www.tenurecorrupts.com
One of our Signups lamented the fact that there is no readily available list of all the old bulls (or old bums) in the Congress, which could be used to highlight how bad the situation is.
I checked, and found some info on the Senate, which allowed me to make my own list, but I could not find such info on the House. So I just made some intelligent guesses for Representatives.
In any case, to make the same list for the House would take an awful lot of time, so the Senate list will have to do for now, with just an estimate for the House. Here goes:
(PLEASE EXCUSE THE LOUSY FORMATTING. BLOGGER.COM DOES NOT LIKE DATA COLUMNS)
SENATE OLD BULLS, STATE, YEARS AS OF 2006
BYRD WV 48
INOUYE HI 48
KENNEDY MA 44
STEVENS AK 40
BIDEN DE 36
DOMENICI NM 36
LEAHY VT 36
DODD CT 30
LUGAR IN 30
GRASSLEY IA 30
SARBANES MD 30
LEVIN MI 30
COCHRAN MS 30
BAUCUS MT 30
SPECTOR PA 30
HATCH UT 30
WARNER VA 30
SHELBY AL 24
MCCAIN AZ 24
HARKIN IA 24
MCCONNELL KY 24
MIKULSKI MD 24
KERRY MA 24
BOND MO 24
BINGAMAN NM 24
ROCKEFELLER WV 24
BOXER CA 18
LEIBERMAN CT 18
CRAIG ID 18
LOTT MS 18
BURNS MT 18
GREGG NH 18
DORGAN ND 18
BENNETT UT 18
CONRAD ND 18
JEFFORDS VT 18
MURRAY WA 18
KOHL WI 18
FEINGOLD WI 18
IN SUMMARY: 39% of Senators have been in office for three terms, or 18 years or more, as of 2006.
17% have been there five terms, or 30 years or more.
As for the House of Representatives, in 1996, 125 of the 435 seats (29%), had been held for 7 terms (14 yrs) or more. Based on the 98% reelection rate of incumbents in the last 10yrs, I would guess that that the ratio has risen to above 45% today.
In other words, it appears that in a few more years,
election to Congress will be as good as getting elected for life!
Putting it another way, there will be no point in having Congressional elections unless one of them dies or goes to jail.
IN JUST A FEW MORE YEARS, IT WILL BE CONGRESS FOR LIFE!
THIS IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED! AND IT IS
CERTAINLY NOT WHAT AMERICANS ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT!
JOIN THE MANY TERM LIMITS ORGANIZATIONS BELOW TO HELP PUT
PRESSURE ON CONGRESS TO PASS LEGISLATION FOR A
CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION!
US Term Limits http://www.ustermlimits.org
Americans for Limited Govt http://getliberty.org/lg/default.aspx
Citizens for Term Limits http://termlimits.com
TenureCorrupts.Com
TermLimitCongressNow.Com
CongressTermLimits.Com
Let's get the ball rolling!
Nelson Lee Walker
www.tenurecorrupts.com
8/19/2005
#24 FOLLOW THE MONEY!
www.tenurecorrupts.com
Here are some of the ‘follow the money’ reasons why Congresspeople so fiercely oppose term limits.
Put very simply, it is because the job is extremely ‘cushy’, and cannot readily be matched elsewhere.
1. It offers a nice salary, about $160, 000/year, plus expenses, with guaranteeed annual increases.
2. It offers probably the best health benefits available, generously subsidized. (small co-pay)
3. It offers luxurious pension benefits, generously subsidized (long service gets near salary for life)
4. It offers opportunities for free vacations anywhere in the world, usually more than once/yr.
5. It offers the opportunity to be reelected indefinitely (99% + at last election, 2004).
6. It offers the opportunity to work (or not work) without supervision.
7. It provides a staff/budget to do the ‘work’, eg. meet constituents, write and read bills, help reelection, etc.
8. It provides the opportunity to wield ‘power’ (most important for the ego-driven)
9. It provides the option to hire family members at generous salaries.
10. It provides opportunities for the less scrupulous to become truly wealthy.
I believe this list leaves very little room for an incumbent to nobly claim he is being a ‘public servant’.
Don't you think this list alone more than justifies a Congressional Term Limits Amendment ?
I do! I'm Nelson Lee Walker, and I'm gonna keep pluggin' for Congressional Term Limits. Join me, wontcha?
www.tenurecorrupts.com
Here are some of the ‘follow the money’ reasons why Congresspeople so fiercely oppose term limits.
Put very simply, it is because the job is extremely ‘cushy’, and cannot readily be matched elsewhere.
1. It offers a nice salary, about $160, 000/year, plus expenses, with guaranteeed annual increases.
2. It offers probably the best health benefits available, generously subsidized. (small co-pay)
3. It offers luxurious pension benefits, generously subsidized (long service gets near salary for life)
4. It offers opportunities for free vacations anywhere in the world, usually more than once/yr.
5. It offers the opportunity to be reelected indefinitely (99% + at last election, 2004).
6. It offers the opportunity to work (or not work) without supervision.
7. It provides a staff/budget to do the ‘work’, eg. meet constituents, write and read bills, help reelection, etc.
8. It provides the opportunity to wield ‘power’ (most important for the ego-driven)
9. It provides the option to hire family members at generous salaries.
10. It provides opportunities for the less scrupulous to become truly wealthy.
I believe this list leaves very little room for an incumbent to nobly claim he is being a ‘public servant’.
Don't you think this list alone more than justifies a Congressional Term Limits Amendment ?
I do! I'm Nelson Lee Walker, and I'm gonna keep pluggin' for Congressional Term Limits. Join me, wontcha?
www.tenurecorrupts.com
7/29/2005
#23 IT CAN BE DONE!
www.tenurecorrupts.com
They said it can’t be done! I say it CAN be done!
A Congressional Term Limits Amendment (CTLA) WILL happen.
Ever since I started my term limits website TenureCorrupts.Com, I have been bombarded with negative and discouraging comments like “You’ll never succeed!”, and “You don’t expect Congress to cut their own throats, do you?” Well no, I don’t think it will be easy, but I think the voters will force the issue, one way or another. People will put up with Congressional arrogance only so long. And “It can’t be done” has proved wrong many times in the past..
History is full of examples where skeptics made fun of trailblazers:
Columbus was going to sail off the edge of the earth, Galileo was punished for saying the earth rotated around the sun, the automobile was a passing fad, airplanes couldn’t fly, etc, etc, etc.
Now, the common feeling is that we’ll never get Congressional Term Limits! And this is in spite of the fact that every time Term Limits is placed on any state or local ballot, it gets passed overwhelmingly! Not just barely, but overwhelmingly, like by a 70 to 30 ratio !
So why shouldn’t it get passed on a national ballot? Well, for one thing, there is currently no ‘Initiative’ procedure in Federal elections which would allow the voters to place it on a ballot. Term Limits requires a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress, who is adamantly opposed to the idea! Or by a Constitutional Convention, which many people are afraid of. Actually, it is worse than that. Since the Supreme Court recently decided that individual States cannot set term limits on their own Senators and Representatives in Congress, the growing trend toward State-determined Congressional Term Limits was stopped in its tracks, after 15 states had already enacted limits for their delegates.
However, there are so many ways that it could happen, and given that it is basically so popular with the voters, it really not a matter of whether it will happen, but when.
Let’s make a list of ways it could happen:
1. A simple national email campaign by all interested voters, simultaneously, to Congress, the media, and to bloggers, demanding a Congressional Term Limits Amendment (CTLA). (creating an Event!)
2. Get the Initiative process enacted in more States, and get a Congressional Term Limits Amendment on the the ballot in those States to force the legislature to demand a CTLA.
3. Call for a Constitutional Convention to call for a CTLA.
4. Appoint ‘originalist’ justices to the Supreme Court to reverse the decision which denied States the right to term limit their Congresspeople.
5. Coalesce the national trend toward local term limits into a movement which focusses on term limits for Congress.
6. Promote a national chainmail program demanding a CTLA.
7. Devise ways to get major institutions to periodically publish papers, and sponsor lectures and debates, to raise voter awareness of the benefits of Congressional Term Limits.
8. And finally, consider a movement to “Never Vote for ANY Incumbent” unless he pledges to not run again, and not to vote for any challenger unless he promises to term limit himself.
Our country NEEDS a Congressional Term Limit Amendment!
Nelson Lee Walker
www.tenurecorrupts.com
They said it can’t be done! I say it CAN be done!
A Congressional Term Limits Amendment (CTLA) WILL happen.
Ever since I started my term limits website TenureCorrupts.Com, I have been bombarded with negative and discouraging comments like “You’ll never succeed!”, and “You don’t expect Congress to cut their own throats, do you?” Well no, I don’t think it will be easy, but I think the voters will force the issue, one way or another. People will put up with Congressional arrogance only so long. And “It can’t be done” has proved wrong many times in the past..
History is full of examples where skeptics made fun of trailblazers:
Columbus was going to sail off the edge of the earth, Galileo was punished for saying the earth rotated around the sun, the automobile was a passing fad, airplanes couldn’t fly, etc, etc, etc.
Now, the common feeling is that we’ll never get Congressional Term Limits! And this is in spite of the fact that every time Term Limits is placed on any state or local ballot, it gets passed overwhelmingly! Not just barely, but overwhelmingly, like by a 70 to 30 ratio !
So why shouldn’t it get passed on a national ballot? Well, for one thing, there is currently no ‘Initiative’ procedure in Federal elections which would allow the voters to place it on a ballot. Term Limits requires a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress, who is adamantly opposed to the idea! Or by a Constitutional Convention, which many people are afraid of. Actually, it is worse than that. Since the Supreme Court recently decided that individual States cannot set term limits on their own Senators and Representatives in Congress, the growing trend toward State-determined Congressional Term Limits was stopped in its tracks, after 15 states had already enacted limits for their delegates.
However, there are so many ways that it could happen, and given that it is basically so popular with the voters, it really not a matter of whether it will happen, but when.
Let’s make a list of ways it could happen:
1. A simple national email campaign by all interested voters, simultaneously, to Congress, the media, and to bloggers, demanding a Congressional Term Limits Amendment (CTLA). (creating an Event!)
2. Get the Initiative process enacted in more States, and get a Congressional Term Limits Amendment on the the ballot in those States to force the legislature to demand a CTLA.
