Last week I turned on CSpan. I planned to watch the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the FISA Amendments Act of 2007, which contained the issue of telecom company immunity.
On my TV appeared the usual suspects - current Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT), former Committee Chair and current ranking member Arlen Specter (R-PA), and former two time Committee Chair Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Their faces were all too familiar, and their seats were all too owned.
Between Leahy, who took office in 1974, Hatch, who took office in 1976, and Specter, who took office in 1980, and who's served on the Judiciary Committee since day one, I was staring at a cumulative 91 years on the job.
Damn that's a lot of years! - 33 for Leahy, 31 for Hatch, and 27 for Specter.
Observing the behaviors of Hatch and Specter - Specter to be sure - their veneers of self-importance were customarily there.
But Leahy, I must disclose, is a great favorite of mine. I developed a deep affection toward him for the way he supported young American human rights activist Marla Ruzicka's independent work in Afghanistan and Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marla_Ruzicka
When Marla was killed in Iraq on April 16, 2005 at just 29 years of age, Leahy was deeply affected. He delivered an impassioned speech in her honor on the Senate floor - as did Senator Boxer. Needless to say, I'm a huge fan of the good Senator Leahy. (Scroll down for Leahy's and others' tributes to Marla - double click on the videos to view them on youtube): http://www.uykucu.org/searchpage/marla-ruzicka/1.aspx
Being a fan of Senators Leahy, Boxer, Kennedy, Feingold and Dodd, and Representatives Kucinich, Woolsey, Waters and Barbara Lee, I understand that considering term limits for the Senate and House would limit the years of service for great public servants like these, just as it would for those of lesser distinction. In fact, should the maximum twelve years in office that I'm proposing be retroactive, only Barbara Lee would remain, since the others have served more than twelve years.
But they are patriots! And what I've come to understand about patriots from the legions of non-electeds who work tirelessly for causes every day, is that they needn't hold elected office to successfully serve their nation. In fact, the hardest workers for America and for the planet that I know don't hold public office at all, and frequently work for free. It's their love of nation, the Constitution, and humanity that drives them. Not personal wealth, power and prestige.
Yet it would surely be nice to see some non-elected patriots, who have volunteered countless hours on behalf of their nation, who've studied the machinations of the political system, and mastered the laws set forth by the Constitution, be elected to replace those who term out. In exchange, those who term out would have the same opportunity to serve their nation and their planet outside of office, with the advantage of greater leverage.
Paid lobbying is NOT an option!
Odd to think I would take up the same cause that Newt Gingrich launched twelve years ago. But with an ineffectual Legislative Branch, led by ineffectual leaders on both sides of the aisle, there seems to be no other way to clean House(s). Yes, there is THE VOTE. But due to ear-mark awards and familiarity with incumbents, constituents usually favor their prior-electeds and are reluctant to vote them out. Some even view it as a breach of loyalty. Others just don't know any better. The more astute constituents who scrutinize electeds' voting records, and monitor their donors, aren't quite as willing to keep voting them in.
In 1995, in keeping with his Contract With America, then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich brought forth a House vote for a Constitutional Amendment (H.J. Res 73 - 104th Congress) that would restrict members of the U.S. Congress to a maximum of twelve years in office. http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/text/hjr73.txt
The Amendment lost by a 227 - 204 vote (189 Republicans and 38 Democrats voted for the Amendment, while 40 Republicans, 163 Democrats and 1 Independent voted against it). A two-thirds majority is required to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Here are the recorded results, by member, of the votes for H.J. Res 73 of the 104th Congress: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll277.xml
As of now, there are at least 25 members of the Senate and House who have served 30 or more years in office - which is NOT what the Founders divined.
Term limits have always been controversial. Opponents fear they'd bring in less capable legislators. Some fear they'd increase the influence of lobbyists. Others fear the loss of legislative seniority and beloved leaders they don't want to see go.
