You have commented 340 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
More House Dems want to limit time at the top
2015-01-12
[POLITICO] A growing faction of House Democrats wants to bring back term limits for the crew of party leaders who sit atop the chambers most influential committees.

The effort follows a series of bruising fights among Democrats over seniority, a split that pits younger politicians who feel shut out from decision-making versus powerful voting blocs like the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. The latter groups have long favored seniority as the surest way for their members to rise in the ranks, while term-limit supporters lament that Republicans are outflanking Democrats in promoting young leaders to carry their message.

Caliphornia, an impregnable bastion of the Democratic Party, Rep. Anna Eshoo
...Democratic Congresswomen-for-Life from Caliphornia, representing Silicon Valley. She began her career as chairman of the San Mateo Democratic Party in 1978, and was first elected to Congress in 1993. When she leaves she'll probably be carried out...
, a close ally of Minority Leader Nancy San Fran Nan Pelosi
Congresswoman-for-Life from the San Francisco Bay Area, born into a family of professional politicians. Formerly Speaker of the House, but it's not her fault they lost. Really. Noted for her heavily botoxed grimace...
, said a growing number of politicians wants the caucus to have a serious discussion about term limits.

"I think there should a very thorough and thoughtful examination, not only of this but several rules of the caucus," said Eshoo, who unsuccessfully challenged more-senior New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone last year for the top Democratic spot on the Energy and Commerce Committee. "I think it would be healthy for the members, all of the members, to really understand what the rules are [and] the history behind them."

Former Caucus Chairman John Larson, who was term-limited from that slot in 2013, agreed. He praised House Republicans six-year limit for people to serve atop committees, although Speaker John It is not pronounced 'Boner!' Boehner
... the occasionally weepy leader of House Republicans...
 (R-Ohio) has allowed some exceptions.

"A number of people would say Republicans have struck a better formula for advancement," the Connecticut Democrat said. "And I dont think its a bad thing for leadership at all. I mean, its verboten to say it, but its true and I think even our current leaders would recognize it, all of whom I support."
Posted by:Fred

#19  Virginia also has a part time legislature. From Wikipedia: 'The state constitution specifies that the General Assembly shall meet annually, and its regular session is a maximum of 60 days long in even-numbered years and 45 days long in odd-numbered years, unless extended by a two-thirds vote of both houses. The governor of Virginia may convene a special session of the General Assembly "when, in his opinion, the interest of the Commonwealth may require" and must convene a special session "upon the application of two-thirds of the members elected to each house.'"
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2015-01-12 21:56  

#18  OS,Less chance to do damage?
Posted by: JohnQC   2015-01-12 21:33  

#17  I love the idea of part time legislature. It works for Texas.
Posted by: OldSpook   2015-01-12 21:28  

#16  ...with remote teleconferencing et al, there's really no need for them to spend so much time in the Beltway. Limit it 60 days a year. Force the lobbyists to maintain offices in 50 states and upteen districts. That'll be rather costly.

The senate is suppose to represent the states, not the population. Proportional representation is for the House. Do like the electoral college in each state with each county/parish getting one electoral vote. Takes the power away from the big city machines.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2015-01-12 20:52  

#15  No. Same as the original limits int he constitution. If that means thousands, then so be it. The number of reps isn't important, its the people per rep that is one of the problems with Congress. If we have to expand then so be it.

Side effect is that it makes it possible for third party candidates to capture a seat here and there. And damned near impossible for one single rep to be so important as to be bought by lobbyists - it complicates lobbyists jobs massively. It also ensures that House of Representative votes will much more closely resemble the votes of the population - look at the county-by-county map for an example.

Posted by: OldSpook   2015-01-12 20:12  

#14  iPad she hatin on me
Posted by: Shipman   2015-01-12 18:24  

#13  At 100k per Rep we'd have over 3,000 of them. Perhaps we could go per 100K voting age population, which would drop it to around 2,000 I'd guess. Cut their pay to $50K a year and have the sessions in summer. Then you'd end up with a crowd of 5 or 6 hundred on any given day and only a Full House on important national questions when their constuents bring the pressure for attendance. Fund field offices fully so continent services can be maintenance or even increased, that's mostly what they do from day to day.
Posted by: Shipman   2015-01-12 18:23  

#12  I like Old Spook's formula. Its like a narrowing pipe-line. California has a billion congressmen but can only have two Senators so those congressmen are culled or forced to look for other positions if they want to be life-time politicians.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2015-01-12 14:59  

#11  Glenmore, with all the remote meeting technology available today, there is no real reason for the Congress critters to even be in DC anymore. They could stay in their home districts so they could be close to the
constituents.

Of course, this would make it tough for lobbyists, who would have to travel around, or hire many more lobbyists. I see this as a win win, so it will never happen
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2015-01-12 14:15  

#10  Dems get rid of Pelosi and RINOs get rid of Boehner. Works for me.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2015-01-12 13:02  

#9  It'll take a bigger Capital building to hold thousands of Congreemen.
Posted by: Glenmore   2015-01-12 12:35  

#8  A better solution would be to simply return to the original district population numbers for representation, and expand the number of Reps. About 100K per rep makes them much more accessible, easier to make geographically and socially coherent districts, resulting in less gerrymandering, and better representation of the people. Your congressional rep should be as easily reachable as a small city mayor.
Posted by: OldSpook   2015-01-12 12:17  

#7  A growing faction of House Democrats wants to bring back term limits... Of course they do now that there has been a power shift in both houses of Congress.

How about a term limits amendment so the Donks can't change the law down the road when they might happen to be in power? Hypocritical assholes.
Posted by: JohnQC   2015-01-12 09:35  

#6  Since the vast majority of voters don't give a damn about term limits...

The "vast majority of voters" are of the low information variety, they don't know enough to care. Sort of like...you for instance.
Posted by: Woozle Scourge of the Wee Folk4194   2015-01-12 09:14  

#5  #2, add 12 years for Federal judges. They've played politics (not Constitutional law*) from the bench, they may as well be accountable to the citizenry.

* as in where in the hell do you find that in the friggin document?
Posted by: Procopius2k   2015-01-12 09:13  

#4  Since the vast majority of voters don't give a damn about term limits - proven every two years, if you get my drift - why should I?
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418    2015-01-12 06:08  

#3  The whole idea is to limit the republicans, any extensions will come later.(Gotta keep the important people in power there's money to be made here.)
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2015-01-12 03:55  

#2  Term limits for Congress, period. Full Stop. 2 terms is good enough for the President, so 2 terms should be enough for the Senate, 8 years is enough for the President, so 8 years (4 terms) should be enough for the House. Max 20 years in Congress. No more of the octogenarian f**ks like Byrd, or Kansas' Roberts or the senile coot Cochran.
Posted by: OldSpook   2015-01-12 03:19  

#1  Appoint appointments from out of Congress to run the show - then you will see real change and accountability.
Posted by: Chush Sinatra1609   2015-01-12 00:11  

00:00