3. Call for a Constitutional Convention to call for a CTLA.
4. Appoint ‘originalist’ justices to the Supreme Court to reverse the decision which denied States the right to term limit their Congresspeople.
5. Coalesce the national trend toward local term limits into a movement which focusses on term limits for Congress.
6. Promote a national chainmail program demanding a CTLA.
7. Devise ways to get major institutions to periodically publish papers, and sponsor lectures and debates, to raise voter awareness of the benefits of Congressional Term Limits.
8. And finally, consider a movement to “Never Vote for ANY Incumbent” unless he pledges to not run again, and not to vote for any challenger unless he promises to term limit himself.
Our country NEEDS a Congressional Term Limit Amendment!
Nelson Lee Walker
www.tenurecorrupts.com
7/11/2005
#22 WOULD CHAIN SNAILMAIL WORK ?
www.tenurecorrupts.com
Whether you are a good Democrat, Republican, or Independent, or whether you are a liberal, a conservative, or a libertarian, or whether you are an extreme leftist, or a moderate middle-of-the-roader, or an extreme right-winger, aren’t you becoming a little tired of the arrogant, pompous, lying, self-serving jackasses that make up our U.S.Congress ?
And doesn’t it bother you that they have fixed the system so that they succeed in getting reelected 99% of the time, unless they voluntarily quit or die? And they won’t let us set term limits on them ?
Well you CAN do something about it, and it won’t cost you anything but some copy/paste time and a few stamps ! Just as I am doing right now.
Because email will be spam-blocked, let’s just copy/print/send this letter as an old-fashioned snailmail chain letter to all our friends (at least 5, but the more the merrier), asking them to continue the chain, sending a snailmail copy of this letter to at least 5 of their friends.
It would also help to send snailmail copies to your 3 congresspeople AND to some local newspapers and TV/radio stations. And maybe to your favorite bloggers.
The objective is to get voters used to the idea of Term Limits for Congress.
AND, since we cannot get Congress to vote for a Term Limits Amendment, we should dedicate
ourselves to ALWAYS vote AGAINST THE INCUMBENT, in every election, whether we think he/she
is a ‘good guy’ or not, and whether he/she has served 1, 2, or 10 terms.
AND, whenever possible, vote for candidates who pledge to limit their terms.
After a couple of elections, if we have made a dent in the 99% reelection rate, maybe
‘career politicians’ will get the idea that if they want to serve even one more term,
they had better vote for an Amendment for Congressional Term Limits.
Let’s keep throwing the bums out until they give us Term Limits!
Nelson Lee Walker
nels96@yahoo.com
www.tenurecorrupts.com
Whether you are a good Democrat, Republican, or Independent, or whether you are a liberal, a conservative, or a libertarian, or whether you are an extreme leftist, or a moderate middle-of-the-roader, or an extreme right-winger, aren’t you becoming a little tired of the arrogant, pompous, lying, self-serving jackasses that make up our U.S.Congress ?
And doesn’t it bother you that they have fixed the system so that they succeed in getting reelected 99% of the time, unless they voluntarily quit or die? And they won’t let us set term limits on them ?
Well you CAN do something about it, and it won’t cost you anything but some copy/paste time and a few stamps ! Just as I am doing right now.
Because email will be spam-blocked, let’s just copy/print/send this letter as an old-fashioned snailmail chain letter to all our friends (at least 5, but the more the merrier), asking them to continue the chain, sending a snailmail copy of this letter to at least 5 of their friends.
It would also help to send snailmail copies to your 3 congresspeople AND to some local newspapers and TV/radio stations. And maybe to your favorite bloggers.
The objective is to get voters used to the idea of Term Limits for Congress.
AND, since we cannot get Congress to vote for a Term Limits Amendment, we should dedicate
ourselves to ALWAYS vote AGAINST THE INCUMBENT, in every election, whether we think he/she
is a ‘good guy’ or not, and whether he/she has served 1, 2, or 10 terms.
AND, whenever possible, vote for candidates who pledge to limit their terms.
After a couple of elections, if we have made a dent in the 99% reelection rate, maybe
‘career politicians’ will get the idea that if they want to serve even one more term,
they had better vote for an Amendment for Congressional Term Limits.
Let’s keep throwing the bums out until they give us Term Limits!
Nelson Lee Walker
nels96@yahoo.com
www.tenurecorrupts.com
7/10/2005
#21 TERM LIMITS IS NOT DEMOCRATIC ?
www.tenurecorrupts.com
One of my anti-term limits correspondents maintains that term limits do not belong in a democracy. She claims that candidates should be given free air time to get their messages out, and that the media should focus more on issues like the economy, the war, etc, and not on trivia like accidents and hurricanes.
On the last item, I could not agree with her more. However, the media live in a democracy, and we have to live with their choices.
But as far as free TV air time is concerned, that would be an unmitigated disaster. It is already bad enough when all sides have plenty of money to use to spread their many lies, distortions, and false allegations. (more of democracy’s blemishes). What do you think would happen if their air time was free? Every nut job in all creation would seek and get their allotted time to harangue us with junk propaganda, drowning out the messages of the few sane candidates out there. But yes, it would be more democratic.
But her contention that term limits is anti-democratic is nonsense, for several reasons:
Firstly, term limits only happens by a vote of the people, and a large majority at that.
It takes 2/3rds of each house of Congress, and 3/4ths of the states to pass it. How much more democratic can you get?
Secondly, in spite of the low regard that most people hold for politicians in general, why is it that the reelection of incumbents has reached the 99% level? Certainly not because their voters think that they are doing such a sterling job. No, it is more likely that most voters unthinkingly go along with the guy who is in office now, unless he has done something to anger them.
Thirdly, does it not seem that the 99% reelection rate is undemocratic on its face? It defies commonsense that 99% of challengers are inferior to the incumbents they run against.
Fourthly, I strongly disagree that a Congress full of term-limitted ‘citizen legislators’, fresh from the private sector, where they have gained a lot more real world experience than career professional politicians who have spent their life in government, would be 'led around by the nose’ by the staffs or the bureaucracy. No way!
I’m Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe our country needs Congressional Term Limits
www.tenurecorrupts.com
One of my anti-term limits correspondents maintains that term limits do not belong in a democracy. She claims that candidates should be given free air time to get their messages out, and that the media should focus more on issues like the economy, the war, etc, and not on trivia like accidents and hurricanes.
On the last item, I could not agree with her more. However, the media live in a democracy, and we have to live with their choices.
But as far as free TV air time is concerned, that would be an unmitigated disaster. It is already bad enough when all sides have plenty of money to use to spread their many lies, distortions, and false allegations. (more of democracy’s blemishes). What do you think would happen if their air time was free? Every nut job in all creation would seek and get their allotted time to harangue us with junk propaganda, drowning out the messages of the few sane candidates out there. But yes, it would be more democratic.
But her contention that term limits is anti-democratic is nonsense, for several reasons:
Firstly, term limits only happens by a vote of the people, and a large majority at that.
It takes 2/3rds of each house of Congress, and 3/4ths of the states to pass it. How much more democratic can you get?
Secondly, in spite of the low regard that most people hold for politicians in general, why is it that the reelection of incumbents has reached the 99% level? Certainly not because their voters think that they are doing such a sterling job. No, it is more likely that most voters unthinkingly go along with the guy who is in office now, unless he has done something to anger them.
Thirdly, does it not seem that the 99% reelection rate is undemocratic on its face? It defies commonsense that 99% of challengers are inferior to the incumbents they run against.
Fourthly, I strongly disagree that a Congress full of term-limitted ‘citizen legislators’, fresh from the private sector, where they have gained a lot more real world experience than career professional politicians who have spent their life in government, would be 'led around by the nose’ by the staffs or the bureaucracy. No way!
I’m Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe our country needs Congressional Term Limits
www.tenurecorrupts.com
6/28/2005
#20 A ONE TERM LIMIT ?
www.tenurecorrupts.com
Until now, all my thinking about Congressional Term Limits has revolved around simply reducing the current system of unlimited reelections to a ‘reasonable’ two or three terms of the current durations (2 yrs House, 6 yrs Senate). My preference has been determined by pragmatism, i.e. that this would not be so scary or traumatic a change for the voters, and therefore more likely to win acceptance than a more drastic change to the system. To me, term limits of almost any kind is a great idea, and we do not need to be too clever about how we do it.
However, a couple of my more enthusiastic correspondents have urged me to consider a single term limit, which they claim would have a number of very attractive advantages were it to pass into law:
a. It would totally eliminate the officeholder’s concern for reelection, so that he/she would be freed of the need to campaign for his next term, and therefore more focussed on doing the right things for the country.
b. Lobbyists and other special interests would have no ability to control the officeholder with campaign contributions. (On the other hand, what might they come up with next?)
c. The officeholder would feel no need to ‘bribe’ his constituents with ‘pork’, and would therefore be more likely to do for them what they really need him to do.
d. It would eliminate the seniority system and the mediocrity it fosters.
e. It would eliminate careerist professional politicians from Congress.
The only trouble is that this seems too good to be true. And it probably is.
For one thing, we would probably have to increase the duration of the House term from 2 years to 6 or 8 years to make it worthwhile to run for the office. Similarly, we would have to increase the Senate term from 6 years to 10 or 12 years, just to make it different from the House, which has always been known as “the people’s house”, while the Senate has been known as "the cooling saucer".
Note: If both houses have the same duration, then arguments would arise to merge them into a unicameral legislature, which is a whole new can of worms.
And this ‘can of worms’ is exactly the prime difficulty. That is, if it is so hard to get a simple thing like plain term limits to pass, how much more difficult is it going to be to pass a major change in the shape of our government?
I firmly believe that a simple term limits law would give us some of the advantages of each of the features listed above in a, b, c, d, and e, without incurring the major voter resistance that would arise against the ‘one term’ limitation.
So, I say KISS (keep it simple stupid!). But thanks guys, for trying. Don’t let the PERFECT be the enemy of the GOOD.
This is Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe we really need Congressional Term Limits.
www.tenurecorrupts.com
Until now, all my thinking about Congressional Term Limits has revolved around simply reducing the current system of unlimited reelections to a ‘reasonable’ two or three terms of the current durations (2 yrs House, 6 yrs Senate). My preference has been determined by pragmatism, i.e. that this would not be so scary or traumatic a change for the voters, and therefore more likely to win acceptance than a more drastic change to the system. To me, term limits of almost any kind is a great idea, and we do not need to be too clever about how we do it.
