to top

But why not ? It appears that there is too much news activity going on around the world, to get anyone interested in Congressional Term Limits. Despite the fact that local and statewide term limits are sweeping our country by 75% ballot victories, it's going to require some kind of ‘bombshell’ to get Congressional Term Limits any kind of respect from the national editorial media, or the blogs. Nobody writes about it. Why so?

The absence of Congressional Term Limits is a festering sore, a cancer, a disease that apparently dare not speak its name. Why the absence of commentary on this vital subject?

During the past 50 years, Congress has managed to improve its ability to get reelected close to 100% of the time, as compared to less than 60% in the previous 180 years. As a result, getting elected to Congress has practically become a lifetime ‘appointment’, just like the Supreme Court! Doesn't anyone consider a permanently 'elected' Congress a danger to our republic? Everyone 'knows' that tenure corrupts.

The growing success of state and local term limits nationwide is a testimony to the native commonsense of the American people. But they need the help of their so-called 'free press' to shame Congress into voting for a Term Limits Amendment.

Why doesn't our vaunted 'free press' pick up the baton?
Are they intimidated? How? Or why?

Without term limits, our electoral system is literally poisoned by tenure, that insidious debilitating condition whereby ever increasing numbers of long term officeholders are insulated from their constituents, and become unaccountable for their actions.

Looking at it another way, if you make a list of all the important issues which plague our government, it is very difficult to find those which do not already have rational, commonsense solutions in play, but which resist resolution because our politicians are more interested in getting reelected, than they are in solving problems by passing sound legislation.

To get reelected, which is the sole reason for being to a career politician, he must satisfy several widely divergent interest groups, any one of which would be antagonized by an actual vote, one way or the other, on a wide variety of bills. Therefore, to a professional, career politician, it is very dangerous to take a stand and actually vote, because you might offend and lose voters for your reelection regardless which way you voted.

Term limited ‘citizen’ office holders, on the other hand, know that their time in office is limited, and are more motivated to ‘get the job done, and done right ! Generally speaking, they are not likely to be ‘career politicians’, and therefore more likely to go to the heart of the matter, reach commonsense solutions, and get sound legislation passed.

In an era when the House of Representatives has reached a reelection rate of 99%, and the Senate almost as high, it must be apparent to all that the career politicians have learned how to ‘game the system’ so as to win reelection every time, good governance be damned!

What does ‘gaming the system’ entail ? Well, for example :
• Voting “For” a bill in its early stages of debate, then voting “Nay” later, when no one is watching (or vice versa), so that you can claim both sides of the issue, depending on which group you are addressing.
• Making certain that some issues remain ‘issues’, instead of reaching a decisive vote.
• Maintaining your good relations with important contributors to your campaign by proposing, amending, or defeating bills according to their wishes, regardless of the merit of the bill for the country.
• Making certain that you get credit for generous budget “earmarks” for your district, that would never pass on their own merit, if voted on locally in the light of day,
• Making certain you get ‘photo-ops’ and ‘name recognition’ opportunities far in excess of those gained by any challengers.
• Making maximum use of the free mailing privileges to keep your name in front of your constituents.
• And most importantly, making certain that gerrymandering gets you a ‘safe’ district.

There are probably many, many other such techniques to keep a politician in office regardless whether or not he does a good job for the country, while ‘representing’ his constituents. With the advent of term limits however, a number of fundamental changes take place:
• When fully implemented, and if abbreviated enough (e.g. 2 terms instead of 4), It would virtually end the era of the ‘professional, career politician’, who uses his office as a livelihood. It might end the idea of politics as a livelihood, so that many more ordinary citizens would seek public office, to serve briefly, then go back to the private sector. (This suggests a single term would be best, but that’s a discussion for another day)
• When the transition period is complete, the Congress would be populated with a true cross-section of the voting public, a ‘citizen Congress’, many of whom would be determined to bring true transparency to the legislative process. They would not be expecting to make a livelihood there, but rather to do a good job, then leave.
• There would be a wave of commonsense legislation which would sharply reduce the size and cost of government. Duplicate, overlapping departments would be reduced, overreaching bureaucracies restrained, outrageous earmarks sharply curtailed, unprincipled lobbyist arrangements eliminated. Congress would be held more accountable in its oversight of the bureaucracies and idiotic laws it creates.