Linda Milazzo is a Los Angeles based writer, educator and activist. Since 1974, she has divided her time between the entertainment industry, government organizations & community development projects and educational programs.
Linda began her writing career over 30 years ago, starting out in advertising and promotions. From 1976 to 1989, she operated an independent public relations service providing specialty writing for individual and corporate clients. For the past six years, Linda has focused on political writing. Her essays, letters and commentaries have appeared in domestic and international journals, newspapers, magazines and on dozens of respected news and opinion websites. She's an educator and creator of a writers' program she's taught privately and in public schools. She currently facilitates an advocacy writing workshop and is developing an advocacy writing program to be implemented in public and private educational institutions and in community based organizations.
A political and social activist since the Vietnam War, Linda attributes her revitalized-fully-engaged-intense-head-on-non-stop-political activism to the UNFORTUNATE EXISTENCE OF GEORGE W. BUSH and her disgust with greed-ridden American imperialism, environmental atrocities, egregious war, nuclear proliferation, lying leaders, and global tyranny!
I agree on term limits. However may I propose a better solution. No elected official may succeed themself in the same elected office. Thus if somebody has done a good job in the house then they should have a chance of coming back in two years and serving again. However even the President needs to be held to this. Perhaps it will lead to a three or more term President but always with a period out of power. Always new blood and new ideas coming in and perhaps even listening to We the People.
by
Robert N Smith (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 112 comments)
on Sunday, November 25, 2007 at 9:48:14 AM
The operative assumption of the term limits movement is that there's a shortage of hacks and whores willing to crawl into an opening to feed at the trough. As long as money remains the dominant influence in elections you're at least as likely to remove an irreplacable legistator by term limits as you are to bring a good one in.
The real solution is publicly-funded elections. Term limits only diverts attention and energy from that solution.
by
Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 80 comments)
on Sunday, November 25, 2007 at 12:01:17 PM
This is one of the dumbest ideas i have heard in a lon g time.How dumb is it,at least ms. milazzo said it was a Republican sponsered idea.When you run for office it takes millions of dollars now adays.Who will have the millions of dollars to buy support,if you said Republicans,your right.Who will the rich give to,if you said Republicans your right.Money buys politicians if you want to attack the influence of the rich severely limit the amount an individual or corporation can give,Without this you can still limit all you want and Republicans will still buy the influence they want and nothin big changes except the Republicans gain the advantagve because a new peoples candidate won"t be able to afford to run,that is the idea of term limits.
by
liberalsrock (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 117 comments)
on Sunday, November 25, 2007 at 12:34:52 PM
at this time, the Democrats have more money than the republicans in congress. And it looks like that difference will hold up. Also, corporations are currently giving more to dems than to republicans. Of course, this also supports your suggestion that the money be taken out of elections.
by
Rob Kall (808 articles, 3921 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1703 comments)
on Sunday, November 25, 2007 at 9:34:50 PM
Congress is not likely to introduce a Constitutional Amendment to term-limit themselves in large part because being in Congress has become a career. It is not clear that the founders intended this to happen or that it is a good idea, but before we make changes and put term limits into place we should think clearly about this issue.
The advantage of having professional legislators is that like any job, one becomes good at it only through experience. From this point of view, limiting Senators or Representatives to one or two terms would mean that we would lose people just as they are becoming effective.
On the other hand, keeping a people in office for long periods of time leads to what we now have - a Congress that has lost touch with the people they are supposed to represent. Without effective campaign finance reform it also means that they spend their time in office raising funds for the next election rather than tending to the peoples business.
Perhaps a compromise would be to limit terms, but make a core of staff positions permanent. In this way, some mature expertise would remain within a congressman's staff while the final decisions would be made by citizen-politicians rather than career-politicians.
by
PrMaine (10 articles, 8 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 329 comments)
on Sunday, November 25, 2007 at 1:51:56 PM
I'd considered the idea of keeping staff on board who understood the machinations of Congress rather than "terming them out" with the electeds. I think that's a great way to keep staff more dedicated to the business of government than to their partisan bosses.
