Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Let me begin by stating, I'm not a fan of Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11 ... work-time/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gov. Bobby Jindal says the United States would be better off if members of Congress spent less time in Washington.

In an interview this week with Human Events, the Louisiana Republican, a potential 2012 presidential candidate, said U.S. lawmakers should work part-time, be term-limited and not allowed to become lobbyists once they leave Congress.

"When they live under the same rules and laws they passed for the rest of us, maybe you'd see some more common sense coming out of Washington, D.C." he told the conservative publication. "Instead, you got a permanent governing political class."

I'm intriqued by the idea of the part time legislature but I think term limits could adversly effect the legislatures home state AND whatever that congressperson was involved with during thier tenure. What do you all think?

When the measure of Congressional success is the number and size of laws passed, Jindal might be on to something.

Makes for a cheap pop, but not practical. Anyone who's lived in Cali before and after term limits knows that. By the time a legislator gets used and understands to the job, they're termed out and running for some OTHER office. In the mean time, all we get are politicians who tend toward party ideological asymptotes instead of working toward compromise in the middle. The result is legislative gridlock, which in Cali is compounded by the fact that 80 years of the initiative process has left the state with Constitutional fiduciary mandates that tie up the budget process, thereby making it look like said legislators are skating. While THAT won't be a problem in Washington, the OTHER issue is and will get worse under term limits.

The other problem plaguing Cali (which may or may not affect Washington) is the presence of semi-autonomous state boards that people have forgotten about that started out (perhaps) as good ideas but have devolved into nothing more than highly paid sinecures for termed-out politicians. The legislature has historically been able to do NOTHING about these. Well, no more. Cali took a great idea from TX which establishes a nonpartisan commission that regularly reviews such boards for mission accomplishment and efficacy. Those that don't come up to snuff are dissolved. This is called the sunset concept, and it has saved TX BILLIONS over time, and is expected to do the same for Cali.

Don't believe Jindal's cheap pop. Career politicians are REQUIRED for the smooth running of government. It takes time to learn the system well enough to represent your constituents well. We just have to be careful about who they are and dump them when they stray from effective legislating. (Yes, it's time for Cali to dump Pelosi, Boxer, and Feinstein.)

That would be a great first step... but only if the second step would be to run government like a business, which would entail spending only what was taken in and if we had to borrow we had better have a way to pay it back that doesn't incur even more debt.

The people that signed a few documents in 1776 and 1787 didn't have a lot of experience and they seemed to do a pretty good job. I would be in favor a 1 term limit for the senate and the house personally. There should be no such thing as a professional politician, they should work for us, not themselves.

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:The people that signed a few documents in 1776 and 1787 didn't have a lot of experience and they seemed to do a pretty good job. I would be in favor a 1 term limit for the senate and the house personally. There should be no such thing as a professional politician, they should work for us, not themselves.

1 term?! How long is that term? I agree we shouldn't have professional politicians, but we should be realistic.

Ibanez wrote:

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:The people that signed a few documents in 1776 and 1787 didn't have a lot of experience and they seemed to do a pretty good job. I would be in favor a 1 term limit for the senate and the house personally. There should be no such thing as a professional politician, they should work for us, not themselves.

1 term?! How long is that term? I agree we shouldn't have professional politicians, but we should be realistic.

Ya, 1 term is what I would shoot for. Then every vote counts the same and you don't end up with so many deals to get the BS done. If it is worth passing,it should be worth passing. The biggest problem with incumbents as I see it is, people vote for the asshole because they don't want to loose power. With 1 term, everyone is on equal footing to start and they get assigned to committees and leadership positions based up on their qualifications, not because they got elected 15 times and really need to go.

A one term limit would be horrible.

A politician would have no reason to follow through with any promise. He would just say everything necessary to get elected... then vote any way he pleased. Politicians in a democratic republic have to have an election after taking office to ensure accountability.

Skjellyfetti wrote:A one term limit would be horrible.

A politician would have no reason to follow through with any promise. He would just say everything necessary to get elected... then vote any way he pleased. Politicians in a democratic republic have to have an election after taking office to ensure accountability.

What accountability do they have now? Re-electing them? They are never held accountable anymore. The thing is, they should WANT to do a good job instead of try to be re-elected.

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:A one term limit would be horrible.

A politician would have no reason to follow through with any promise. He would just say everything necessary to get elected... then vote any way he pleased. Politicians in a democratic republic have to have an election after taking office to ensure accountability.

What accountability do they have now? Re-electing them? They are never held accountable anymore. The thing is, they should WANT to do a good job instead of try to be re-elected.

The reason they get re elected is that the voters don't care. They don't care about the outcome and they don't pay attention throughout the year.

No. Voters do care and they do pay attention. The people that don't pay attention or care are the ones who don't vote. Voters hate politicians in general. They hate every incumbent except their own. They vote on local issues first and if their politicians bring home the $$$$, they get reelected. It's the way it has worked for hundreds of years. Bobby Jindal ain't gonna change it. It's politics... plain and simple. Politics is one of the easiest things in the world to bitch about. It's not perfect and it never will be... but, our system is the best ever devised.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Voters do care and they do pay attention.

Most are sheep and have no clue what any candidate has done or voted for. If you don't believe me ask some. Every citizen is no longer a statesman like we used to be. Most people can't even name their congressman. I'd like to see a poll and know how many people even know their voting districts. Would be interesting.