Sounds like pie-in-the-sky doesn’t it ? But I would like to bet anyone a goodly sum that such a scenario would be more likely than not to come true, as a result of the enactment of Congressional Term Limits.

Nelson Lee Walker

Comment by email. Remarks will be selectively added to each blog entry. Back to top

Some high profile writers like Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, and George Will of the Washington Post have produced the occasional persuasive column suggesting Congressional Term Limits is ‘an idea whose time has come’. They have made off-hand remarks favoring term limits on their guest radio/TV appearances. The Cato and Heritage Foundation writers have produced several very convincing pieces on the subject over the last 10-12 years.Various small-town newspapers around the country have periodically editorialized that it is time for Congressional Term Limits. A number of grass roots websites (such as my http://tenurecorrupts.com , plus http://voidnow.org) have sprung up in the last couple of years, to supplement the activity of long established outfits like US Term Limits.

Yet somehow, the ‘critical mass’ required to really get it rolling just doesn’t seem to happen, in spite of the many arguments in its favor (see my site), not the least of which is that Congress has reached the point where their reelection success is now at 99%, which many people would agree is an unequivocally bad situation. Is this country ready to accept a Congressional aristocracy ? What kind of crisis is needed to move this forward ?

Comment by email. Remarks will be selectively added to each blog entry. Back to top

There are many hot issues bouncing around the political scene today, and as many or more activist groups pushing them on Congress to get them passed into law. And when some of these issues are actually ‘debated’ by Congress and passed into law, the bills have been so chewed up, amended, and emasculated, that they are often not worth the paper they are written on. Congress will do anything it can to avoid making clear-cut decisions to get good legislation, in order not to offend or lose the voters they need for reelection.

Some people would say that’s the way a democracy works, and to some degree that is true. However, I take issue with that superficial way of looking at what is actually happening. Rather, I believe that what we are seeing is the result of the emergence of a Congressional class which is overwhelmingly committed to reelection first, all other considerations, especially good governance, last.

The best evidence of this is the fact that in 3 of the last 4 elections, Congressional incumbents won reelection at a 99% rate (in '98, in '00, and in '04). Before 50 years ago, that rate was about 50-60%. Do you really believe that 99% of incumbents deserved reelection ? In all these elections?

How this has come about can be understood by examining Congressional voting patterns in our current political environment, all of which are now routine, and all of which have arisen during the last part of the 20th century, as Congress has learned how to ‘game the system’.

For example :

•They don’t reform Soc Sec to get personal retirement accounts. They might lose voters for reelection

•They don’t reform health care to get personal medical accounts. They might lose voters for reelection

•They don’t stop earmarks, because they want to spend federal money (for local votes) for reelection

•They don’t vote school choice, because they want teacher’s union money for reelection

•They don’t vote for tort reform, because they want lawyer money for reelection

•They don’t vote for right-to-work, because they want union money for reelection

•They don’t want computer neutral redistricting, because they want safe seats for reelection

•They don’t deregulate campaign financing with instant disclosure, because they lose contributors for reelection

•They won’t lower taxes, because they won’t be able to vote irresponsible ‘goodies’ for reelection

•They won’t reduce the size of government, because that would reduce their control of voters for reelection

•Last, but not least, Congressional office has become a livelihood, which is in itself, a conflict of interest, because they become more interested in holding on to the job than passing good legislation. Unlimited reelections should not be allowed.

It is time for a Congressional Term Limits Amendment !

060622 A WAY TO TERM LIMITS ?

A way to move Congressional Term Limits ? It’s been over 2 years since I started my website, tenurecorrupts.com, in an effort to do my part to awaken the American public to the danger we face from a permanently entrenched Congress (99% reelected in 3 of the last 4 elections).

As a private individual with very limited resources, I struggled with the problem of how to get the message out across the country.My first solution was to use Google Adwords, where I spend $100/mo to put random ads on various websites nationally, encouraging people to sign on to a mailing list which can be used to send out 'alerts' for concerted action demanding Congressional Term Limits legislation.This system works modestly well, gathering almost 500 signups in the past year, from less than 12,000 page views.