However, a couple of my more enthusiastic correspondents have urged me to consider a single term limit, which they claim would have a number of very attractive advantages were it to pass into law:
a. It would totally eliminate the officeholder’s concern for reelection, so that he/she would be freed of the need to campaign for his next term, and therefore more focussed on doing the right things for the country.
b. Lobbyists and other special interests would have no ability to control the officeholder with campaign contributions. (On the other hand, what might they come up with next?)
c. The officeholder would feel no need to ‘bribe’ his constituents with ‘pork’, and would therefore be more likely to do for them what they really need him to do.
d. It would eliminate the seniority system and the mediocrity it fosters.
e. It would eliminate careerist professional politicians from Congress.
The only trouble is that this seems too good to be true. And it probably is.
For one thing, we would probably have to increase the duration of the House term from 2 years to 6 or 8 years to make it worthwhile to run for the office. Similarly, we would have to increase the Senate term from 6 years to 10 or 12 years, just to make it different from the House, which has always been known as “the people’s house”, while the Senate has been known as "the cooling saucer".
Note: If both houses have the same duration, then arguments would arise to merge them into a unicameral legislature, which is a whole new can of worms.
And this ‘can of worms’ is exactly the prime difficulty. That is, if it is so hard to get a simple thing like plain term limits to pass, how much more difficult is it going to be to pass a major change in the shape of our government?
I firmly believe that a simple term limits law would give us some of the advantages of each of the features listed above in a, b, c, d, and e, without incurring the major voter resistance that would arise against the ‘one term’ limitation.
So, I say KISS (keep it simple stupid!). But thanks guys, for trying. Don’t let the PERFECT be the enemy of the GOOD.
This is Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe we really need Congressional Term Limits.
www.tenurecorrupts.com
6/14/2005
#19 TERM LIMITS v OTHER ISSUES
www.tenurecorrupts.com
In the process of devising ways to improve the exposure of TenureCorrupts.Com to the voting public, it has been suggested that I should consider ways to attract people who are interested in various issues aside from term limits, issues which do not at first seem to be related to term limits.
This is a great suggestion when you consider that all political issues sooner or later are affected not only by which side of the aisle you are on (Dem or Repub), but also whether you you think like an entrenched careerist professional politician, or a citizen legislator who only wants to ‘do the right thing’, not just get reelected.
Look at the following issues, and consider how they might fare in a term limited Congress full of citizen legislators:
Soc Sec/Pensions
Medicare/Health
Balanced Budget/Deficits
Tax Reform/Tax Reduction
Education/School Choice
Environment/States Rights
Foreign Policy/War on Terror
Immigration Reform/Border Control
Energy Independence/Nuclear Power
A lot of food for thought!
Nelson Lee Walker
www.tenurecorrupts.com
In the process of devising ways to improve the exposure of TenureCorrupts.Com to the voting public, it has been suggested that I should consider ways to attract people who are interested in various issues aside from term limits, issues which do not at first seem to be related to term limits.
This is a great suggestion when you consider that all political issues sooner or later are affected not only by which side of the aisle you are on (Dem or Repub), but also whether you you think like an entrenched careerist professional politician, or a citizen legislator who only wants to ‘do the right thing’, not just get reelected.
Look at the following issues, and consider how they might fare in a term limited Congress full of citizen legislators:
Soc Sec/Pensions
Medicare/Health
Balanced Budget/Deficits
Tax Reform/Tax Reduction
Education/School Choice
Environment/States Rights
Foreign Policy/War on Terror
Immigration Reform/Border Control
Energy Independence/Nuclear Power
A lot of food for thought!
Nelson Lee Walker
www.tenurecorrupts.com
5/20/2005
#18 FIRST THINGS FIRST
www.tenurecorrupts.com
Back in 1770 a cynical historian wrote: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, and is always followed by a dictatorship.”
Of course there is a certain amount of wisdom in that gloomy forecast, but I don't believe that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. However, it does illustrate that the reason we need Congressional Term Limits today is precisely that careerist politicians are driving us in the direction the cynic predicted.
When politicians are primarily focussed on reelection, they don’t think about the best policies for the country, but rather on the ways to get reelected. And one of the principle ways is to vote for ‘pork’ for their constituencies. And they will vote for this pork even when the country is staggering under huge debt burdens, and in spite of large current deficits. And they do it reciprocally (“You vote for my pork,and I’ll vote for yours”) so that the evil is compounded. And to hell with attempts to balance the budget.
Much, if not all of this pork is sneaked into enormous, complex appropriation bills, hidden from public scrutiny. If any are exposed, the pols can always fabricate plausible reasons why the item is vital to his district, and besides, “It is really such a miniscule fraction of the multi-trillion dollar budget, that it needn’t concern anyone!”
Multiply this position by 535 lying, hypocritical politicians, and you’re talking about real money!
Commonsense tells us that term limited politicians, or a citizen Congress, who expect to return to the private sector, would be far less inclined to say “to hell with the budget”. Maybe not all of them, but a large majority of them. And that’s all we would need to create a fresh mindset in the Congress to turn the country around.
Most of these ordinary citizen legislators will have come to Congress to do a job, do it right, and then leave. Because that’s what ordinary citizens do! And many of them would, during their tenure, educate their constituencies on the proper and ethical use of political power.
It seems to me that all the political organizations out there who are pushing truly legitimate and worthwhile political issues, and spending lots of money to get their points across to the public (and to bribe their Congresspeople), would find it a lot easier to succeed if we had a ’citizen congress’ by FIRST getting a Congressional Term Limits Amendment (CTLA) enacted.
There is no doubt in my mind that a Congress made up of relatively new people, untainted by excessive tenure, would have a remarkably fresh outlook on the issues of the day, and be inclined to use much more commonsense in resolving those issues. And let's not kid ourselves, being a Congressperson is NOT brain surgery or rocket science!
On the other hand, it appears that many of the most vigorous opponents of term limits, other than careerist professsional polticians, are precisely those organizations which are called ‘special interests’, and it is those organizations who have the most intimately corrupt relationships with the entrenched "tenured' politicians of the modern day Congress. These are the people we have to beat.
Our wonderfully diverse and free political system is made up of all kinds of people who are tugging at ‘the powers that be’ in Congress for good laws and bad ones (increasing or decreasing the size of government, balancing or unbalancing the budget, raising or lowering taxes, etc.). We need a Congress that is responsive to the voters in a thoughtful and responsible way, consistent with what is best for the country longterm, not with an eye to the next election. A term limited citizen Congress will do that.
So I say “Let’s do first things first! Let’s establish Congressional Term Limits!”
Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
www.tenurecorrupts.com
Back in 1770 a cynical historian wrote: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, and is always followed by a dictatorship.”
Of course there is a certain amount of wisdom in that gloomy forecast, but I don't believe that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. However, it does illustrate that the reason we need Congressional Term Limits today is precisely that careerist politicians are driving us in the direction the cynic predicted.
When politicians are primarily focussed on reelection, they don’t think about the best policies for the country, but rather on the ways to get reelected. And one of the principle ways is to vote for ‘pork’ for their constituencies. And they will vote for this pork even when the country is staggering under huge debt burdens, and in spite of large current deficits. And they do it reciprocally (“You vote for my pork,and I’ll vote for yours”) so that the evil is compounded. And to hell with attempts to balance the budget.
Much, if not all of this pork is sneaked into enormous, complex appropriation bills, hidden from public scrutiny. If any are exposed, the pols can always fabricate plausible reasons why the item is vital to his district, and besides, “It is really such a miniscule fraction of the multi-trillion dollar budget, that it needn’t concern anyone!”
Multiply this position by 535 lying, hypocritical politicians, and you’re talking about real money!
Commonsense tells us that term limited politicians, or a citizen Congress, who expect to return to the private sector, would be far less inclined to say “to hell with the budget”. Maybe not all of them, but a large majority of them. And that’s all we would need to create a fresh mindset in the Congress to turn the country around.
Most of these ordinary citizen legislators will have come to Congress to do a job, do it right, and then leave. Because that’s what ordinary citizens do! And many of them would, during their tenure, educate their constituencies on the proper and ethical use of political power.
It seems to me that all the political organizations out there who are pushing truly legitimate and worthwhile political issues, and spending lots of money to get their points across to the public (and to bribe their Congresspeople), would find it a lot easier to succeed if we had a ’citizen congress’ by FIRST getting a Congressional Term Limits Amendment (CTLA) enacted.
There is no doubt in my mind that a Congress made up of relatively new people, untainted by excessive tenure, would have a remarkably fresh outlook on the issues of the day, and be inclined to use much more commonsense in resolving those issues. And let's not kid ourselves, being a Congressperson is NOT brain surgery or rocket science!
On the other hand, it appears that many of the most vigorous opponents of term limits, other than careerist professsional polticians, are precisely those organizations which are called ‘special interests’, and it is those organizations who have the most intimately corrupt relationships with the entrenched "tenured' politicians of the modern day Congress. These are the people we have to beat.
Our wonderfully diverse and free political system is made up of all kinds of people who are tugging at ‘the powers that be’ in Congress for good laws and bad ones (increasing or decreasing the size of government, balancing or unbalancing the budget, raising or lowering taxes, etc.). We need a Congress that is responsive to the voters in a thoughtful and responsible way, consistent with what is best for the country longterm, not with an eye to the next election. A term limited citizen Congress will do that.
So I say “Let’s do first things first! Let’s establish Congressional Term Limits!”
Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
www.tenurecorrupts.com
5/15/2005
#17 HOW TO START THE DRIVE ?
www.tenurecorrupts.com
Given the well documented fact that, whenever term limits is on a ballot, for city or statewide offices, it wins with overwhelming majorities, such as a 70 to 30 ratio, why hasn’t a ‘deep pockets’ individual or organization come forth with the resources to fund a nationwide petition drive to promote a Congressional Term Limits Amendment ? I am sure some such exist. How can we identify them?
Is it because it is only the lowly voters who believe in it, and not any of the rich high and mighty ? I absolutely refuse to believe that.
Of course, it doesn’t take just money and advertising. It also takes dedicated volunteers to spread the word and do the grunt work. How best to identify them and gain their cooperation?
I am certain that there are many of the wealthy, and many who would volunteer, who have just as much commonsense as all those voters around the country who believe in term limits. I think it is only necessary to create a scenario that will convince them that such a drive will succeed.
