One of the principal areas of activity stifling our country’s overall vigor is the ever expanding federal government and its leviathan of regulatory bureaucracy, (i.e. EPA) of which the restriction of energy development is a prime example of how our creeping loss of liberty is a drag on American progress.

The chief villain in this story is the US Congress, which creates and empowers the stifling bureaucracies, and which has long since been corrupted into two chambers of sinecures, where the principal occupation of its members is to guarantee perpetual reelection and lifelong tenure, the well-being of the country be damned.

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation's responsibility to determine how he votes.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

O'neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.

REPLACE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it's because they want them in Lebanon.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

This article was taken from the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper
Comment

080316     A REVOLUTION TO TAKE BACK THE US CONGRESS (text)
                       by Nelson Lee Walker of tenurecorrupts.com

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 for voters to 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.) .

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 Comment

Public opinion of the United States Congress appears to be near an all-time low, with less than 20 percent approval rating.
Voter participation at all levels continues to decline, doubtless caused by failure on the part of legislators to come up with meaningful solutions to long-existing problems.
Our government appears to operate on the philosophy that preparation for possible impending calamities is unnecessary. Examples: Long-standing failure to repair levees before Katrina; virtually ignoring the first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center.
I am in no way inferring that the fault lies entirely with either of the two major parties.

Here is a partial list of unaddressed issues:
1. The ever-increasing national debt. This now amounts to trillions of dollars, the total probably unknown by anyone.
2. The energy crisis dating back to the early ’70s. The current solution is ethanol, which costs about as much in energy to produce as it delivers.
3. The impending bankruptcy of the social security system. So-called trust funds have been virtually stolen, transferred to the general fund and then frittered away.
4. Global warming. What if those who insist that we, the people in no way contribute to this phenomenon are wrong? Then what? The damage will have been done and cannot be rectified.
5. The rising cost of health care and cost of medications completely out of line with the cost of inflation and a Medicare system on the verge of going broke.
6. Congress’s apparent out-of-control spending. Earmarks, for example, now cost $40 billion annually, with no real oversight.
7. The farm subsidy, which dates back to the 1930s and was designed to help struggling farmers. This complicated law now primarily pours more than $40 billion per year into the coffers of largely huge farm combines, not the small farmers whose ranks continue to decrease.
8. The proliferation of registered lobbyists in Washington. There are more than 250 per each legislator. They are putting billions into the hands of our elected officials, from whom they expect preferential treatment.
9. Disintegrating infrastructure. The collapse of a major bridge 40 years ago (the “Silver Bridge” in West Virginia in 1967, killing 46) should have been a warning. Much of the federal gasoline tax is being spent on anything but road and bridge repairs. Proposed solution: More taxes.
10. The United Nations. This organization has proven to be an almost complete failure. We pick up 25 percent of the annual tab to run this travesty, with little to show for it.
11. Immigration. Why not observe the laws already in place? What is there about the definition of the word “illegal” that so many politicians and business owners don’t seem to comprehend?
12. Education. Apparently there seems to be a dumbing down of the system at the expense of the mentally gifted. Other countries encourage these students. We don’t, and the U.S. is falling far behind in an area which we once dominated.
13. Foreign aid. Several billion dollars annually is given to countries, about 80 percent of whom regularly vote against the U.S. on proposed U.N. resolutions and oppose our every move in most every other area.
14. Terrorism. This didn’t start on 9/11. A major attack occurred in 1983, when 241 American servicemen lost their lives to terrorists as a result of the bombing of their barracks in Beirut. Anyone who thinks this problem is going away should do a little research.
15. A legislative body which seems to have lost its moral compass. Little or no attempt is being made to control unethical behavior. Witness convicted felons still drawing sizeable pensions.
16. Absolutely no cap on campaign spending. The average House member must raise $500,000 (about $700 per day) and a senator $5 million (about $2,000 per day). When is there ever time to legislate? A large staff paid by us taxpayers does help.
17. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, there is a gradual but unmistakable elimination of GOD from our Judeo-Christian culture. With 80 percent or more of our citizens expressing a belief in God, why do our lawmakers seem to be at odds with us on this issue?