I should have included this in my piece. In the research I did for this article, one glaring constant was the need for expert staff to remain on board to handle the "business" of Congress, and keep the new electeds in the know on the workings of their Houses. Of course, some would call them lifetime bureaucrats. But for those dissenters - they should remember that lifetime bureaucrats have been our most valuable resources in blowing the whistle on crimes and misdoings in government - which is why they are feared and mistreated by electeds, rather than respected and appreciated for their expertise. Consider Richard Clark, for one. I happen to believe in the value of dedicated employees above partisans electeds.
What's becoming even more clear as I monitor this discussion across several sites, is the overwhelming consensus amongst commentors that "clean money" and campaign finance reform are the essentials to maintaining our Democracy.
Thanks for your observation - which is supported by logic and empirical data.
Linda
by
Linda Milazzo (110 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 142 comments)
on Sunday, November 25, 2007 at 2:22:43 PM
Tell me any industry or vocation in which , as one gains seniority, experience and the in depth knowledge necesary to do an exemplary job, one is banned from continuing in that job. Absurd really.
Are there serious problems within our government, of course there are, is there a necesity for making dramatic changes, again a resounding yes. But promoting such an absurdity as term limits is, in my own opinion a waste of time and energy that would be much better focussed elsewhere.
I believe that the American voter will never get behind such a flawed idea frankly. It is not an entrenched politician that is the problem, and the suggestion above that we keep the bureaucracy while cutting off the head of the mechanism makes me laugh. Does anyone here not understand the problem with our bloated bureaucracy in government?
We need to make far more intelligent choices when we vote, we need a system of campaigning that makes politicians responsible to the will of the people not to the desires of the corporations. We do not need a revolving door of politicians who , understanding that the best they can hope for is a twelve year cycle, seek to ensure a life after the Senate by pandering even more to the wealthiest among us who can ensure their continuation in a life of ease and comfort.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 7:17:22 AM
on the issue of term limits, even for the presidency. George Washington could easily have been reelected for as long as he lived, but had the good sense to set a precedent. FDR was so controversial and served so many consecutive terms (4) that election laws were changed.
Who really thinks that we got better presidents because of this?
I have always been angry that we are unable to save forests because they are worth saving--and thus bring into the argument the snail-darter. The same goes for term limits--it's disingenuous to use limits to punish dereliction in office.
Punish the offenses when and where they occur.
If Massachusetts chooses to send Teddy Kennedy back and back and back, who are we to say they must be stopped?
by
Jim Freeman (108 articles, 51 quicklinks, 221 diaries, 382 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 7:47:40 AM
So how do you propose getting a Legislative Branch in place that continues to relate to the NEEDS of the people? Do you realize how much a bubble Washington, DC is and how divorced many long termers become from real issues after long periods of service?
What are your proposals to solve this? I'd like to hear. More people on the streets protesting? People aren't showing up in the numbers we need. A few are putting their freedom on the line while the major number dissent from the safety of their computer screens at home.
Getting new candidates to run against them? Of course we need legislation to pass clean money and campaign finance reforms. They haven't been put in place yet - but money is a central issue.
Please... how do you suggest getting these long timers to respond and override their own egos and internal polarization?
by
Linda Milazzo (110 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 142 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 8:54:35 AM
if one first understands the problem. We see a nation run by those with the money, money that not only buys politicians but buys elections as well. I believe that term limits actually makes it easier to continue this process rather than eliminate it.
Rather than focus on limiting the terms of our elected politicos perhaps we need to focus upon returning elections to sanity and clarity. Currently the power of money decides who wins or loses rather than voters deciding on the merits of the messages and platforms. Many democratic nations manage to run election cycles in a short period of time, France takes exactly five weeks to elect a leader. The only reason to have a lengthy cycle is to maximise the need for money and thus maximise the need for the candidates to sell their souls to those who supply that money.