Consider the following idea:
Rather than sending a barrage of email to Congress (which will be spam-blocked), let’s do it the old-fashioned way...chain snailmail. It could be started relatively economically by a steady, persistent program of small ads, placed in all kinds of media, all over the country.
These ads would make a brief sensible pitch for a Congressional Term Limits Amendment, and urge readers to write a snailmail to all their friends (with a copy to Congress and the media), to urge them to write to their friends (again with a copy to Congress and the media), and so on, and so on.
At the same time, a number of websites would be prepared to support the ads with the snailmail addresses of Congresspeople, newspapers, radio/TV stations, thinktanks, and bloggers’ email. The site could include samples of particularly effective letters for the writers to use for best results.
Whaddaya think? I'm Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe our country needs Congressional Term Limits
www.tenurecorrupts.com
Given the well documented fact that, whenever term limits is on a ballot, for city or statewide offices, it wins with overwhelming majorities, such as a 70 to 30 ratio, why hasn’t a ‘deep pockets’ individual or organization come forth with the resources to fund a nationwide petition drive to promote a Congressional Term Limits Amendment ? I am sure some such exist. How can we identify them?
Is it because it is only the lowly voters who believe in it, and not any of the rich high and mighty ? I absolutely refuse to believe that.
Of course, it doesn’t take just money and advertising. It also takes dedicated volunteers to spread the word and do the grunt work. How best to identify them and gain their cooperation?
I am certain that there are many of the wealthy, and many who would volunteer, who have just as much commonsense as all those voters around the country who believe in term limits. I think it is only necessary to create a scenario that will convince them that such a drive will succeed.
Consider the following idea:
Rather than sending a barrage of email to Congress (which will be spam-blocked), let’s do it the old-fashioned way...chain snailmail. It could be started relatively economically by a steady, persistent program of small ads, placed in all kinds of media, all over the country.
These ads would make a brief sensible pitch for a Congressional Term Limits Amendment, and urge readers to write a snailmail to all their friends (with a copy to Congress and the media), to urge them to write to their friends (again with a copy to Congress and the media), and so on, and so on.
At the same time, a number of websites would be prepared to support the ads with the snailmail addresses of Congresspeople, newspapers, radio/TV stations, thinktanks, and bloggers’ email. The site could include samples of particularly effective letters for the writers to use for best results.
Whaddaya think? I'm Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe our country needs Congressional Term Limits
www.tenurecorrupts.com
#16 WHY IS THE MEDIA SILENT ON TERM LIMITS?
www.tenurecorrupts.com
i have been thinking seriously about Congressional Term Limits for a couple of years now, and the more I think about it, the more I am flabbergasted that the issue has not become more central to the national dialog.
I am surprised that more of the national media, on both the right and the left, donot editorialize even occasionally about the fact that both political parties have been taken over by careerist politicians who are solely guided by what will best serve their reelection efforts, and their lust to hold on to power, perks, and prestige.
More and more often they seem to pursue purely partisan objectives, seeking primarily to block the other party’s progress, to build a case for the next election, rather than to achieve some kind of reasonably constructive solution for some aspect of America’s business.
Of course you might say “The pursuit of purely partisan objectives IS the business of politics!”. I would agree, but wouldn’t you also agree that they should draw the line at inventing new and unprecedented ways to foil each other, regardless of merit of the issue, while loudly proclaiming that the other party is shredding the fabric of democracy?
In fact, this gives me the occasion to review and renew my belief that term limits is essential to the longterm political health of our country, whereas no one else in the media seems to be concerned. Why is it that there is so little interest in Term Limits by the editorial media ?
Currently, it is the Democrats who are the minority party of aggressive obstructionists ‘saving the country’ from the ‘fascist’ Republicans, who seem to be the majority party of inept tyrannical dominance. But it could very well be the other way around. I am convinced that the ‘citizen congress’ produced by term limits would end much of the stonewalling and posturing which prevails in our modern Congress.
Remember that, as far as voters are concerned, when term limits are on the ballot, they always win overwhelmingly. Voters seem to be the last refuge of common sense in the country.
I am Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe that our country needs Congressional Term Limits
www.tenurecorrupts.com
i have been thinking seriously about Congressional Term Limits for a couple of years now, and the more I think about it, the more I am flabbergasted that the issue has not become more central to the national dialog.
I am surprised that more of the national media, on both the right and the left, donot editorialize even occasionally about the fact that both political parties have been taken over by careerist politicians who are solely guided by what will best serve their reelection efforts, and their lust to hold on to power, perks, and prestige.
More and more often they seem to pursue purely partisan objectives, seeking primarily to block the other party’s progress, to build a case for the next election, rather than to achieve some kind of reasonably constructive solution for some aspect of America’s business.
Of course you might say “The pursuit of purely partisan objectives IS the business of politics!”. I would agree, but wouldn’t you also agree that they should draw the line at inventing new and unprecedented ways to foil each other, regardless of merit of the issue, while loudly proclaiming that the other party is shredding the fabric of democracy?
In fact, this gives me the occasion to review and renew my belief that term limits is essential to the longterm political health of our country, whereas no one else in the media seems to be concerned. Why is it that there is so little interest in Term Limits by the editorial media ?
Currently, it is the Democrats who are the minority party of aggressive obstructionists ‘saving the country’ from the ‘fascist’ Republicans, who seem to be the majority party of inept tyrannical dominance. But it could very well be the other way around. I am convinced that the ‘citizen congress’ produced by term limits would end much of the stonewalling and posturing which prevails in our modern Congress.
Remember that, as far as voters are concerned, when term limits are on the ballot, they always win overwhelmingly. Voters seem to be the last refuge of common sense in the country.
I am Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe that our country needs Congressional Term Limits
www.tenurecorrupts.com
4/23/2005
#15 TERM LIMITS vs ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM
www.tenurecorrupts.com
To paraphrase Lord Acton: Incumbency tends to corrupt, and continued incumbency tends to corrupt continuously. However.....
After being a Term Limits fanatic for some time, I have had some second thoughts, as follows:
Term Limits has a dark side, which I have not heard mentioned by anyone, to wit: Given the perverse aspects of human nature, it should be expected that some number of term limited 'lame duck' Congressmen of both houses, and both parties, will, in their final terms, vote for special interest legislation against the best interests of the country, and the will of the voters, in order to assure his/her own future financial well-being after they leave office. Is there any way to counter this very natural tendency? Not very likely, so I submit an equally unlikely alternative:
Perhaps better ways (than term limits) to avoid the abuses of entrenched power, and to improve the quality of Congressional performance would include such ideas as:
a. Prohibiting the use of seniority as a means of awarding any chairmanships.
b. Limit subchairs to two years, and fullchairs to six years
c. Or rotate chairs
d. End the power of chairs to bury bills in committee
e. End the use of seniority in all assignments. ( 'How' is the problem)
f. and so forth. I'm sure there are many other good ideas out there
And last, but not least, these changes should be accomplished expeditiously by Congress itself, in both houses, not by Constitutional amendments, and the changes should be protected from easy tampering in future Congresses by including a requirement for a two thirds vote of both houses for any changes. If, due to parliamentary maneuvering, this protection is not practical, then it may be necessary to resort to a constitutional amendment for congressional administrative reform.
Again, given the less than idealistic tendencies of human nature, especially in the 'old bulls', it would take a drive of truly historic proportions to get changes like these passed, but I'd bet that if we got a lot more freshmen in the next Congress, it would truly be possible, since freshmen would have the most to gain.
Who in Congress (or out of it) could best get this ball rolling? It could be a great campaign plank for aspiring new candidates and/or reelection candidates.
Of course, we have to somehow guard against the law of unintended consequences whenever we fix a problem. And the great weakness of the idea is that Congress could undo it with a simple vote.
www.tenurecorrupts.com
To paraphrase Lord Acton: Incumbency tends to corrupt, and continued incumbency tends to corrupt continuously. However.....
After being a Term Limits fanatic for some time, I have had some second thoughts, as follows:
Term Limits has a dark side, which I have not heard mentioned by anyone, to wit: Given the perverse aspects of human nature, it should be expected that some number of term limited 'lame duck' Congressmen of both houses, and both parties, will, in their final terms, vote for special interest legislation against the best interests of the country, and the will of the voters, in order to assure his/her own future financial well-being after they leave office. Is there any way to counter this very natural tendency? Not very likely, so I submit an equally unlikely alternative:
Perhaps better ways (than term limits) to avoid the abuses of entrenched power, and to improve the quality of Congressional performance would include such ideas as:
a. Prohibiting the use of seniority as a means of awarding any chairmanships.
b. Limit subchairs to two years, and fullchairs to six years
c. Or rotate chairs
d. End the power of chairs to bury bills in committee
e. End the use of seniority in all assignments. ( 'How' is the problem)
f. and so forth. I'm sure there are many other good ideas out there
And last, but not least, these changes should be accomplished expeditiously by Congress itself, in both houses, not by Constitutional amendments, and the changes should be protected from easy tampering in future Congresses by including a requirement for a two thirds vote of both houses for any changes. If, due to parliamentary maneuvering, this protection is not practical, then it may be necessary to resort to a constitutional amendment for congressional administrative reform.
Again, given the less than idealistic tendencies of human nature, especially in the 'old bulls', it would take a drive of truly historic proportions to get changes like these passed, but I'd bet that if we got a lot more freshmen in the next Congress, it would truly be possible, since freshmen would have the most to gain.
Who in Congress (or out of it) could best get this ball rolling? It could be a great campaign plank for aspiring new candidates and/or reelection candidates.
Of course, we have to somehow guard against the law of unintended consequences whenever we fix a problem. And the great weakness of the idea is that Congress could undo it with a simple vote.
www.tenurecorrupts.com
#14 FREEDOM IS ITS OWN WORST ENEMY
www.tenurecorrupts.com
John Adams, one of our Founding Fathers and our second president, once said :
'Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.'
The ominous note that John Adams sounded so long ago may appear to have been unnecessarily gloomy, but it may have been vague only in its lack of specific timing. There are now innumerable signs that what he warned about is slowly but inexorably coming to pass.
For example:
A prime example is the direct consequence of the growth of government for the well intentioned purpose of 'protecting the environment'. Presumably because this is such a huge job, Congress created the EPA, and then delegated to this unelected bureaucracy the job of creating laws, usually based on fake science, pushed by fanatical activists, which limit the freedom of citizens to go about their daily lives unencumbered by irresponsible government.