There is an understandable desire on the part of many congressmen to stay in office as long as possible. The perks, amenities and retirement benefits are numerous, and generally superior to those offered in the private sector. Is there any wonder that they seek re-election time after time?
Seniority, regardless of ability, rules in both houses. As it stands now, a newcomer has little or no chance of getting the funds to send home — which always helps in a re-election bid or drawing a favorable committee assignment — without going along with entrenched leaders’ desires. Committee chairmanships automatically go to those who have been in office the longest.
And where do the bulk of campaign funds come from? Not from your average $100 contributor.
Enter the lobbyists with their unlimited PAC funds, which somehow manage to end up in the hands of legislators who just might pass legislation favorable to their wishes.
So, what can be done to change things for the better?

I offer one overriding solution: TERM LIMITATION.

We have many of the same problems today that have been with us for decades, with much being promised and not much being done.
Many legislators were in Congress then and they are still there now, and still assuring us that the solutions are momentary.
With members constantly being replaced, new ideas and new concepts could be introduced. Obviously, what we have now isn’t working. It is past time to try a new approach.
If a member knew that he would only be in office for a set length of time (perhaps eight years), very likely he could spend more time legislating instead of soliciting funds to run another re-election campaign.
Ability rather than longevity could be exercised.
Surely, if the president and many governors are restricted to eight years in office, is there any reason to believe that members of Congress should stay any longer?

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's true, but that's an oversimplification. Rather, what we are seeing is 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’.

For example, and the following applies to both sides of the aisle :

•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 career 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 legislative offices are already term limited. Why not Congress ???

Nelson Lee Walker
tenurecorrupts.com Comment

The intent of this writing is to address the overall decay of the legislative branch of our government. Their decline is one devoid of values, personal conviction and absent a moral compass. Today, the American electorate no longer bases their choice for representation on qualifications, rather on which candidate did a better job of trashing his or her respective opponent.

PR is king, BS is norm, IQ is nonessential.

It is with great interest that I evaluate the actions of some conservative journalists, for whom to this point I have held in high regard and many Republican members of Congress, for whom I also had the greatest respect. Watching many in those ranks now jumping ship, “eating their own” if you will, in the face of the latest political scandal, has caused serious re-evaluation of my previous regard.

Enter the debacle of “former” Congressman Mark Foley. Congressman Foley resigned abruptly after an “overly friendly email” was made public between himself and a sixteen year old male Congressional Page. I don’t know where to draw the line on Mr. Foley’s conduct, as I witness the faux outrage from the same politicians who now excoriate the ex-Congressman, and yet fight ferociously for policies such as partial birth abortion.

Mr. Foley’s actions were an egregious breach of ethical, personal and moral conduct. Partial birth abortion is a heinous act, bordering, if not crossing the line between a medical practice and murder.

Two forces now shape the face of Congress, issues and scandal. Scandal now outranks the issues by serious orders of magnitude. Even more damning is the fact that it appears that the American people are more influenced by a juicy scandal than the qualifications to perform the duties required of elected office.

As I write, North Korea has stated that it is preparing for a nuclear test; European diplomats have declared that they have made no progress in ending Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the whole of radical Islam anticipates the collapse of our resolve. All our politicians and media can focus on however is the deviant conduct of one member of Congress.

Heaven help us if we ever have to call upon our elected body to react to actions greater than finger pointing.

To belabor the past or present ethical transgressions of politicians, many of whom still remain in either the Senate or Congress, would be both counter productive and redundant. The point is, some whose transgressions outweigh those of former Congressman Foley, continue to retain elected office and are among those now excoriating him. They long ago shattered the house of glass as it were and now throw stones with impunity.

As a rule, it would seem Congress is not motivated to perform any action that is in anyway controversial or may harm their chances for re-election. Retaining office is the prime directive in twenty first century Washington. This instinct for self-preservation has turned the body elected to implement the people’s business into a cesspool of self-serving opportunists.

Today, members of Congress are nothing more than actors, waxing appropriate for the immediate circumstance. Any true element of conviction and motivation among members of Congress is rare to non-existent. The current drama being performed by these mostly bad actors is a pathetic performance of pandering. The only thing more repugnant are the cheers they receive from an ill-informed audience.