Then I came across a new website voidnow.org , which is gearing up to organize groups across the country to promote their objective, which is to Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy. After studying their message, I was so convinced that they were onto an excellent and very plausible way to make term limits happen, that I decided to help with my own campaign to get that message out. And it occurred to me that an inexpensive, long term adverising technique would be to use bumperstickers. For a nominal up front cost, you get a relatively permanent ad which circulates among the public for maximum visibility. The challenge is to get the stickers distributed and used. That challenge is currently underway, free for the asking. Go to tenurecorrupts.com to request your stickers.The message on the sticker is:
“DO NOT REELECT A SENATOR OR A CONGRESSMAN TIL WE TERM LIMIT CONGRESS !

If we get enough of them out there, that ought to do it ! Remember, we have a congressional election every two years. If this message puts a dent in their 99% reelection rate, we may see some action on Congressional Term Limits soon.

Nelson Lee Walker
Comment by email. Remarks will be selectively added to each blog entry. Back to top

In 1995, the newly victorious Republican majority in the House of Representatives, intent on displaying their ‘integrity’ on the matter of meeting their campaign promise to pass Congressional Term Limits, pulled a cunning, sleazy stunt. They brought to the floor for ‘debate’, a number of different forms of term limits bills, so that various House members could each vote ‘FOR’ one or another of the bills, demonstrating that they were fulfilling their promise to ‘try’ to get term limits passed in the House, yet certain in the fact that no specific bill would gather the 2/3 majority to pass.

That fraudulent political trick teaches us the need to decide in advance how a Congressional Term Limit Amendment should be worded or constructed, and that we must focus on a single version of the bill to be voted on, to prevent Congress from pulling that stunt the next time around. That’s what I want to talk about today.

During the past year I have been mulling around a variety of term liimit formats, and have slowly come ‘round to the thinking that perhaps the fundamental problem which provokes us to call for Congressional Term Limits is that the single-minded pursuit by our professional politicians for reelection success (now at 99%!), makes it very clear that all their behavior, demonstrated by their TV face time, their name-recognition efforts, their childish fingerpointing both ways across the aisle, makes us wonder if any real legislating is going on.

As a matter of fact, more and more stories are beginning to come out about Congress not even reading most of the bills they vote on, only relying on their staffs to tell them which way to vote so that their reelection is more assured. In other words, “It’s the reelections, stupid!”

If this is so, and I firmly believe that it is, then it appears that we, the voters, have to consider the virtue of making all legislative offices single term jobs, or close to it. Under such circumstances, the incumbent legislator would be substantially free of any concern for reelection, which frees him from having to cozy up to various special interests for donations to his reelection campaign fund. Thus, much more legislation might be determined on its merits for the country, instead of who is paying for it.

Of course, during his single term he can certainly cultivate special interest donations to use in his next campaign for some other job, but it certainly is going to be far more difficult to make bribed promises for a nebulous ‘next run’. This would be very close to eliminating politics as a “career’ type of job, a truly worthy goal.

This then brings us to the question of how the House and Senate should be term limited. For the Senate, which already serves for 6 years per term, a single term appears to be a sufficiently long enough period to do a sound job, and then to move on. Obviously, when all Senators are single termers, seniority goes out the window, merit and principle get a reasonable chance to shine, and better legislation results. Enough said!

For the House on the other hand, the 2 year constitutional term is painfully brief. This is the so-called ‘people’s house’, where the Founders decided to make seats turn over relatively frequently so as to force representatives to be more in touch with the voters. We might consider two alternatives: one way could be to lengthen the single term to make it more worthwhile office to seek; or a second way could be to allow it to be a 2 year term , 3 term limit, a reasonable compromise.To lengthen the single term to 3, 4, or 6 years would make the ‘people’s house’ too similar to the Senate, destroying its chief distinction from the Senate. Therefore, I would opt for the second alternative of allowing the House to be a reelectable seat for a maximum 3 terms.

In summary, I suggest that the Congressional Term Limit Amendment be worded as follows:"Members of the Senate shall serve for a maximum of one term of 6 years. Members of the House shall serve a term of 2 years, and may be reelected for a maximum of 3 terms."

Remember, our president is term limited, more and more governors are term limited, more and more state legislatures are term limited, as are many city councils and mayors....WHY NOT CONGRESS?!!!

Nelson Lee Walker
tenurecorrupts.com

In the 1994 Republican victory in Congress, one of the reasons they did so well was that they included in “The Contract With America” a proposal to enact Congressional Term Limits.