Another example is the fact, that because this is a free country with free speech, any nut, or group af nuts, has the liberty to hound and harass Congress (with the threat of defeating incumbents at the next election) to pass laws which the great unorganized mass of citizens would not agree to if asked. Sometimes these laws are of such importance that the otherwise silent majority gets its dander up and lets Congress know its opposition, but often Congress sneaks the item into a bill without anyone knowing, except the extremists who scared them.
In order to keep a country free, it necessary for its citizens to pay the price of vigilance, by devising and maintaining a constant drumbeat of freedom, to counteract those who dream up false 'crises' which 'require' the passage of ever more laws restricting our freedoms in both subtle and outrageous ways.
Why do I say that 'freedom is its own worst enemy' ?
Because it is the nature of things that, while the vast majority of people are very content to live in peace and freedom, working hard, valuing industriousness, honesty, and integrity, pursuing their particular version of happiness, there always exists a small but significant fraction of the population who, for either strong ideological or predatory reasons, are determined to force their less aggressive fellow humans to live the way they think the people should live, and parasitically living off the people, and despotically running their lives 'for the public good'. And to compound the problem, there is another significant fraction of the public who support this predatory group because they want the subsidies that are promised, rather than work to support themselves.
It is in a free society that people get to freely vote for their 'governors'. But, it is in a free society, in the elections process, where the opportunistic, often duplicitous, disingenuous, and sometimes downright criminal types of people go to make their careers in politics. It is in politics where you can get reelected over and over again as long as you promise to give the people more 'goodies', and make it tougher for opponents to unseat you. It is in politics where you can vote for your own raises, and make the proper connections, doing subtle give and take, to become wealthy without working as hard as an entrepreneur.
Of course , I 'm not saying that all who go into politics are crooked. But I am saying that even the best people, given enough years in the often dirty business of 'you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours' will emerge considerably less than ennobled - an obvious argument for term limits.
By the way, what is this talk about a 'free' society? Not only are we losing our various freedoms (to drill for oil, to smoke, to drive powerful cars, etc), but we are being forced to pay higher and higher taxes for the 'privilege' of having less and less freedom.
I’m Nelson Lee Walker and I believe we need Congressional Term Limits.
www.tenurecorrupts.com
John Adams, one of our Founding Fathers and our second president, once said :
'Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.'
The ominous note that John Adams sounded so long ago may appear to have been unnecessarily gloomy, but it may have been vague only in its lack of specific timing. There are now innumerable signs that what he warned about is slowly but inexorably coming to pass.
For example:
A prime example is the direct consequence of the growth of government for the well intentioned purpose of 'protecting the environment'. Presumably because this is such a huge job, Congress created the EPA, and then delegated to this unelected bureaucracy the job of creating laws, usually based on fake science, pushed by fanatical activists, which limit the freedom of citizens to go about their daily lives unencumbered by irresponsible government.
Another example is the fact, that because this is a free country with free speech, any nut, or group af nuts, has the liberty to hound and harass Congress (with the threat of defeating incumbents at the next election) to pass laws which the great unorganized mass of citizens would not agree to if asked. Sometimes these laws are of such importance that the otherwise silent majority gets its dander up and lets Congress know its opposition, but often Congress sneaks the item into a bill without anyone knowing, except the extremists who scared them.
In order to keep a country free, it necessary for its citizens to pay the price of vigilance, by devising and maintaining a constant drumbeat of freedom, to counteract those who dream up false 'crises' which 'require' the passage of ever more laws restricting our freedoms in both subtle and outrageous ways.
Why do I say that 'freedom is its own worst enemy' ?
Because it is the nature of things that, while the vast majority of people are very content to live in peace and freedom, working hard, valuing industriousness, honesty, and integrity, pursuing their particular version of happiness, there always exists a small but significant fraction of the population who, for either strong ideological or predatory reasons, are determined to force their less aggressive fellow humans to live the way they think the people should live, and parasitically living off the people, and despotically running their lives 'for the public good'. And to compound the problem, there is another significant fraction of the public who support this predatory group because they want the subsidies that are promised, rather than work to support themselves.
It is in a free society that people get to freely vote for their 'governors'. But, it is in a free society, in the elections process, where the opportunistic, often duplicitous, disingenuous, and sometimes downright criminal types of people go to make their careers in politics. It is in politics where you can get reelected over and over again as long as you promise to give the people more 'goodies', and make it tougher for opponents to unseat you. It is in politics where you can vote for your own raises, and make the proper connections, doing subtle give and take, to become wealthy without working as hard as an entrepreneur.
Of course , I 'm not saying that all who go into politics are crooked. But I am saying that even the best people, given enough years in the often dirty business of 'you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours' will emerge considerably less than ennobled - an obvious argument for term limits.
By the way, what is this talk about a 'free' society? Not only are we losing our various freedoms (to drill for oil, to smoke, to drive powerful cars, etc), but we are being forced to pay higher and higher taxes for the 'privilege' of having less and less freedom.
I’m Nelson Lee Walker and I believe we need Congressional Term Limits.
www.tenurecorrupts.com
4/02/2005
#13 TERM LIMITS vs JUDGES
www.tenurecorrupts.com
One of the latest political furors is about the judiciary overreaching
and legislating from the bench. I believe that my pet concern about
Congressional Term Limits (www.tenurecorrupts.com) may provide
a solution to fix the runaway judiciary.
One of the problems with our wonderful American representative
republic/democracy is that in many parts of the government we
are suffering from a disease brought on by age and ‘tenure’. You
could call it ‘hardening of the arteries’.
When individuals in government (or any other pursuit!) occupy one
job or office for too long, they naturally become less effective at
that job. They begin to lose the energy, enthusiasm, and imagination
required to perform that job well. But they do learn how to best hold
on to the job, whether they are doing well or not, by ‘gaming’ the system.
And there is a significant tendency for such ‘used up’ politicians to
maintain the status quo, not only in their own situation, but in similar
situations thruout the government. Thus, even though the Judiciary
appears to be stealing Congressional responsibilities, the pols consider
this theft to be a way of shedding political ‘blame’ by avoiding tough
legislative choices and therefore favorable to their reelection chances.
In other words, "Let the judges do it!"
Term Limits would tend to bring in new congresspeople who would
have a fresh point-of-view, and be aware that the Judiciary was
behaving unconstitutionally, and be far more apt to curb the
runaway Judiciary by legislation, which the Constitution provides for.
Nelson Lee Walker
www.tenurecorrupts.com
One of the latest political furors is about the judiciary overreaching
and legislating from the bench. I believe that my pet concern about
Congressional Term Limits (www.tenurecorrupts.com) may provide
a solution to fix the runaway judiciary.
One of the problems with our wonderful American representative
republic/democracy is that in many parts of the government we
are suffering from a disease brought on by age and ‘tenure’. You
could call it ‘hardening of the arteries’.
When individuals in government (or any other pursuit!) occupy one
job or office for too long, they naturally become less effective at
that job. They begin to lose the energy, enthusiasm, and imagination
required to perform that job well. But they do learn how to best hold
on to the job, whether they are doing well or not, by ‘gaming’ the system.
And there is a significant tendency for such ‘used up’ politicians to
maintain the status quo, not only in their own situation, but in similar
situations thruout the government. Thus, even though the Judiciary
appears to be stealing Congressional responsibilities, the pols consider
this theft to be a way of shedding political ‘blame’ by avoiding tough
legislative choices and therefore favorable to their reelection chances.
In other words, "Let the judges do it!"
Term Limits would tend to bring in new congresspeople who would
have a fresh point-of-view, and be aware that the Judiciary was
behaving unconstitutionally, and be far more apt to curb the
runaway Judiciary by legislation, which the Constitution provides for.
Nelson Lee Walker
www.tenurecorrupts.com
3/20/2005
#12 A CONUNDRUM ?
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com/strategies
Conundrum, def:
a : a question or problem having only a conjectural answer
b : an intricate and difficult problem
We have a conundrum here.
One day while working on the website, it occurred to me that my preferred
‘basic strategy’ may be essentially counterproductive. Do I have a conundrum
on my hands ?
The strategy I am talking about is the one where I suggest that we adopt
an amendment which is worded so as to exempt current incumbents
from being term limited, as long as they continue to be successfully
reelected. The theory here is that such an amendment would be easier
to pass Congress, since it does not affect current members.
I suddenly woke up to the fact that, if the current reelection rate of 99%
continues indefinitely, then it will take a mighty long time for term limits
to have any significant effect on the Congress.
For example, using very rough arithmetic: Congress has 535 members,
and is currently at a 99% reelection rate . So, if we were able to change
only 1%, or 5 or 6 members every 2 years, it would take approximately
50 elections, or 100 years, to change only one-half of the membership
to be term limited !!
On the other hand, if the reelection rate was only 95%, thereby changing
5%, or 27 seats every 2 years, it would take only 10 years to get one-half
of Congress to be term limited, which, of course, is much more reasonable.
Obviously, my strategy to use the incumbency exemption was valid a few
years ago, when the reelection rate was less than 95%. Is it still valid ?
Only time will tell.
If the 99% rate in the 2004 election was an anomaly, and it returns to a
more acceptable 95% level, I would still be inclined to stick with the
‘exemption amendment’, because I believe it improves our chances of
getting the amendment thru two-thirds of each house of Congress.
If, on the other hand, the reelection rate appears to be ‘stuck’ at the 99%
level, it serves to confirm the real necessity for Congressional Term Limits,
and only emphasizes how difficult the job is going to be. It shows that
a significant fraction of the electorate is too lazy or indifferent to realize
that a Congress ‘elected for life’ is not a healthy situation. Commonsense
tells us all that ‘tenure corrupts’ ! Even ‘good’ politicians become tainted
after serving too long in the same office, even if the taint is ‘only’ arrogance.
I'm Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe our country needs Congressional Term Limits.
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com/strategies
Conundrum, def:
a : a question or problem having only a conjectural answer
b : an intricate and difficult problem
We have a conundrum here.
One day while working on the website, it occurred to me that my preferred
‘basic strategy’ may be essentially counterproductive. Do I have a conundrum
on my hands ?