If I were the "decider" I would make the media run free ads for all candidates who got the necesary signatures to qualify for such ( to be determined, perhaps on a state by state basis). That includes TV, Radio and print media as well. I would hold a series of debates, perhaps four at most, run by unbiased moderators, not Fox News propagandists. The whole damn thing could be over in about two months. No need for a hundred million dollars with strings attached.....
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 12:09:44 PM
All great points... although France, out of fear of losing their purity with the "infiltration" of Muslims, has elected a Bush clone for President and a Foreign Affairs minister who is completely insane. He makes Ahmadinijad seem tame in his rhetoric.
How do we pressure the dinosaurs to return to being "of the people and for the people"? Or do we put up with them until they retire - or expire??
Great conversation - THANKS!!
by
Linda Milazzo (110 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 142 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 1:27:15 PM
I can only offer my own poor effort here. If we all understand that supporting the Democratic Party is no different, excepting for some small nuances, than support for the GOP we have made a good beginning.
If we further decide that this place we now find ourselves was many decades in the making and will be many more in the solution we have taken another good step.
If we agree that it is the power of the money in politics that has brought the wrong decision makers to the fore then we must, perforce, seek to elect those who have pledged to refuse all corporate contributions and are not beholden to those corporate influences in other ways (sorry John Edwards you were this close ) ways like being wedded to a system that has long betrayed us all.
The Green Party is pledged to refuse all support by corporate powers, as is the Populist Party as well, and perhaps a few others Ive omitted. The criticism that always crops up about the Greens and other third party choices is that they cannot win, to which I say so what? Is winning the ultimate arbiter of casting ones ballot or do you make an intelligent choice based upon what the candidate stands for and will attempt to do if elected, I do.
I said that the solution will take time and this is exactly what I meant. As more and more of us become so fed up with the Duopoly currently hogging the halls of power and turning a deaf ear to the needs of the people they will turn in increasing numbers to third party choices forcing two important changes to occur.
Firstly the thrid party candidates will begin to appear on the national scene , gaining office and the ears of the electorate. Secondly the Democratic Party will note the loss of so many voters and this might force them to throw out the neoconservative leadership that has betrayed that party and its membership for far too long.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at 7:05:12 AM
I am amazed. In the late eighties with Tom Delay and Newt, all the talk was to get term limits. The Republicans felt that was the only way to get rid of Jim Wrigt and Ted Kennedy with Democrats controlling both House and Senate. Many of the Republicans were able to use that as a major election issue, but as soon as the Republicans came into power it was never mentioned again.
Now, twenty years later after a LONG Republican rule with the Democrats on the verge of taking over all three branches of government, here comes the term limit issue again.
Sorry, the next twenty years will be to return power to labor unions, shoring up Social Security, making sure there is an effective graduated income tax, taking profit out of the health care industry with universal health care, making college education very affordable, killing corporate welfare and revamping the whole penal system while mainting a strong but reasonable military. These are Progressive Demcrat issues which stand in opposition to Libertarian and Republican goals.
The corporations and weatlhy have had their run, now we go back to what we are about as a nation.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 9:58:38 AM
I agree with everything you say. We share the same goals. But remember that the long time dinosaurs in power don't seem willing to listen - or leave - except apparently Trent Lott and Denny Hastert - to likely become lobbyists.
Lobbying and lobbyists are a huge issue - as is campaign finance reform.
I want the folks in Washington to understand how deeply unhappy we are with them - that we're considering all options. I expected heat from this article. I want the conversation.
And, btw... I do hit the streets for our causes. ACTIVELY AND OFTEN!! I believe in participating in my democracy. Writing about it isn't enough for me.
by
Linda Milazzo (110 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 142 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 11:47:01 AM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