In spite of the huge popularity in the country for Term Limits, and Congress’ apparent efforts to pass bills toward that end, Congressional Term Limits never achieved the required 2/3 vote in either house, and simply went into oblivion. It was the only plank of the 'Contract' that did not pass.

Now, many people would consider that Congress made a ‘good faith’ effort, but it failed. I reject that idea. I believe that the Congressional leadership, and Newt Gingrich in particular, knew how to make a ‘good show’ of the whole exercise, to show that they tried to meet the promise. In other words, they knew if they simply would debate a number of slightly different term limits bills, then each member of the House or the Senate could vote for one or another of the bills, indicating that he was ‘for’ term limits, but no bill would get the required 2/3 vote, yet all members would be ‘on the side of the angels’. They simply had to spread their votes over multiple bills.The lesson to be learned here is that in our quest, we must be wary of Congressional shenanigans like that one.

There are many opinions on how term limits should be constructed, and when the time arrives to shape it for debate in Congress, we must scream like banshees if Congress tries to debate and vote on more than one bill at a time. And we must let them know they will be held accountable for a ‘No’ vote on that bill.

Remember, the differences between such term limits bills are ‘peanuts’. The only important consideration is that they are TERM LIMITS on Congress, which currently is serving virtual life terms! They are guaranteed to pull a similar stunt again to defeat our next attempt.

Rush, I once heard you say to a caller that “Congressional Term Limits doesn’t have a chance!”

That attitude is not only inconsistent with your oft expressed general philosophy of life, e.g. “Go for your dream, and don’t let anyone stop you!” Well, Congressional Term Limits is MY dream, and the dream of a helluva lot of thinking Americans, and I take considerable umbrage that you, my once hero!, would be so negative about the idea.

It astonishes me that you don’t see it the way that I, and many, many Americans, see it!

In fact, I am convinced the gut commonsense instincts of the American public at large is so heavily in favor of local and statewide term limits across the country, as shown by the lopsided victories that such ballots win every time they are tried that, if Rush Limbaugh listeners got the stimulation from El Rushbo to barrage the media, and their Congresspeople in both houses, and demanded the appropriate constitutional amendment to make it happen, IT WOULD HAPPEN!

As all your listeners know, your justifiable rantings against the puerile behavior of both houses of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is evidence that you must be of a mind that something must be done about it, aside from the ordinary process of voting, which has gotten us to this sorry pass.

In addition, it must trouble you, as it does me and many others, that the recent sustained history of 99% successful reelections of incumbents, is a serious flaw in the American electoral process. The excessive tenure of our legislative representatives leads to a corruption of ideals, ethics, and objectives, which tends to get worse with time. Are you willing to live with a virtually permanent Congress? When will you decide that enough is enough?

I am willing to wager that, if you were to spend only a few minutes a week (out of your 15 hours!), even if you maintained only a neutral stance, it would generate a storm of supporting calls for Congressional Term Limits. Why not try it?

It has become almost a weekly, if not daily, occurrence that the Washington establishment (essentially Congress), proves that it is not much different than an elementary schoolyard mob, chanting mindless, kneejerk inanities and charges, in unison, to a sensation-hungry, sympathetic, cheerleading media, about some event which shortly turns out to be much ado about nothing.

Time and time again these incidents, about which the political class in Washington becomes so hysterical, have been tempests in a teapot, with little national long-term relevance. This does not seem to teach these TV-camera-addicted professional politicians anything. All they seem to want is ‘face-time’ to enhance their name-recognition for reelection purposes, fully realizing that what drivel they utter will blow away in the wind without consequence. But..it served to get their name and face ‘out there’ once again!

This state of affairs makes one want to seriously consider the idea of eliminating the ‘reelection syndrome’, by enacting laws to prevent any officeholder from running for reelection, as in one-term limits, for all offices. This would relieve all politicians from concerns about succeeding himself in the same job, and rather, doing such a good job currently, that he would be considered favorably for whatever next other job he might run for.

In effect, this would change the business of government so that it is done by people doing it out of a sense of commitment to the common welfare, rather than as a way to ‘make a living’, or as a lifetime career.This would also change the character of the ‘candidate pool’ from which we get the people willing to run for office. The pool would be a completely different mix of people from the type we see as today’s politicians. Yes, maybe there would be more ‘nutcases’ with a zeal to improve the world. But I would bet that good commonsense candidates would far outnumber the ‘crazies’.

