archive.2005.html

ARCHIVE 2005

051227 IS IT ALREADY 'CONGRESS FOR LIFE' ?

One of our Signups lamented the fact that there is no readily available list of all the 'old bulls' (or old bums) in the Congress, a list which could be used to highlight how bad the situation is. I checked, and found some info on the Senate, which allowed me to make my own list below, but I could not find such info on the House. So I just made some intelligent guesses for Representatives.

In any case, to make the same list for the House would take an awful lot of time, so the Senate list will have to do for now, with just an estimate for the House. (If any of you know of a similar list for the House, please let me know)

SENATOR STATE YEARS

Byrd          WV    48
Inouye       HI      48
Kennedy     MA     44
Stevens      AK     40

Biden         DE     36
Domenici    NM     36
Leahy         VT     36

Dodd         CT      30
Lugar         IN      30
Grassley     IA      30
Sarbanes    MD     30
Levin         MI      30

Cochran      MS     30
Baucus       MT     30
Spector      PA     30
Hatch        UT      30
Warner      VA      30

Shelby       AL     24
McCain      AZ      24
Harkin       IA      24
McConnell   KY     24
Mikulski     MD     24

Kerry        MA    24
Bond         MO     24
Bingaman   NM     24
Rockefeller  WV    24

Boxer         CA    18
Leiberman   CT    18
Craig          ID    18
Lott           MS    18
Burns         MT    18

Gregg       NH   18
Dorgan       ND    18
Bennett      UT     18
Conrad       ND    18

Jeffords      VT    18
Murray       WA    18
Kohl          WI    18
Feingold   WI    18

IN SUMMARY: 39% of Senators have been in office for three terms, or 18 years or more, as of 2006.
And 17% have been there five terms, or 30 years or more.

As for the House of Representatives, in 1996, 125 of the 435 seats (29%), had been held for 7 terms (14 yrs or more). Based on the 98% reelection rate of incumbents in the last 10yrs, I would guess that that the ratio has risen to above 45% today.

In other words, it appears that in a few more years, election to Congress will be as good as getting elected for life! Putting it another way, there will be no point in having Congressional elections unless an incumbent dies or goes to jail.
(When do we start calling them "your majesties"?)

Again, in just a few more years, it will be 'Congress for Life'. This is not what the Founders intended! And it is certainly not what clear-thinking Americans are willing to accept! You can help to avoid this iminent calamity by joining one or more of the following Term Limits organizations to help put pressure on Congress to pass a Congressional Term Limits Amendment.

Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy
US Term Limits
Americans for Limited Govt
Citizens for Term Limits
CongressTermLimits.Com
Initiative & Referendum Institute

Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
tenurecorrupts.com Comment

051226 FOLLOW THE MONEY !

Here are some of the reasons why Congresspeople so fiercely oppose term limits.
Put very simply, it is because the job is extremely ‘cushy’, and cannot be matched elsewhere.

1. It offers a nice salary, about $160, 000/year, plus expenses, with guaranteeed annual increases.
2. It offers the best health benefits available, generously subsidized. (small co-pay)
3. It offers luxurious pension benefits, generously subsidized (long service gets near salary for life)
4. It offers opportunities for free vacations anywhere in the world, usually more than once/yr.
5. It offers the opportunity to be reelected 'forever' (99%+ in the 2004 election).
6. It offers the opportunity to work (or not work) without supervision.
7. It provides a staff/budget to do the ‘work’, e.g. meet constituents, write/read(or not) bills, help reelection, etc.
8. It provides the opportunity to wield ‘power’ (most important for the many ego-driven)
9. It provides the option to hire family members at generous salaries.
10. It provides opportunities for the less scrupulous to become truly wealthy.

I believe this list leaves very little room for an incumbent to nobly claim he is being a ‘public servant’. Don't you think this list alone more than justifies a Congressional Term Limits Amendment ? I certainly do!

I'm Nelson Lee Walker, and I'm gonna keep pluggin' for Congressional Term Limits. Please join me.
tenurecorrupts.com Comment

051214 CONGRESS CONSPICUOUSLY QUIET ON TERM LIMITS
by Bill Shipp

Listen to what former dentist John Linder once said. From the day he was elected, the Georgia congressman, whose district includes much of Gwinnett County, correctly diagnosed one of our constitutional democracy's growing ills.