The strategy I am talking about is the one where I suggest that we adopt
an amendment which is worded so as to exempt current incumbents
from being term limited, as long as they continue to be successfully
reelected. The theory here is that such an amendment would be easier
to pass Congress, since it does not affect current members.
I suddenly woke up to the fact that, if the current reelection rate of 99%
continues indefinitely, then it will take a mighty long time for term limits
to have any significant effect on the Congress.
For example, using very rough arithmetic: Congress has 535 members,
and is currently at a 99% reelection rate . So, if we were able to change
only 1%, or 5 or 6 members every 2 years, it would take approximately
50 elections, or 100 years, to change only one-half of the membership
to be term limited !!
On the other hand, if the reelection rate was only 95%, thereby changing
5%, or 27 seats every 2 years, it would take only 10 years to get one-half
of Congress to be term limited, which, of course, is much more reasonable.
Obviously, my strategy to use the incumbency exemption was valid a few
years ago, when the reelection rate was less than 95%. Is it still valid ?
Only time will tell.
If the 99% rate in the 2004 election was an anomaly, and it returns to a
more acceptable 95% level, I would still be inclined to stick with the
‘exemption amendment’, because I believe it improves our chances of
getting the amendment thru two-thirds of each house of Congress.
If, on the other hand, the reelection rate appears to be ‘stuck’ at the 99%
level, it serves to confirm the real necessity for Congressional Term Limits,
and only emphasizes how difficult the job is going to be. It shows that
a significant fraction of the electorate is too lazy or indifferent to realize
that a Congress ‘elected for life’ is not a healthy situation. Commonsense
tells us all that ‘tenure corrupts’ ! Even ‘good’ politicians become tainted
after serving too long in the same office, even if the taint is ‘only’ arrogance.
I'm Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe our country needs Congressional Term Limits.
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com/strategies
3/14/2005
#11 TERM LIMITS VS CONGRESSIONAL CLIMATE
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com
One of the somewhat valid arguments proposed against Congressional
term limits is that truly ‘worthy’ congressional incumbents would lose
their seats for no other reason than an arbitrary tenure limit, and that
would be foolish. We have few enough ‘good guys’ as it is.
Agreed, but this argument misses the point in at least two ways:
First, no one has any idea how many worthy individuals are discouraged
from running, or how many who do run lose to firmly ‘locked in’ unworthy
incumbents. This is a significant loss, which if reversed by term limits,
could change the whole ‘atmosphere’ in Congress.
This leads to the second point: In a Congress full of only short-term,
‘inexperienced’, freshman-like legislators, the environment of the body
will be transformed from a careerist ‘old boy’ club atmosphere with
hardened artery ancient ‘rules’ about how ‘we’ve always done it this way’,
to a forward looking group of younger people from the ‘outside the Beltway’
world of commerce and industry, who are used to getting things done with
commonsense effectiveness, and who plan to return to the real world
after their service in one or two seats in government.
We all realize that all changes come with tradeoffs, and what we too often
do not acknowledge, is that controversial changes often deliver benefits
which far outstrip the negatives forecasted by opponents who favor the
status quo. I believe this will especially be true of Congressional Term Limits.
Nelson Lee Walker
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com
One of the somewhat valid arguments proposed against Congressional
term limits is that truly ‘worthy’ congressional incumbents would lose
their seats for no other reason than an arbitrary tenure limit, and that
would be foolish. We have few enough ‘good guys’ as it is.
Agreed, but this argument misses the point in at least two ways:
First, no one has any idea how many worthy individuals are discouraged
from running, or how many who do run lose to firmly ‘locked in’ unworthy
incumbents. This is a significant loss, which if reversed by term limits,
could change the whole ‘atmosphere’ in Congress.
This leads to the second point: In a Congress full of only short-term,
‘inexperienced’, freshman-like legislators, the environment of the body
will be transformed from a careerist ‘old boy’ club atmosphere with
hardened artery ancient ‘rules’ about how ‘we’ve always done it this way’,
to a forward looking group of younger people from the ‘outside the Beltway’
world of commerce and industry, who are used to getting things done with
commonsense effectiveness, and who plan to return to the real world
after their service in one or two seats in government.
We all realize that all changes come with tradeoffs, and what we too often
do not acknowledge, is that controversial changes often deliver benefits
which far outstrip the negatives forecasted by opponents who favor the
status quo. I believe this will especially be true of Congressional Term Limits.
Nelson Lee Walker
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com
3/10/2005
#10 THE JUDICIAL STRATEGY ROUTE
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com
Another strategy which may enable the advent of Congressional
term limits is reversal of the Supreme Court’s 1995 5 to 4 controversial
decision (US Term Limits vs Thornton) that the states do not have the
right to determine the terms of their Congresspeople.
At the time of this 5 to 4 ruling, 14 states had already passed term limits
for their Congresspeople, and 11 more had scheduled ballot initiatives
to do so for the next election. There is little doubt, considering the
general feeling in the country in favor of term limits, that once 50%
of the states had done so , the rest of the nation would follow shortly.
Despite the current furor in Congress over the filibustering of
judicial nominees, it appears that due to the ages and infirmities
of some of the incumbent justices, that there will be some new
appointments to the Court during 2005 or 2006. Should the Administration
succeed in getting confirmation of 2 or 3 relatively conservative
justices (‘strict constructionists’), it would not be surprising
to see new challenges reach the Court defending the right of states
to set term limits for their congressional contingent.
We now can count on one more viable strategy fo Congressional Term Limits.
This is Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe that our country needs Congressional Term Limits.
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com
Another strategy which may enable the advent of Congressional
term limits is reversal of the Supreme Court’s 1995 5 to 4 controversial
decision (US Term Limits vs Thornton) that the states do not have the
right to determine the terms of their Congresspeople.
At the time of this 5 to 4 ruling, 14 states had already passed term limits
for their Congresspeople, and 11 more had scheduled ballot initiatives
to do so for the next election. There is little doubt, considering the
general feeling in the country in favor of term limits, that once 50%
of the states had done so , the rest of the nation would follow shortly.
Despite the current furor in Congress over the filibustering of
judicial nominees, it appears that due to the ages and infirmities
of some of the incumbent justices, that there will be some new
appointments to the Court during 2005 or 2006. Should the Administration
succeed in getting confirmation of 2 or 3 relatively conservative
justices (‘strict constructionists’), it would not be surprising
to see new challenges reach the Court defending the right of states
to set term limits for their congressional contingent.
We now can count on one more viable strategy fo Congressional Term Limits.
This is Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe that our country needs Congressional Term Limits.
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com
2/26/2005
#9 INCUMBENCY = ARISTOCRACY
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com
The behavior of politicians, such as Congresspersons in particular, has always been the subject of much derision and cynicism, not just for years, but thruout history.
Yet we have not found any better way to run the political systems of our free societies than to tolerate the kinds of people who are not only willing to endure the grueling electoral process, but who also, having tasted the perks of office, are bound and determined to do everything they can to continue in office forever.
A short time ago, I started to become concerned about the fact that the reelection rates of incumbents of both parties has reached 99%.
My commonsense tells me that this is corrosive to the health of our representative democracy. I would venture that the thoughtful reader would agree.
The Founders had hoped to set up a framework in which “rotation in office” would tend to reduce the accumulation of arrogance, unseemly power, and corruption in public office. And on the whole, for almost 200 years, they were fairly successful.
However, in recent years things have changed. It seems that we are entering the era of ‘the aristocracy of incumbency’.
The latest facts are as follows (Cato Journal vol.14, no.3):
In the history of the US House of Representatives,
150 years ago, 60% of incumbents ran again, and 75% got reelected.
In the last 50 years, 93% of incumbents ran again, 90% won.
In 2004, 99% of incumbents who ran again won reelection !!!
If this trend persists thru a few more election cycles, it would seem that a successful incumbency is, in effect, a new aristocracy. Which is exactly what our American Revolution in 1776 was all about !
True, the difference is that, then, we needed a war to get rid of King George, whereas today we only need to vote the incumbents out.
So why isn’t ‘rotation in office’ working today ? It is a combination of many
factors which have created an inertia in the voting public which maintains the status quo in favor of incumbents in both parties.
In fairly close elections, this tends to allow a significant fraction of the public, who are really indifferent and uninvolved (and who will always exist), who vote on name recognition, or party lines, seldom on the issues or the character of the candidates, who enable incumbents to stay in office, regardless of merit.
That’s why we need a Congressional Term Limits Amendment (CTLA)
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com
The behavior of politicians, such as Congresspersons in particular, has always been the subject of much derision and cynicism, not just for years, but thruout history.
Yet we have not found any better way to run the political systems of our free societies than to tolerate the kinds of people who are not only willing to endure the grueling electoral process, but who also, having tasted the perks of office, are bound and determined to do everything they can to continue in office forever.
A short time ago, I started to become concerned about the fact that the reelection rates of incumbents of both parties has reached 99%.
My commonsense tells me that this is corrosive to the health of our representative democracy. I would venture that the thoughtful reader would agree.
The Founders had hoped to set up a framework in which “rotation in office” would tend to reduce the accumulation of arrogance, unseemly power, and corruption in public office. And on the whole, for almost 200 years, they were fairly successful.
However, in recent years things have changed. It seems that we are entering the era of ‘the aristocracy of incumbency’.
The latest facts are as follows (Cato Journal vol.14, no.3):
In the history of the US House of Representatives,
150 years ago, 60% of incumbents ran again, and 75% got reelected.
In the last 50 years, 93% of incumbents ran again, 90% won.
In 2004, 99% of incumbents who ran again won reelection !!!
If this trend persists thru a few more election cycles, it would seem that a successful incumbency is, in effect, a new aristocracy. Which is exactly what our American Revolution in 1776 was all about !
True, the difference is that, then, we needed a war to get rid of King George, whereas today we only need to vote the incumbents out.
So why isn’t ‘rotation in office’ working today ? It is a combination of many
factors which have created an inertia in the voting public which maintains the status quo in favor of incumbents in both parties.
In fairly close elections, this tends to allow a significant fraction of the public, who are really indifferent and uninvolved (and who will always exist), who vote on name recognition, or party lines, seldom on the issues or the character of the candidates, who enable incumbents to stay in office, regardless of merit.
That’s why we need a Congressional Term Limits Amendment (CTLA)
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com
#8 CONGRESS' NEW TERM LIMITS PLOY
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com
I just saw a TV news report that some in Congress are proposing a Constitutional
Amendment to rescind the 22nd Amendment, which limits the President to two terms.