One of the obvious objections that will be made is that this scheme will rob the system of ‘experienced’ politicos. In fact, we might wind up with a shortage of willing candidates! On the other hand, wouldn’t it cause many heretofore reluctant citizens to consider running for office as long as they did not have to fight professional politicians who had a ‘name-recognition’ lock on the office? I believe that we would be far better off being governed by competent citizen officeholders, who will run to do a good job, then return to private life, rather than by professional careerist politicians who only want to be elected and reelected for life, pandering to those who will reelect them.

Specifically, isn’t it time to talk about single-term Congressional Term Limits?

Why should Congressional Term Limits should be America's first priority?

In all the hurly-burly of present day Congressional politics, doesn't it occur to anyone that there is no judicious, forward-thinking legislating going on? Each issue that comes up is tackled on a political, hysterical, poll-driven basis, and seldom addressed with any real intent to solve problems with hard-headed commonsense solutions. In other words, it is mostly "Don't just stand there! Do something! Anything! Just look like you're doing Something!" (and especially don't let the other side win on any issue!)

This is the mode of our current-day 'permanently re-elected' Congress, whose ongoing chief pre-occupation is getting reelected, which they do with a 99% success rate. Pretty good for stumblebums, eh?

Even when one party or the other does have a 'good' solution, the opposite party votes against it, or amends it into uselessness, for fear that the sponsoring party might earn some credit in the next (re)election for doing something good.

Politics! The bane of our existence! (Yeah, but it's still better than tyranny!)

We can't stop political shenanigans completely, but we can sharply reduce its wicked tendencies by enacting Congressional Term Limits. A large part of the evils of politics is brought about by the addiction of career politicians to the reelection process.

As soon as they are first elected to any office, careerist politicians become consumed with plans to get reelected. From that time on, all their moves and deals and pronouncements are related to how it will affect their reelection chances.

Take for example the following list of issues which, if tackled with the best intentions for the country, and not for either party's benefit, and nor for any special interest's benefit, would most likely be solved by a 'citizen Congress', but will never be effectively solved by our current 'permanently' reelected careerist Congress:

Social Security reform with universal mandatory PRAs (including those on welfare)
Means-tested medical Rx drug plans
Mandatory medical savings plans
Universal school choice for competitive schooling
Immigration reform including border control, assimilation requirements/incentives
Computer-based neutral redistricting w/o human interference
Fraud-proof nationwide voting, including purged voter rolls
Regulation-free political financing with instant online disclosure
De-regulation of energy: exploration, drilling, refining, nuclear power.
Transparent budgetary process

Every one of the above issues facing the country, and more, would be more equitably and intelligently debated, resolved, and passed, if we had a term limited 'citizen congress' working on the job.

And lastly, but certainly not least, we will never get Congressional Term Limits passed, and a 'citizen Congress' installed, while the Congress is dominated by careerist professional politicians who think it is their God-given right to hold a seat in Congress in perpetuity! This, in spite of the fact that Americans are passing term limits for local and state officeholders all across the country. Why not for Congress? Is it time for a Constitutional Convention ?

This simply means that, of all the issues facing the country today, none is more important than placing a Congressional Term Limits Amendment at the top of our own citizen agenda, and getting it passed.

Stop and think. Every single other issue is unlikely to be effectively resolved, unless we have a large contingent of fresh, non-careerist legislators in the Congress who realize that they are only there temporarily, to do a job for the country, not to work for reelection. And we won't get those fresh legislators until we force out the career politicians who win reelection 99% of the time.

It is time to stop reelecting incumbents! It is time to vote out incumbents! (both good and bad!).

It is time to give citizen legislators a chance!

It is past time for a Congressional Term Limits Amendment!

Is it time for a Constitutional Convention ?

I'm Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
tenurecorrupts.com

Comment by email. Good remarks will be selectively added to each blog entry. Back to top

While keeping track of various Term Limits activities around the country, I have come across an organization and website called voidnow.org , and I am becoming intrigued with their ideas. (I have their link on my site)

They seem to be pushing, not ‘Term Limits’ as such, but rather the more focussed concept of getting rid of all incumbents generally, in order to bust the stranglehold that professional, careerist politicians have on our system of government.