"Congress is overwhelmingly controlled by a small group of people who are insulated from political damage. If we had term limits, which I support, they wouldn't have such a vested interest in staying there the rest of their life. They would start thinking about some of the things that they have passed that they are going to have to live under when they leave in 12 years. It would be one of the most opening-up things we could do to put forth fresh air and fresh ideas."

Linder delivered the above declaration early in 1993 shortly after he was sworn in to his first term as a Georgia congressman. A few weeks earlier, he told the USA Today newspaper, "I will come home after 12 years."

Now the consummate Washington insider, Linder is completing his seventh term in the House and preparing to run next year for an eighth term (16 yrs!). He doesn't discuss term limits now. Such talk seems so nineties-ish. Term limits were a big item on House Speaker Newt Gingrich's Contract with America in 1994. GOP strategists once promoted term limits as a solid reform measure that would help push Democrats out of control of Congress. However, discussion of term limits disappeared from the Washington scene about the time Gingrich did.

Linder was not alone in the Georgia delegation in promising to serve six terms and then retire. Rep. Mac Collins of Hampton went Linder one better. After his election in 1992, Collins declared, "I have co-sponsored legislation setting a 12-year limit on congressional terms. I will limit my own tenure to three terms." Collins stayed six terms in the House, ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 2004 and now plans to seek re-election to the House next year. By the way, his term-limits legislation never got off the ground.

Rep. Charlie Norwood of Augusta made a similar pledge to leave Washington after six terms. "I am not looking for a career or new home in Washington," he said shortly before his election in 1994. Rep. Jack Kingston of Savannah publicly favored term limits. So did Rep. Nathan Deal of Gainesville, even before he switched from Democrat to Republican.

Our GOP lawmakers, several of them swept into office by Newt's revolution, must have had good reason for breaking their term-limit promises. Perhaps it was this: When the newcomers arrived in Washington, they were delighted to discover that a seat in Congress may be the securest occupation in America. And it's getting more secure by the day. More than 90 percent of House incumbents are re-elected in each election cycle. Barely a handful of congressional districts are actually contested every two years. In Georgia, only two of 13 districts - Democrat Jim Marshall's 3rd District and Democrat John Barrow's 12th District - will be in serious play in the 2006 election. Collins is hoping to oust Marshall to return to Washington. Former GOP Rep. Max Burns plans to resume his House career at the expense of Barrow.

Yet, if national polls are even close to accurate, Americans view Congress with a disdain that borders on downright dislike. President Bush must feel better about his slipping popularity whenever he scans Congress' numbers. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll reported last week that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Congress, and a mere 31 percent believe the House and Senate are doing a good job. Unless those dismal figures change quickly, members of Congress should not even venture outdoors without a reliable guard dog.

So why are Americans so disparaging of their elected reps?

Could it be the pervasive aura of corruption that has enveloped the House and Senate? Consider the recent record: Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleads guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay faces indictment on money laundering charges. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is under investigation for insider trading. "Casino" Jack Abramoff, king of the congressional lobbyists, is fending off charges and investigations regarding millions - if not billions - spent on lobbying House members.

In addition, compelling evidence suggests that many career congressmen have simply lost touch with the folks back home. Example: The House and Senate enacted a "prescription drug benefit" plan for the elderly that was so complex that few understood it. When Medicare recipients complained, congressional staffers advised perplexed old folks to seek guidance on the Internet. However, 85 percent of Medicare recipients have never used the Internet and 25 percent suffer cognitive problems. Does Congress care? Apparently not. The lawmakers gave the pharmaceutical industry what it wanted and moved on to other items.

Remember this: Members of Congress don't have to bother personally with Medicare or Social Security or any of that other little-people stuff. They have their own posh package of benefits, which may explain in part why term-limits talk is so passe in Washington. President Bush's popularity bobs up and down, depending on the day's headlines. Congress' trend lines keep going down, down, down with only an occasional uptick.

Congress' popularity has deteriorated so dramatically that one wonders if another housecleaning, similar to the mid-1990's revolt, is in the works, no matter how hard our lawmakers tried to rig redistricting to avoid involuntary term limits.

Syndicated columnist Bill Shipp writes on Georgia politics. Write him at P.O. Box 440755, Kennesaw, GA 30160, or e-mail bshipp@bellsouth.net. His Web site is www.billshipp.com.

051231 CLOSE RACE STRATEGY

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 :

TERM LIMIT CONGRESS
NEVER REELECT THEM

Nelson Lee Walker of tenurecorrupts.com Comment