Skjellyfetti wrote:our system is the best ever devised.

I agree and one of the best things about it is, we get to make changes to make it better. We need changes made to the system, but the system is getting more and more bogged down with people trying to protect the system instead of fix it.

Another politician saying something that people want to hear......and "sounds good". Let's vote for HIM!!!

Skjellyfetti wrote:No. Voters do care and they do pay attention. The people that don't pay attention or care are the ones who don't vote. Voters hate politicians in general. They hate every incumbent except their own. They vote on local issues first and if their politicians bring home the $$$$, they get reelected. It's the way it has worked for hundreds of years. Bobby Jindal ain't gonna change it. It's politics... plain and simple. Politics is one of the easiest things in the world to bitch about. It's not perfect and it never will be... but, our system is the best ever devised.

I truly think you overestimate the voting populace. Simple numbers will show you how many are eligible to vote, how many actually vote, and a smaller percentage are truly educated about the candidates/issues.

1 term limits or public funding of all federal offices. It's the only way we fix this.

But I do agree with superhornet about asymptotes and sinecures. I think...

Skjellyfetti wrote:A one term limit would be horrible.

A politician would have no reason to follow through with any promise. He would just say everything necessary to get elected... then vote any way he pleased. Politicians in a democratic republic have to have an election after taking office to ensure accountability.

Jesus, you really ARE that naive, aren't you?

Obama said WHATEVER was necessary to get elected, then backtracked on half his promises after being elected. He could give a shit about accountability....he thinks HE alone knows what's right for the country....nevermind in many cases 55-60% of the country disagrees with them.

Was watching "The American President" with Michael Douglas last night and he had a GREAT line: "You don't get reelected telling 59% of Americans that they're wrong".

Obama could learn a thing or two by watching that movie.

Do away with gerrymandered congressional districts and then term limits become moot.

As they exist today, most districts are designed to keep people in office for life if they so desire.

AZGrizFan wrote:
Obama said WHATEVER was necessary to get elected, then backtracked on half his promises after being elected. He could give a **** about accountability....he thinks HE alone knows what's right for the country....nevermind in many cases 55-60% of the country disagrees with them.

Promises kept: 123
Promises broken: 24
Compromise: 40
Stalled: 84
In the works: 232
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AZGrizFan wrote:Was watching "The American President" with Michael Douglas last night and he had a GREAT line: "You don't get reelected telling 59% of Americans that they're wrong".

And that's exactly my point. That's accountability. You don't get that with a one term limit. If you only have one term... just do what you want. Fuck the 59%.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:A one term limit would be horrible.

A politician would have no reason to follow through with any promise. He would just say everything necessary to get elected... then vote any way he pleased. Politicians in a democratic republic have to have an election after taking office to ensure accountability.

Jesus, you really ARE that naive, aren't you?

Obama said WHATEVER was necessary to get elected, then backtracked on half his promises after being elected. He could give a shit about accountability....he thinks HE alone knows what's right for the country....nevermind in many cases 55-60% of the country disagrees with them.

Was watching "The American President" with Michael Douglas last night and he had a GREAT line: "You don't get reelected telling 59% of Americans that they're wrong".

Obama could learn a thing or two by watching that movie.

Ugh... unfortunately (and I really hate it when this happens) but that post is spot on AZ
Telling people what they want to hear works great - and it always has

Republicans = Smaller government
It's never actually happened - not even once... but most people and probably even some liberals even believe that old myth because it's been repeated since Ronald Reagan every single day over and over

It all works... in the regular world we call it lying - in Politics it's called "Politics"

Skjellyfetti wrote:A one term limit would be horrible.

A politician would have no reason to follow through with any promise. He would just say everything necessary to get elected... then vote any way he pleased. ....

And exactly how would the theoretical lack of accountability under a term limited government differ from the current lack of accountaility?

Imagine who we would get rid of with term limits: Chris Dodd, Tom Delay, Barney Frank...

I agree with the critics that there are dangers of term limits, but Stuck-in-Utah and Bobby Jindal have a point.

CID1990 wrote:Do away with gerrymandered congressional districts and then term limits become moot.

As they exist today, most districts are designed to keep people in office for life if they so desire.

Very insightful and on-target, as usual, Cid. But gerrymandering is not going away, so some form of mandatory term limits might be quite useful.

blueballs wrote:That would be a great first step... but only if the second step would be to run government like a business, which would entail spending only what was taken in and if we had to borrow we had better have a way to pay it back that doesn't incur even more debt.

Can we afford more bailouts?

houndawg wrote:

blueballs wrote:That would be a great first step... but only if the second step would be to run government like a business, which would entail spending only what was taken in and if we had to borrow we had better have a way to pay it back that doesn't incur even more debt.

Can we afford more bailouts?

True.

And if government was run like a business, it would self insure healthcare too.

I've never beeen a believer in term limits: I think they're fundamentally undemocratic. This year, the voters "term-limited" over 60 members of the House.

Debate begins in earnest this week on the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction proposals. There are some good ideas in there, but even the bad ones should be discussed substantively.The voters expect some serious work on that and other fundamental issues, but don't expect much from this "lame duck" session with short-term crises on its plate like taxes, unemployment benefits and government funding.

Might as well make it one three or four year term, after that their time is all spent lining their pockets.