Thus the name voidnow.org, or “Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy Now”. They are in the process of organizing groups nationwide to educate the voting public to never reelect any incumbent, and to always vote for a challenger of choice. It does not appear that they have any faith in any of the Term Limits proposals because they believe (with some justification) that the underlying fundamental problem is that politicians are always obsessed with the idea of reelection, rather than with doing their best for the country. Most limits proposals include some degree of reelection (2, 3, or 4 terms). Therefore limits may be only a partial solution. (Of course, any limits would be better than lifetime tenure for politicians!)

Urging voters to “vote out incumbents” entails the risk that even more voters will likely not even vote, which generally helps incumbents. I’m sure the VOID guys will take that risk into consideration in their program, and stress that you must vote for challengers for their strategy to work.

I don’t know what their plans will be if they ever succeed in shaking up the public so much that a significant number of incumbents are defeated because, in the long run, the public cannot be depended on to always vote out incumbents . Some kind of term limit arrangement must be the answer.

However, what especially ‘grabs’ me, is the idea that, in the short term, the VOID policy looks like an extremely plausible way to give the public a tool to shake up both incumbents and challengers, to make them listen to the voter. The former will take notice that they are no longer invulnerable to the the Term Limits ‘movement’, and the latter will see that they have an improved chance of winning and will start to promise that they will sponsor Term Limits bills if they get elected. I like the idea very, very much.

Considering that in recent Congressional elections the rate of successful incumbent reelections has reached 99% (!), it would take only a modest drop to 93 or 90% to make everybody sit up and take notice that something new is happening.

Additionally, VOID has made me reconsider my preferred choice of wording of a Term Limits Amendment, which up ‘til now was for 3 two year terms in the House, and 2 six year terms in the Senate (or “6-and-12”, for short).The concept that the pol’s ‘obsession with reelection’ carries so much weight with me that I am seriously considering that I should put my emphasis on a “6-and-6” form of amendment (3 two year terms in the House, and only 1 six year term in the Senate).A single term of two years in the House is too short a period for anyone to consider running for the job, and a six year term in the House would destroy the difference between the House and the Senate, so I am willing to consider reelections in the House. But six years in the Senate is more than enough time to “do your duty’ as a Senator, and accomplish goals, unencubered by considerations of reelection.By and large, I think voidnow.org has a great idea going, I wish them lots o’ luck. They have my full support, and they should have yours.

Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
tenurecorrupts.com
Comment by email. Good remarks will be selectively added to each blog entry. Back to top

060305 HOW DEMOCRACY COULD END

Think about the following troubling quotation:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years...
(Alexander Fraser Tyler, Cycle of Democracy 1770)

Sound kinda' familiar? Statements like the above have a troubling relationship to our modern American system of government.

Just one of the reasons that our Congress has succeeded in getting itself reelected 99% of the time is that each legislator has pandered to the his local voters by including in the federal budget spending for projects in local jurisdictions that the voters there would never vote for if they had to pay for it with local taxes. And every legislator can depend on his colleagues to vote for his ‘pork’ because he will vote for their ’pork’. ( I’m not including the few mavericks like Senator Tom Coburn and Rep Mike Pence, a very lonely pair!)

Examples of this wasteful spending are far too numerous to list, but there are a number of references, such as the annual “Pig Book”. While much of such pandering is endemic to the democratic process, it has has become appallingly, blatantly, and arrogantly ‘in your face’ to the American public, knowing that the legislators will not be held to account.

Kinda’ like a dictatorship, isn’t it? Where each ‘permanently elected' Congressman is like a king, distributing largesse to the masses.

That’s why we need Congressional Term Limits.

I'm Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
tenurecorrupts.com
Comment by email. Good remarks will be selectively added to each blog entry. Back to top

060218 TERM LIMITS BACKERS : DON’T SELF-LIMIT!

I recently saw a report that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), a principled believer in Congressional Term Limits, serving his first term in the US Senate, was quoted as saying that, if he won a 2nd term, he would not run for a 3rd term. Remember, he served in the House for three terms, and term limited himself there, before running for the Senate.

Now it is all well and good to have the integrity to stick to principles, and normally I would commend him on his position.

