You know: Person, woman, man, camera, TV. I still don’t know what that meant.
How about the ability to have a recall that gets voted on at the next general election. It’d at least reduce the six-year wait if someone is totally out of it but refuses to step down.
I don’t think there should be a mandatory retirement age for folks in government but there should absolutely be more of a culture of retiring from politics. Shit, when I’m in my 70s or 80s I sure as hell hope I’m not still doing the same work I’ve been doing for the last 50 years. There’s nothing so important that elder politicians like Mitch McConnell or Diane Feinstein or any of the other 70+ year olds in Washington have to sacrifice their remaining time on this earth to sitting in congress. Dying in office should be seen as a tragedy, not a triumph. Go home and enjoy the fruits of your long labor and leave running the country to the feisty young 60 year olds.
I agree. But given the current Senate rules, I Feinstein really can’t step down because Mitch won’t allow Shumer to fill her seat on the Judiciary Committee. I’m not certain that’s her motive, but it’s the only valid one I’ve heard.
It’s the power, the obsequious aides, lavishing lobbyists, the fawning partisans, the attentive press hanging on your every word. Why would you give that up?
Monies are great, those “excess” contributions going into your pocket sure add up. First class travel, accomodations, gyms, golf courses, dining. If you’re in a safe district/state; it’s all gravy.
The old ones would die within six months of retirement - deprivation of oxygen (see above).
Yeah, the perks of being a senator are awesome. I’m not surprised they don’t want to give them up.
Because of the ever-increasing chance that you’re going to stroke out and die in front of a live television audience?
Its McConnells all the way down.
Some politicians will do anything for attention.
I’m sure for many people this kind of episode would be a point at which they’d realize they don’t have much time left, and they’d take stock of it all, what really matters in this life, and what their legacy has been.
And for McConnell, that kind of self-reflection is about the worst thing anyone could wish on him.
He is so passionate, always flinging arms about, fidgeting,etc. No doubt that keeps the blood pumping up to his brain.
ISTM these people WANT to remain where they are and not enjoy retirement.
It’s about power. A helluva drug. They will not willingly give it up. We have seen it over and over and over again in government.
More reason for term limits and/or mandatory retirement ages.
I don’t think someone should be allowed to run for Senate before they’re even allowed to drink. And heaven forbid that being a U.S. Senator is actually their first real job!
Term limits increase corruption and reduce quality of government.
For age limits, I assume the argument against them uses the same logic as giving small states more power federally: to keep young(ish) senators from advancing “put old people on ice floes and give all Social Security money to college students” bills. Not sure what I think about that, but I am sympathetic to the “the term limit is whatever the voters want it to be” line of thinking.
I’d say 25 is a good minimum. That’s the age where brain development is complete. There’s a reason that car rental places won’t rent out to anyone younger than that.
I can’t think of a good, objective maximum, but I’m in favor of one in principle.
Why? (really asking)
Because the limits force out qualified office holders who have developed independence politically. It automatically makes office holders lame ducks with no reason to seek voter approval.
On top of structural issues, removing the choice of voters is an anti-democratic solution to a problem. That is the type of approach the Republicans have already used to degrade the process to the point where we find a senile senator to have great impact. Doddering fools in the Senate are nothing new. If they make a critical difference individually then it’s a reason to change the rules of the body, not limit the choice of the voter.
Let me start with an analogy. Say you got a notice from your bank, “We’re preparing to implement brand-new internet banking software. Controlling your accounts from wherever you are will be easier than ever!”
Then they go on to add, “To save money on this project, we’ve let half our staff of software engineers go, and hired some new ones fresh out of college. They’ll be writing our new implementation. Look forward to the launch in six weeks!”
Would that instill a lot of confidence?
Legislating is like any other job–it takes a while to become competent in the role. A brand-new legislator may know law from the perspective of a lawyer, but that doesn’t mean they know how to write it. Legalese is like a programming language; it doesn’t correspond directly to spoken or written English, and it has a whole bunch of weird, fiddly things that have to be addressed, because with hundreds of millions of users, someone will stumble across all the bugs and unaccounted-for use cases. Novice legislators don’t have the institutional knowledge that says, “We always put a Clause X in bills like this, because they have blown up in our faces in the past when we didn’t.” They also don’t have the familiarity with the structures of government around them to immediately know who to ask about what, which throws more sand in the gears as they try to figure it out (or ask the wrong people, or just give up and wait for someone else to do it).
These factors not only increase the chance that novices will simply make buggy law, they contribute to novices being much more vulnerable to lobbyists who bring them a whole package. “Don’t worry, we’ve done all that research for you. Just back this bill, and it’ll be okay.” (Not to say that many “experienced” legislators don’t opt for that easy path, especially if the proposed bill is delivered in an envelope that another sort of bills happened to fall into, but novices may literally not have any idea what else to do.) The shorter the term limits you impose, the higher proportion of novices you have making laws, and the more of this sort of trouble they’re likely to get into.
Of course, we also have the inverse of this problem–fossilized legislators who have consolidated too much power in Washington and in their home districts, who use their power corruptly and do a lot of harm. Since sheer self-interest makes the other legislators very reluctant to get together and discipline the bad actors, our only current remedy is to try to get them voted out. Term limits would remove these problematic legislators, but they would also cull experienced hands who can teach incoming novices the ropes.
In pragmatic terms, some kind of term limits would probably improve the situation. The problem is balancing them. Too short, and you end up with a disastrously naïve Congress. Too long, and you end up back where we are now, only we’ve handed the experienced ones a new toy to weaponize against their rivals. And since it would require a Constitutional amendment to implement term limits, changing the duration would be extremely difficult if we guess wrong.
The legislative agenda already comes prepackaged. State legislatures have “model” laws and initiatives ready made by (and for) lobbyists. The Federal bills are littered with “cut outs”, loopholes, pork projects injected by special interests.
I’ll agree that some novices will be overwhelmed, others may still be principled and hold out (for a couple of terms anyway).
That cuts both ways. No longer having to seek voter (or donor) approval could mean you’re free to act on your principles.
The idea of term limits rubs me the wrong way, because it requires getting rid of people who have experience and have proven they can do a good job. Imagine telling a valued employee, “We love the work you’re doing for us, and you really know the job, but we’re going to have to let you go because you’ve been here 12 years.”
Are there other ways of addressing the problems that term limits are meant to solve, like somehow reducing the political advantages of seniority and incumbency?