Members of Congress jetted off for the August recess without a plan in place to avoid a partial government shutdown when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1 — and the lawmakers who write spending bills acknowledge that it’s a real possibility, given deep divisions.
The stalemate stems from a split among House Republicans about how much the government should spend and whether the bills should be filled with far-right policy objectives.
“We’re in a difficult spot right now. I regret that we are here,” Arkansas GOP Rep. Steve Womack told reporters about House Republican divisions just before the recess.
I do not believe in term limits. Instead I believe we should not be sending any liars or ejits to congress. I believe people need to wise up and fast that demand side econ is a far better position for the United States than anything we did economically during the last 40 years of lying about the goods of supply side econ. The lying and cheating must end.
They have LOTS of bridges in Brooklyn “FOR SALE”.
It’s a demonstrable fact that “incumbency” overrides almost anything else about getting elected, and utopian dreaming about “how people should wise up” is a joke.
We have term limits on the Presidency because FDR ran over the traditional “two term” precedent, and after he was dead Republicans (especially, but also Democrats) feared the accumulation of power and momentum in a single charismatic leader and changed the Constitution to prevent it from happening again.
Term limits for Congress - and for the Supreme Court are a realistic solution to the problem of incumbency. [This is made worse by House/Senate rules which give extraordinary prestige and power to seniority.] A simple solution would be that a person can only serve X years in a particular position, that wouldn’t stop a USSC justice from serving on a lower court after that term, or a Senator from serving as a House Rep after s/he reached the limit in his/her chair either.
At Westinghouse it was an unspoken rule that you could run a business unit for 4 years, maybe a couple more in extraordinary circumstances. After that, it was thought, you could become stale, or worse, accumulate a cadre of yes-subordinates who would stifle the business.
And, as there is in nearly every publicly held company, I support a maximum age limit for elected officials as well. If you are too young an inexperienced to hold a certain office until you attain a certain age, I think it fair that you are too old, slow, or otherwise infirm to handle the rigors of elected office. Or, as is sometimes obvious, the electorate is too stupid to throw you out.
The problem is, challenging for an office is so staggeringly expensive that a relative unknown will pretty much need to sell his soul to someone with deep pockets, to make himself heard above the noise created by the incumbent, especially in the post “Citizens United” world, were bribing elected officials became officially legal.
On the other hand, being an incumbent, in a relatively safe seat, provides a degree of autonomy that might, from time to time, allow the pol to do the right thing, rather than what some paymaster demands. I am reminded of a Senator from a more Shiny state, who was secure enough to reach across the aisle and partner with someone from the opposite end of the scale on campaign finance reform (since gutted by Citizens…) and buck his party’s embrace of torture.
You do not know or you have not added up what has been happening.
In the supply side periods general elections only 55% of the voting age public votes.
In demand side periods 65% of the public on average votes.
The difference being whether there is something in it for a few people or all the people. The latter being good for the country.
As for your picking and choosing when term limits happen because you do not like policy that is the fastest way for you never to have a say over policy. More Americans will feed demagoguery of ejits with popular positions than if people learn the job and have to think over what they are doing year after year.
Bottom line just because you do not like policy does not mean we need term limits. We need the case to be put to the public of what is good for the country. In other words you are not even making your case discussing term limits.
Remember someone is complaining about your congressman and saying we need term limits. You would lose possibly someone you voted for and support.
BTW Westinghouse is a really bad example of term limits. The company lost ground either way and from the outside looking in was stale decades before you worked there. Maybe if they settled on people that were good they’d have done better.