What to expect however, from an electorate that believes the posters and marquis displayed by a partisan media. With such a potent PR team, Congress is beholden only to its marketing department. The result is an America that no longer thinks for itself, it gullibly accepts the news, broadcast, print and cable as gospel.

The truth is, we, the American people really don’t have a clue as to the truth behind the actions of Congress. Knowing that they are fully insulated from their constituents, Congress has decayed into a corrupt society. It is high time that the “grassroots” became the lawnmower!

Email: danabbett1@charter.net comment

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 the last two elections, Congressional incumbents won reelection at a 99% rate. Before 50 years ago, that rate was about 50-60%. Do you really believe that 99% of incumbents deserved reelection ? In two successive 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 !

Nelson Lee Walker Comment

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 a great many city councils and mayors.

WHY NOT CONGRESS?!!!

Nelson Lee Walker
tenurecorrupts.com Comment

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?

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!

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

I am sure this feasible software-wise. Why doesn’t some truly independent organization take this idea and run with it?

Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
tenurecorrupts.com Comment

Recently, there have been some articles which say that Congressional term limits would be best if they were set up as only one term in office, as compared to 3 or 4 terms for the House and 2 for the Senate. The authors make some very good points that should be discussed.

When I started my own campaign for the enactment of Congressional Term Limits and compared the several ways that a term limits amendment might be worded (tenurecorrupts.com/amendments), and considered the difficulty of getting ANY term limits thru the Congress, I intended to focus on ways that would succeed in getting it thru. I came to the conclusion that a ‘Grandfather Version’ would most likely have the best chance of getting passed by a very reluctant set of careerist, professional politicians who would be hanging on to their jobs as tho’ their lives depended on it. In addition, I believe that an amendment which departs only slightly from historical practice would be more acceptable to voters (e.g. 3 terms for the House and 2 for the Senate, is closer to ‘tradition’ than only one term for either). I have been pushing that idea for a year now.

In the meantime, more people are perceiving that the fundamental problem with professional politicians is their 'lust for reelection'. That is, directly upon winning office, they immediately start campaigning for reelection, which then colors all their efforts from then on out. In other words, reelection becomes their first priority, instead of what would be best for the country, and/or their constituents. The rewards of office have become so substantial, that holding on to the office is all that counts, good government be damned! (See “Follow the Money!”) This is the single most powerful argument for term limits. Indeed, it is the biggest argument for a limit of ONE term!  Whereas limits of 2, 3, or 4 terms reduces the time politicians will spend on reelection concerns, a limit to one term eliminates any consideration of reelection, leaving them free to be ‘good’ officeholders, more responsive to the electorate. (However, to be realistic, we should not be blind to a human tendency to cultivate special connections toward post-incumbency jobs).

Thus, it becomes obvious that any plan which considers limited multiple terms, is only a partial solution to the problem of ‘lust for reelection’, which is the gorilla in the room. In fact, I suddenly realize that the ‘Grandfather Version’, which “exempts incumbents as long as they are successfully reelected”, would sharply intensify every current incumbent’s efforts to hold on to his seat, to the point of creating lots of serious criminal activity on their part (and I ain’t kidding!).

On the other hand, I see problems with some of the single term plans. For one thing, running for Congressional office is a tough job, and if the office is limited to only 3 ,4, or even 6 years, it would reduce to some degree, the number of ordinary citizens willing to run. It’s difficult to say how serious a factor that is. (see 3 Term-1Term Congress )

Another plan suggests that, in order to make it more attractive to the general middle class citizen to run (as compared to wealthy citizens), we should set the salary to perhaps $1 million/year. (If single terms would end ‘pork’, it would be a bargain!). But would the high salary be like a ‘lottery’, attracting more unprincipled types, like bears to honey? The voters would then have to be especially discerning in their choices, which is not a quality they have shown in the past!

These ideas deserve more study and hard reasoning to sort out their pros and cons. But I would not like to see “the perfect become the enemy of the good”. All in all, I continue to see Congressional Term Limits in any format as being a major net gain toward improved quality of governance for our country.

Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
tenurecorrupts.com comment