On the other hand, wouldn’t the greater good (AND his principles) be best served if he were to run for a third Senate term (and more), and dedicate those terms to fighting for an amendment for Congressional Term Limits? Of course, he would also continue his current efforts toward lower spending and smaller government.

For that matter, I think that if he were to run for a 2nd Senate term on a platform espousing Congressional Term Limits, which is extremely popular with the American public, it would give him even greater momentum than just his current fight for Congressional fiscal integrity, which I am certain his constituents (and the rest of the country) approve of, mightily.

And there is no reason why he shouldn’t stand for both reduced spending and a Congressional Term Limit Amendment.

Over the years, a number of Congresspeople who believe in legislative term limits have term limited themselves out of the Congress, and I believe that in doing so, they have done their cause more harm than good. For example, who remembers those stalwarts who unilaterally term limited themselves just to make the point that they really believed in term limits? What did they accomplish besides abandoning the issue to the careerist professional politicians? Wouldn’t it have been more productive if they had continued to run for reelection, loudly proclaiming that they were going to serve until they won the battle for Congressional Term Limits, and while serving, demonstrate their committment to Term Limits by cultivating media attention to the subject while constantly being a thorn in the sides of their reluctant colleagues?

Such a performance during several terms in the House or the Senate would be effective insulation against the inevitable charges of 'hypocrisy' every time they ran for reelection after their 4th, 5th, or 6th term.

Furthermore, just imagine how much more effective each Term Limits committed Senator or House member would be if all those self-limited predecessors would have stayed in their seats until a contingent was built large enough to help get the Term Limits bill passed. It is quite likely those self-limiters would have continued to get reelected indefinitely as long as they showed a strong, visible, maverick commitment to pushing for a Congressional Term Limits Amendment

And guys like Senator Tom Coburn, who’d rather be right than popular, is just the man to start such a tradition.

Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
tenurecorrupts.com

Comment by email. Good remarks will be selectively added to each blog entry. Back to t

060130 WOULD SINGLE TERM LIMITS BE BETTER ?

A ONE TERM LIMIT ?
Until now, all my thinking about Congressional Term Limits has revolved around simply reducing the current system of unlimited reelections to a ‘reasonable’ two or three terms of the current durations (2 yrs House, 6 yrs Senate).

My preference has been determined by pragmatism, i.e. that this would not be so scary or traumatic a change for the voters, and therefore more likely to win acceptance than a more drastic change to the system. To me, term limits of almost any kind is a great idea, and we do not need to be too drastic about how we do it.

However, a couple of my more enthusiastic correspondents have urged me to consider a single term limit, which they claim would have a number of very attractive advantages were it to pass into law:
a. It would totally eliminate the officeholder’s concern for reelection, so that he/she would be freed of the need to       campaign for his next term, and therefore more focussed on doing the right things for the country.
b. Lobbyists and other special interests would have no ability to control the officeholder with campaign       contributions. (On the other hand, what tricks might they come up with next?)
c. The officeholder would feel no need to ‘bribe’ his constituents with ‘pork’, and would therefore be more likely to       do for them (and for the country) what really needs to be done.
d. It would eliminate the seniority system and the mediocrity it fosters.
e. It would eliminate 90% of careerist professional politicians from Congress, since a 'career' was not possible.

The only trouble is, such a scenario seems too good to be true. And it probably is.

For one thing, we would probably have to increase the duration of the House term from 2 years to 6 years to make it worthwhile to even run for the office. Similarly, we would have to increase the Senate term from 6 years to 10 or 12 years, just to make it different from the House, which has always been known as “the people’s house”.

(Note: If both houses have the same duration, then arguments would arise to merge them into a unicameral legislature, which is a whole new can of worms.)

And this ‘can of worms’ is exactly the prime difficulty. That is, if it is so hard to get a simple thing like plain term limits to pass, how much more difficult is it going to be to pass a major change in the shape of our government?

I firmly believe that a simple term limits law would give us some of the advantages of each of the features listed above in a, b, c, d, and e, without incurring the extra major resistance that would arise against the ‘one term’
limitation.

I say KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid!). But thanks for trying. Don't make the PERFECT be the enemy of the GOOD.