Now, I can see some rabid Clinton fans trying to get a third term for Bill, or
some rabid Bush fans, trying to do the same for George W. But I suspect a more
devious and malign motive.
I am sure that Congress is aware that, across the country in statewide elections,
local term limits are being enacted, and re-affirmed, with extraordinary majorities.
They can see ‘which way the wind is blowing’, and that it is only a matter of time
before it is blowing for Congressional Term Limits.
Therefore, they figure if they can whip up some enthusiasm for allowing a third term
for Presidents, they feel that this would in some measure be a significant counterforce against limiting the terms of Congressional Senators and Representatives.
In my research into the Founders’ preparation for designing the Constitution, there
was considerable emphasis on Madison’s studies of great minds thruout history and on
the repeated focus of those sages on the principle of “rotation in office”, which
would be a major impediment to the growth of corruption in office.
In other words, ‘rotation in office’ is what the philosophers of old called term limits. And it was a principle they all relied upon to create and sustain healthy governance.
Should we, in the modern world, think any differently ?
Our Founders, who did such a marvelous job in creating the most successful, longest living Constitution in history, may have made a mistake in assuming that the voters would vote to assure ‘rotation in office’, and that politicians would not be able to thwart the principle of ‘rotation in office’. But, they also gave us the ability to amend the Constitution to fix their mistakes. I believe, if they were alive today, they would be disappointed to see that we have not already done so.
I am Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe that our country needs Congressional Term Limits.
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com
I just saw a TV news report that some in Congress are proposing a Constitutional
Amendment to rescind the 22nd Amendment, which limits the President to two terms.
Now, I can see some rabid Clinton fans trying to get a third term for Bill, or
some rabid Bush fans, trying to do the same for George W. But I suspect a more
devious and malign motive.
I am sure that Congress is aware that, across the country in statewide elections,
local term limits are being enacted, and re-affirmed, with extraordinary majorities.
They can see ‘which way the wind is blowing’, and that it is only a matter of time
before it is blowing for Congressional Term Limits.
Therefore, they figure if they can whip up some enthusiasm for allowing a third term
for Presidents, they feel that this would in some measure be a significant counterforce against limiting the terms of Congressional Senators and Representatives.
In my research into the Founders’ preparation for designing the Constitution, there
was considerable emphasis on Madison’s studies of great minds thruout history and on
the repeated focus of those sages on the principle of “rotation in office”, which
would be a major impediment to the growth of corruption in office.
In other words, ‘rotation in office’ is what the philosophers of old called term limits. And it was a principle they all relied upon to create and sustain healthy governance.
Should we, in the modern world, think any differently ?
Our Founders, who did such a marvelous job in creating the most successful, longest living Constitution in history, may have made a mistake in assuming that the voters would vote to assure ‘rotation in office’, and that politicians would not be able to thwart the principle of ‘rotation in office’. But, they also gave us the ability to amend the Constitution to fix their mistakes. I believe, if they were alive today, they would be disappointed to see that we have not already done so.
I am Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe that our country needs Congressional Term Limits.
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com
2/20/2005
#7 "NO POLITICIAN SHOUD BE ALLOWED UNLIMITED REELECTIONS..."
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com
The subtitle of the TenureCorrupts website is the quotation:
“No politician should be allowed unlimited reelections...
...even if he has the votes !”
You might ask: If I believe in democracy and a representative republic, how do I square the first half of the sentence with the last half ?
There are two principles which form the basis of that declaration.
First, my commonsense (and yours) and my experience tells me that, for most people, the longer anyone stays in one job, the more jaded and less effective he becomes in that job, especially in a legislative job where he has no particular ‘boss’, as one would have in any other organization, especially in commerce or industry.
This happens for a number of reasons. For example, the specific problems he wanted to address may have been solved during his tenure, or found to be insoluble due to factors beyond his reach; or he may find the day-to-day grind of legislative politics too arduous, and opts to just ‘go with the flow’; or as is most likely, he simply does not have the imagination or drive to propose unique or exciting ideas for better government.
Secondly, a great many successful reelections are not the result of any particular merit of the winning politician or his platform, but rather simply due to the lazy acquiescence of a significant fraction of the voting public who are voting for names they recognize on the ballot, because they ‘have nothing against the incumbent’ (e.g. the “they are all the same, and at least I know this guy” syndrome).
I had specific evidence of that last factor when I was building the ‘SignUp’ page of the website and found I had to modify the data entry format for people who did not know their Congressional District number, or even name of their Congressperson.
The effect of this large indifferent fraction of the voting public is especially felt when we have close elections, as in ‘00 and ‘04. It serves to extend the status quo of incumbent politicians whether
they were good public servants or not, as long as they were unobjectionable.
Is this any way to run a democracy ?
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com
The subtitle of the TenureCorrupts website is the quotation:
“No politician should be allowed unlimited reelections...
...even if he has the votes !”
You might ask: If I believe in democracy and a representative republic, how do I square the first half of the sentence with the last half ?
There are two principles which form the basis of that declaration.
First, my commonsense (and yours) and my experience tells me that, for most people, the longer anyone stays in one job, the more jaded and less effective he becomes in that job, especially in a legislative job where he has no particular ‘boss’, as one would have in any other organization, especially in commerce or industry.
This happens for a number of reasons. For example, the specific problems he wanted to address may have been solved during his tenure, or found to be insoluble due to factors beyond his reach; or he may find the day-to-day grind of legislative politics too arduous, and opts to just ‘go with the flow’; or as is most likely, he simply does not have the imagination or drive to propose unique or exciting ideas for better government.
Secondly, a great many successful reelections are not the result of any particular merit of the winning politician or his platform, but rather simply due to the lazy acquiescence of a significant fraction of the voting public who are voting for names they recognize on the ballot, because they ‘have nothing against the incumbent’ (e.g. the “they are all the same, and at least I know this guy” syndrome).
I had specific evidence of that last factor when I was building the ‘SignUp’ page of the website and found I had to modify the data entry format for people who did not know their Congressional District number, or even name of their Congressperson.
The effect of this large indifferent fraction of the voting public is especially felt when we have close elections, as in ‘00 and ‘04. It serves to extend the status quo of incumbent politicians whether
they were good public servants or not, as long as they were unobjectionable.
Is this any way to run a democracy ?
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com
2/18/2005
#6 COWARDLY CONGRESS
http://www.tenurecorrupts.com
Another reason for Congressional Term Limits is that Congress is showing a disturbing lack of ‘backbone’ to do what ordinary commonsense demands that it do for the good of the country.
There are a number of clear examples. One of the most egregious is the constant battle about closing obsolete, yet costly, military bases, as recommended by the military, or by special commissions set up to study the problem (so that Congress can avoid the responsibility of making the decision).
While it is true that such actions are economically hurtful to the affected local constituencies, it is no different than the local buggy-whip factory going out of business because of no demand for its product. Such things happen in life and cannot be avoided.
But, since the general U.S. taxpayer is paying for useless military bases the cost appears painless; on the other hand, since the local politicians are afraid they might not be reelected if the bases are closed, they fiercely oppose base closures. (The ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome).
With term limits in place, a far greater percentage of the politicians would already be in their final term, so that reelection was not a concern, and therefore they would be free to vote the responsible way, e.g. to close wasteful bases.
Other examples of ‘cowardly’ Congressional behavior include creating bureacracies to which they delegate the ability to define laws which take away property rights (wetlands, endangered species, etc) which if they (Congress) enacted specifically, would get them booted out of office in a hurry.
It is time for a Congressional Term Limits Amendment.
www.tenurecorrupts.com
Sign Up now to start the Tidal Wave !
nels96
Another reason for Congressional Term Limits is that Congress is showing a disturbing lack of ‘backbone’ to do what ordinary commonsense demands that it do for the good of the country.
There are a number of clear examples. One of the most egregious is the constant battle about closing obsolete, yet costly, military bases, as recommended by the military, or by special commissions set up to study the problem (so that Congress can avoid the responsibility of making the decision).
While it is true that such actions are economically hurtful to the affected local constituencies, it is no different than the local buggy-whip factory going out of business because of no demand for its product. Such things happen in life and cannot be avoided.
But, since the general U.S. taxpayer is paying for useless military bases the cost appears painless; on the other hand, since the local politicians are afraid they might not be reelected if the bases are closed, they fiercely oppose base closures. (The ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome).
With term limits in place, a far greater percentage of the politicians would already be in their final term, so that reelection was not a concern, and therefore they would be free to vote the responsible way, e.g. to close wasteful bases.
Other examples of ‘cowardly’ Congressional behavior include creating bureacracies to which they delegate the ability to define laws which take away property rights (wetlands, endangered species, etc) which if they (Congress) enacted specifically, would get them booted out of office in a hurry.
It is time for a Congressional Term Limits Amendment.
www.tenurecorrupts.com
Sign Up now to start the Tidal Wave !
nels96
2/09/2005
#5 ORDINARY AMERICANS
www.tenurecorrupts.com
With the enactment of Congressional Term Limits (CTL), it is very likely that many more ‘ordinary Americans’ will be entering public office. By ‘ordinary Americans’, I mean people who would are currently earning a living in the mainstream of commercial and industrial life, who decide to run for public office because they believe they would like to affect public policy on some issue or issues.
I believe that, on the whole, and in the long run, ordinary Americans who are willing to serve as legislators for a brief period are more likely to be good legislators than career politicians who have served in government for many years.
Why do I say this ? Well, because 'ordinary Americans' are more likely to do things that are ‘the right thing to do’, rather than ‘going with the flow’, trading favors, and focussing on their reelectability. Remember, we are talking about term limitted people who, by definition, are not career politicians.
True, he/she (the ordinary American) might not have as much experience in the ‘wheeling and dealing’ that is so so much a part of the give-and-take of politics, but that is precisely the point. This country has grown so successfully because a free people with enormous commonsense, creativity, and drive, did not need any special ‘experience’ to make the country great.
Thus, it should be clear that no special experience is necessary to become an effective legislator. Whether you are a career politician or not, the existing staff and ever present bureaucracy serve to provide the nuts and bolts and tools of government. When you are elected, it is your job to use your imagination, integrity, and commonsense to see that government serves the people well.
I’m Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe that our country needs Congressional Term Limits.
