Twilight of the Senate
Over at the Washington Examiner's "Beltway Confidential" blog, Sean Higgins reacts to a piece by the Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe highlighting some of the longest-serving members of the U.S. Senate.
Amongst the upper chamber's iron-men (and women): Susan Collins, who's on the cusp of her 5,000th consecutive vote; Chuck Grassley, who's nearly 1,500 yeas and nays ahead of her; Patrick Leahy, who's approaching vote number 14,000; and the reigning champion, Hawaii's Daniel Inouye, who has cast more than 16,000 votes (Inouye, of course, was originally appointed to the seat by King Kamehameha).
Higgins is not amused:
O’Keefe calls these “impressive milestones.” From a totally objective perspective, that is true. But it also goes a long way towards explaining why the Senate such a slow, hidebound institution. Did the founders really intend for it to be a lifetime tenured position for a small, elite group of politicians? Shouldn’t fresh blood be injected more often? Term limits anyone?
Well, how about it, Ricochet members? Would term limits solve the problem (or at least push us in the right direction)? Or do they simply throw out the good with the bad, ceding more power to institutional Washington in the process. Your thoughts, if you please.
- Comment (35)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: Twilight of the Senate
Great book. Will makes a very convincing argument for term limits.
Aug '10
Re: Twilight of the Senate
If the federal government hadn't grabbed so much power over the lives of American citizens, lifetime disasters like Ted Kennedy wouldn't have much effect on those of us not so crazy as the voters in Massachusetts. But those Senators do have a lot of influence, and so, until we return some of the power to the states, I'm all for term limits on every person in Washington.
And while we're at it - they should receive NO PENSION other than what they choose to contribute. Medical benefits should cease 18 months after they leave office. (COBRA, anyone?) They should have zero access to limos and other such perks, other than what they pay for. And they should be required to place all their investments in a blind trust while they are in office.
And if we really wanna get back to being America, we could do like they do in Texas, and make Congress a part-time job, that convenes every other year.
The less say they have in our lives, the better.
Dec '10
Re: Twilight of the Senate
Reapealing the 17th amendment and limiting the size of their staff might be just the ticket. How small should they be? They are, without a doubt, far too large and powerful right now.
Nov '10
Re: Twilight of the Senate
There are three central arguments against term limits, as near as I can tell:
1 - Government is too complex and it takes a while to get to know the deal.
2 - What if I like my guy and don't want him to leave?
3 – This is just a bandaid and what we really need is an electorate that pays attention
My answers are as follows:
1 – That is exactly the problem! Let’s decomplexify the system, make it not so hard to figure out.
2 – Too bad. Too many of us like our guy (or gal) and that is also the problem. You can find another really good guy (or gal) in the body of eligible candidates, and if you can’t we are in far bigger trouble than we think. Oh by the way, why don’t we make our candidates, rather than wait for them to just turn up?
3 – Yeah, I agree. But the system as it stands is feeding on its own efficiency, getting bigger and bigger, and the voters become more and more ambivalent.
Jan '11
Re: Twilight of the Senate
Hang a Senator every decade.
Feb '12
Re: Twilight of the Senate
I agree with Mr. Delgado that we should repeal the 17th Amendment. This will allow the people the Senators are supposed to represent to have a firmer had on their Senators and diminish the control the lobbyists and others have over them. Further, I would recommend that only citizens from the state they represent be allowed to contribute to their elections.
Jan '11
Re: Twilight of the Senate
The King Prawn
This would do a world of good in our governance. Since ratification of the 17th, many (most) people have forgotten that the union which made us a nation was between independent, sovereign states. Now, thanks to the 17th amendment, the states have no voice in our national government. We fret often about the undoing of our founders' vision, but the work was actually completed on April 8th, 1913. · 1 hour ago
That and voters rarely care about local issues. Sure there are fringe voters and local pundits who follow such things but clearly the money and power is (too) centralized for the vast majority to give a rip about...and this, I find, unfortunate.
Feb '12
Re: Twilight of the Senate
Absolutely yes on term limits. Being an elected politician should never be considered a career. Stay in politics if you must in other positions, but there should be a short, finite limit to how long any person can "serve" the country via elections. I highlight "serve" because it seems more often or not to be considered "self-serving".
Apr '12
Re: Twilight of the Senate
The last place in America to be subjected to meritocracy is the US Government...give me term limits in the senate, house, and judges.
Mar '12
Re: Twilight of the Senate
You named senators who cause me to exercise the gag reflex. It would be good to see them retired. Or maybe they hang around and die in office of dementia or Alzheimers, and nobody can tell the difference before the disease and after its appearance.
May '10
Re: Twilight of the Senate
Beltway barnacles.
Sorry seniors (BTW I'm one myself) somewhere between the age of 70 and 80 most people flat out lose too much capability. There really should be an upper age for congresspersons, senators, and Federal judges.
The spectacle of the likes of Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd drooling and snoozing through their final decades as senators should be enough to make this point clear.
Mar '11
Re: Twilight of the Senate
I think lack of term limits was one of the mistakes of the Constitution. Amendment, please.
Oct '11
Re: Twilight of the Senate
A limit of two terms in the House and Senate would do more to improve the quality of our government than any other possible measure but one.
The only thing that would do more would be the Madison amendment. And I bet that if we could pass such an amendment, a two-term limit for the House and Senate would soon follow.
I think I know what I'm going to be working for on Nov. 7th.
Oct '11
Re: Twilight of the Senate
I think the obvious argument against term limits is a shallow reflex. Yes, of course we should all be involved and vigilant and choose the best candidate each cycle. (You know, there are things that are obvious, and then there are things that make you say "duh.")
I'm sure we've all noticed the longer the scoundrels, uh, the public servants, remain in office the further even the good ones drift from American principles.
In the absence of term limits, the incentives work against our good interests. Longevity in office increases the power of seniority, which translates into a greater share of the spoils. Every voter has a strong incentive to elect the incumbent, no matter his quality relative to his challengers.
The citizens of Vermont might responsibly support the best candidate from New York, but their economic interest is best served by voting for Leahy.
Edited on July 11, 2012 at 5:30amNov '10
Re: Twilight of the Senate
Maybe the staffs should also be term limited. The "steep learning curve" is symptomatic of the basic problem. Governing should be simpler.