Nelson Lee Walker of tenurecorrupts.com

060127 FIRST THINGS FIRST !

Back in 1770 a cynic wrote: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, and is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Of course there is a certain amount of wisdom in that gloomy forecast, but I believe that the outcome is not a foregone conclusion.

However, it does illustrate that the reason we need Congressional Term Limits today is precisely that careerist politicians are driving us in the direction the cynic predicted, driven by their lust for reelection. When politicians are primarily focussed on reelection, they don’t think about the best policies for the country, but rather on the ways to get reelected. And one of the principle ways is to vote for ‘pork’ for their constituencies. And they will vote for this pork even when the country is staggering under huge debt burdens, and in spite of large current deficits. And they do it reciprocally (“You vote for my pork,and I’ll vote for yours”) so that the evil is compounded. And to hell with attempts to balance the budget, or any other commonsense policies.

Much, if not all, of this pork is sneaked into enormous, complex appropriation bills, hidden from public scrutiny. (Truth be told, few Congressmen even read these bills!) If any of these pork items ('markups') are exposed, the pols can always fabricate plausible reasons why the item is vital to his district, and besides, “It is really such a miniscule fraction of the multi-trillion dollar budget, that it needn’t concern anyone!”

Multiply this position by 535 lying, hypocritical politicians, and you’re talking about real money!

Commonsense tells us that term limited politicians, or a 'citizen Congress' whose members expect to return to the private sector, would be far less inclined to say “to hell with the budget”. Maybe not all of them, but a large majority of them. And that’s all we would need to turn the country around. Most of these ordinary citizen legislators will have come to Congress to do a job, do it right, and then leave. Because that’s what ordinary citizens do! And many of them would, during their tenure (while not expecting reelection), educate their constituencies on the proper and ethical use of political power.

It seems to me that all the political organizations out there who are pushing truly legitimate and worthwhile political issues, and spending lots of money to get their points across to the public (and to bribe their Congresspeople), would find it a lot easier to succeed if we had a ’citizen congress’, by FIRST getting a Congressional Term Limits Amendment enacted.

There is no doubt in my mind that a Congress made up of new people, non-professional politicians, untainted by excessive tenure, would have a remarkably fresh outlook on the issues of the day, and be inclined to use much more commonsense in resolving those issues.

On the other hand, it appears that many of the most vigorous opponents of term limits are precisely those organizations which are called ‘special interests’, and it is those organizations who have the most intimately corrupt relationships with the entrenched careerist professional politicians of the modern day Congress. These are the people we have to beat.

Our wonderfully diverse and free political system is made up of all kinds of people who are tugging at ‘the powers that be’ in Congress for good laws and bad laws (e.g. increasing or decreasing the size of government, balancing or unbalancing the budget, raising or lowering taxes, etc.). We need a Congress that is responsive to the voters in a thoughtful and responsible way, consistent with what is best for the country longterm, not with an eye to the next election. A term limited, citizen Congress will do that.

So I say “Let’s do first things first! Let’s establish Congressional Term Limits!”

I have been noticing that, in lots of elections lately, the race as been very, very tight.
This should be looked on by voters as a golden opportunity to evict the incumbent.

Do you realize that, in close races, it only takes a ‘few’ voters to swing the results ?

For example, when 100,000 or 1,000,000 voters are almost tied on each side, it could be a difference of 10, 100, or 1000 votes which make the difference.

When a challenger is in a reasonably close race with an incumbent, a concerted effort by voters who want to vote out incumbents, even if they don’t like to vote against their party, can defeat the incumbent by voting for a ‘next-best-thing’ challenger. (Even if they have to hold their nose while doing so!)

For example, a Democrat voter could vote for a Green Party challenger. A Republican voter could vote for a Libertarian challenger. An Independent voter could vote for either of those 3rd party challengers.

Besides helping to defeat incumbents, this also serves to raise the profiles of the 3rd parties, which would also get the attention of the dominant parties. If we do this to a noticeable degree, it will be analyzed and remarked upon by all the media, the pundits, the bloggers, and even the general public. If so, the battle is half-won. We got their attention!

And if we continue it for two or three more elections, we will get more and more voters doing the same. By that time, all hell will be breaking loose! And finally, the major media will be addressing Congressional Term Limits in their editorial columns. That’s all we need.

Send your PO address to nels96@gmail.com to receive a free bumpersticker which reads :