TenureCorrupts.Com
With the enactment of Congressional Term Limits (CTL), it is very likely that many more ‘ordinary Americans’ will be entering public office. By ‘ordinary Americans’, I mean people who would are currently earning a living in the mainstream of commercial and industrial life, who decide to run for public office because they believe they would like to affect public policy on some issue or issues.
I believe that, on the whole, and in the long run, ordinary Americans who are willing to serve as legislators for a brief period are more likely to be good legislators than career politicians who have served in government for many years.
Why do I say this ? Well, because 'ordinary Americans' are more likely to do things that are ‘the right thing to do’, rather than ‘going with the flow’, trading favors, and focussing on their reelectability. Remember, we are talking about term limitted people who, by definition, are not career politicians.
True, he/she (the ordinary American) might not have as much experience in the ‘wheeling and dealing’ that is so so much a part of the give-and-take of politics, but that is precisely the point. This country has grown so successfully because a free people with enormous commonsense, creativity, and drive, did not need any special ‘experience’ to make the country great.
Thus, it should be clear that no special experience is necessary to become an effective legislator. Whether you are a career politician or not, the existing staff and ever present bureaucracy serve to provide the nuts and bolts and tools of government. When you are elected, it is your job to use your imagination, integrity, and commonsense to see that government serves the people well.
I’m Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe that our country needs Congressional Term Limits.
TenureCorrupts.Com
2/03/2005
#4 HOW TO PROMOTE MY WEBSITE ?
www.tenurecorrupts.com
Most blogs are simply computerized diarys, where people recount the events, joys, and frustrations of their daily lives. Which is fine as far as it goes.
The only reason I have a blog is to promote my website, www.tenurecorrupts.com, which exists for the sole purpose of enacting a Congressional Term Limits Amendment. The website is a work in progress, and is far enough along to warrant working on how to give it more exposure to the American voter.
Since this is a private effort with limited financial resources, I would like to see if I can somehow "advertise" on the Web, by using bloggers' "word-of-mouth" mentions of the site objective.
Can I get some Blogger.com readers to comment with suggestion ?
Most blogs are simply computerized diarys, where people recount the events, joys, and frustrations of their daily lives. Which is fine as far as it goes.
The only reason I have a blog is to promote my website, www.tenurecorrupts.com, which exists for the sole purpose of enacting a Congressional Term Limits Amendment. The website is a work in progress, and is far enough along to warrant working on how to give it more exposure to the American voter.
Since this is a private effort with limited financial resources, I would like to see if I can somehow "advertise" on the Web, by using bloggers' "word-of-mouth" mentions of the site objective.
Can I get some Blogger.com readers to comment with suggestion ?
2/02/2005
#3 HOW PROMOTE CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS ?
www.tenurecorrupts.com
Now that I've got this website almost up and running, I'm wondering what are the ways to get attention to it, and get people to SignUp. I am fully aware that this is not a subject that most people will get all excited about, but at the same time, I know that whenever it gets on a ballot, it gets lots of votes to pass it.
Let's see if the Blogger community will make some suggestions by submitting comments to this blog.
Now that I've got this website almost up and running, I'm wondering what are the ways to get attention to it, and get people to SignUp. I am fully aware that this is not a subject that most people will get all excited about, but at the same time, I know that whenever it gets on a ballot, it gets lots of votes to pass it.
Let's see if the Blogger community will make some suggestions by submitting comments to this blog.
1/27/2005
#2 SITE OBJECTIVE
www.tenurecorrupts.com
Today I would like to introduce my website (www.tenurecorrupts.com), and to start a series of conversations with any and all who would like to explore the single objective of that website, which is to enact an amendment to the U.S.Constitution for Term Limits in the US Congress..
I am fully aware that there is a universal feeling that this is a fool’s errand, since it is necessary to first get two-thirds of each house of Congress to agree to end their ‘gravy train’. This is not a job for the faint of heart !
It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it ! And I’m volunteering !
My name is Nelson Lee Walker, an ordinary citizen who strongly believes that we need Congressional Term Limits.
Until now this idea has had a lukewarm reception even by those who have been pushing it steadily for many years. Many reasonable, logical, and sometimes powerful arguments have been put forth by several think tanks and organizations, such as Cato, US Term Limits, etc, and in spite of the fact that almost half the states now have statewide term limits enacted by large majorities, the idea of a Congressional Term Limits Amendment (CTLA) doesn’t seem to get much respect.
So I decided to join the 21st century’s blog world and try to put together a comprehensive effort which would focus on the strategies needed to move this idea forward more effectively.
As the links bar of the site shows, we will include focus on:
•Amendment wording choices (some wordings may be more saleable than others).
•A list of all arguments pro and con, fully explored, including possible unintended consequences.
•Discussions of how best to go about organizing real actions to make it happen.
•The site will sign up people all over the country who will, when alerted, simply cooperate in simultaneous CTLA blasts of emails to Congress, and the media.
•We’ll enlist lots of blogs and other media (pro and con) to generate a drumbeat of background noise about a Congressional Term Limits Amendment.(CTLA).
•We will intensify this campaign every two years in each Congressional election.
You can help to start the ball rolling ! Go to tenurecorrupts.com and SignUp !
Today I would like to introduce my website (www.tenurecorrupts.com), and to start a series of conversations with any and all who would like to explore the single objective of that website, which is to enact an amendment to the U.S.Constitution for Term Limits in the US Congress..
I am fully aware that there is a universal feeling that this is a fool’s errand, since it is necessary to first get two-thirds of each house of Congress to agree to end their ‘gravy train’. This is not a job for the faint of heart !
It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it ! And I’m volunteering !
My name is Nelson Lee Walker, an ordinary citizen who strongly believes that we need Congressional Term Limits.
Until now this idea has had a lukewarm reception even by those who have been pushing it steadily for many years. Many reasonable, logical, and sometimes powerful arguments have been put forth by several think tanks and organizations, such as Cato, US Term Limits, etc, and in spite of the fact that almost half the states now have statewide term limits enacted by large majorities, the idea of a Congressional Term Limits Amendment (CTLA) doesn’t seem to get much respect.
So I decided to join the 21st century’s blog world and try to put together a comprehensive effort which would focus on the strategies needed to move this idea forward more effectively.
As the links bar of the site shows, we will include focus on:
•Amendment wording choices (some wordings may be more saleable than others).
•A list of all arguments pro and con, fully explored, including possible unintended consequences.
•Discussions of how best to go about organizing real actions to make it happen.
•The site will sign up people all over the country who will, when alerted, simply cooperate in simultaneous CTLA blasts of emails to Congress, and the media.
•We’ll enlist lots of blogs and other media (pro and con) to generate a drumbeat of background noise about a Congressional Term Limits Amendment.(CTLA).
•We will intensify this campaign every two years in each Congressional election.
You can help to start the ball rolling ! Go to tenurecorrupts.com and SignUp !
#1 INTRODUCTION TO TENURECORRUPTS.COM
www.tenurecorrupts.com
I guess my first blog ought to explain how I got started on this Congressional Term Limits Amendment (CTLA) kick.
I am a retired manufacturing engineer who always enjoyed my job so much that I spent too much time at work (just ask my wife!), and am now enjoying my retirement, looking for ways to do something useful.
As I settled in and started paying more attention to current events and politics, I noticed that politicians in Congress seem to be developing the ability to get reelected almost 100% of the time, while across the country statewide term limits are becoming more and more popular, and getting enacted with very large majorities. Almost half the states now have term limits, and most of them got it thru the ‘Initiative’ process, whereby the voters put it on the ballot and then passed it, thus by-passing their legislatures who would never have voted for limiting their own terms.
Almost all the states which have an Initiative process have enacted statewide term limits. Doesn’t that tell you something ?
At the Federal level, we have a term limited President, and a Judiciary appointed for life, but in between, we have a Congress which the Founders expected would have a reasonable turnover as voters reassessed their Representatives every two years, and their Senators every six years. That’s the way it worked for our first 150 years. Successful reelections ran about 55-60 %. Nowadays, successful reelections run about 98 %. Like college professors, Congress has tenure !
Commonsense tells us that this is NOT because legislators have become more endearingly popular.
No. It is because politicians have learned many tricks to control the system in their favor. And because a significant fraction of the electorate do not pay enough attention to politics to vote on the merits of the issues or of the candidates. Instead, in the voting booth, they vote on the ballot names they recognize, rather than for a name they do not recognize, and who they might have preferred it they knew the issues.
This ‘significant fraction’ of the voters, in closely balanced elections such as we have had lately, unwittingly maintains a ‘status quo drag’ on the outcome of elections, which resists change and favors incumbents in both parties.
That’s why we need a Congressional Term Limits Amendment (CTLA)
I guess my first blog ought to explain how I got started on this Congressional Term Limits Amendment (CTLA) kick.
I am a retired manufacturing engineer who always enjoyed my job so much that I spent too much time at work (just ask my wife!), and am now enjoying my retirement, looking for ways to do something useful.
As I settled in and started paying more attention to current events and politics, I noticed that politicians in Congress seem to be developing the ability to get reelected almost 100% of the time, while across the country statewide term limits are becoming more and more popular, and getting enacted with very large majorities. Almost half the states now have term limits, and most of them got it thru the ‘Initiative’ process, whereby the voters put it on the ballot and then passed it, thus by-passing their legislatures who would never have voted for limiting their own terms.
Almost all the states which have an Initiative process have enacted statewide term limits. Doesn’t that tell you something ?
At the Federal level, we have a term limited President, and a Judiciary appointed for life, but in between, we have a Congress which the Founders expected would have a reasonable turnover as voters reassessed their Representatives every two years, and their Senators every six years. That’s the way it worked for our first 150 years. Successful reelections ran about 55-60 %. Nowadays, successful reelections run about 98 %. Like college professors, Congress has tenure !
Commonsense tells us that this is NOT because legislators have become more endearingly popular.
No. It is because politicians have learned many tricks to control the system in their favor. And because a significant fraction of the electorate do not pay enough attention to politics to vote on the merits of the issues or of the candidates. Instead, in the voting booth, they vote on the ballot names they recognize, rather than for a name they do not recognize, and who they might have preferred it they knew the issues.
This ‘significant fraction’ of the voters, in closely balanced elections such as we have had lately, unwittingly maintains a ‘status quo drag’ on the outcome of elections, which resists change and favors incumbents in both parties.
That’s why we need a Congressional Term Limits Amendment (CTLA)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
