[POLITICO] A growing faction of House Democrats wants to bring back term limits for the crew of party leaders who sit atop the chambers most influential committees.
The effort follows a series of bruising fights among Democrats over seniority, a split that pits younger politicians who feel shut out from decision-making versus powerful voting blocs like the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. The latter groups have long favored seniority as the surest way for their members to rise in the ranks, while term-limit supporters lament that Republicans are outflanking Democrats in promoting young leaders to carry their message.
Caliphornia, an impregnable bastion of the Democratic Party, Rep. Anna Eshoo ...Democratic Congresswomen-for-Life from Caliphornia, representing Silicon Valley. She began her career as chairman of the San Mateo Democratic Party in 1978, and was first elected to Congress in 1993. When she leaves she'll probably be carried out... , a close ally of Minority Leader Nancy San Fran Nan Pelosi Congresswoman-for-Life from the San Francisco Bay Area, born into a family of professional politicians. Formerly Speaker of the House, but it's not her fault they lost. Really. Noted for her heavily botoxed grimace... , said a growing number of politicians wants the caucus to have a serious discussion about term limits.
"I think there should a very thorough and thoughtful examination, not only of this but several rules of the caucus," said Eshoo, who unsuccessfully challenged more-senior New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone last year for the top Democratic spot on the Energy and Commerce Committee. "I think it would be healthy for the members, all of the members, to really understand what the rules are [and] the history behind them."
Former Caucus Chairman John Larson, who was term-limited from that slot in 2013, agreed. He praised House Republicans six-year limit for people to serve atop committees, although Speaker John It is not pronounced 'Boner!' Boehner ... the occasionally weepy leader of House Republicans... (R-Ohio) has allowed some exceptions.
"A number of people would say Republicans have struck a better formula for advancement," the Connecticut Democrat said. "And I dont think its a bad thing for leadership at all. I mean, its verboten to say it, but its true and I think even our current leaders would recognize it, all of whom I support."
Posted by: Fred ||
01/12/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11135 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Appoint appointments from out of Congress to run the show - then you will see real change and accountability.
#2
Term limits for Congress, period. Full Stop. 2 terms is good enough for the President, so 2 terms should be enough for the Senate, 8 years is enough for the President, so 8 years (4 terms) should be enough for the House. Max 20 years in Congress. No more of the octogenarian f**ks like Byrd, or Kansas' Roberts or the senile coot Cochran.
#3
The whole idea is to limit the republicans, any extensions will come later.(Gotta keep the important people in power there's money to be made here.)
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
01/12/2015 3:55 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Since the vast majority of voters don't give a damn about term limits - proven every two years, if you get my drift - why should I?
#5
#2, add 12 years for Federal judges. They've played politics (not Constitutional law*) from the bench, they may as well be accountable to the citizenry.
* as in where in the hell do you find that in the friggin document?
#6
Since the vast majority of voters don't give a damn about term limits...
The "vast majority of voters" are of the low information variety, they don't know enough to care. Sort of like...you for instance.
Posted by: Woozle Scourge of the Wee Folk4194 ||
01/12/2015 9:14 Comments ||
Top||
#7
A growing faction of House Democrats wants to bring back term limits... Of course they do now that there has been a power shift in both houses of Congress.
How about a term limits amendment so the Donks can't change the law down the road when they might happen to be in power? Hypocritical assholes.
#8
A better solution would be to simply return to the original district population numbers for representation, and expand the number of Reps. About 100K per rep makes them much more accessible, easier to make geographically and socially coherent districts, resulting in less gerrymandering, and better representation of the people. Your congressional rep should be as easily reachable as a small city mayor.
#11
Glenmore, with all the remote meeting technology available today, there is no real reason for the Congress critters to even be in DC anymore. They could stay in their home districts so they could be close to the
constituents.
Of course, this would make it tough for lobbyists, who would have to travel around, or hire many more lobbyists. I see this as a win win, so it will never happen
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
01/12/2015 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I like Old Spook's formula. Its like a narrowing pipe-line. California has a billion congressmen but can only have two Senators so those congressmen are culled or forced to look for other positions if they want to be life-time politicians.
#13
At 100k per Rep we'd have over 3,000 of them. Perhaps we could go per 100K voting age population, which would drop it to around 2,000 I'd guess. Cut their pay to $50K a year and have the sessions in summer. Then you'd end up with a crowd of 5 or 6 hundred on any given day and only a Full House on important national questions when their constuents bring the pressure for attendance. Fund field offices fully so continent services can be maintenance or even increased, that's mostly what they do from day to day.
#15
No. Same as the original limits int he constitution. If that means thousands, then so be it. The number of reps isn't important, its the people per rep that is one of the problems with Congress. If we have to expand then so be it.
Side effect is that it makes it possible for third party candidates to capture a seat here and there. And damned near impossible for one single rep to be so important as to be bought by lobbyists - it complicates lobbyists jobs massively. It also ensures that House of Representative votes will much more closely resemble the votes of the population - look at the county-by-county map for an example.
#16
...with remote teleconferencing et al, there's really no need for them to spend so much time in the Beltway. Limit it 60 days a year. Force the lobbyists to maintain offices in 50 states and upteen districts. That'll be rather costly.
The senate is suppose to represent the states, not the population. Proportional representation is for the House. Do like the electoral college in each state with each county/parish getting one electoral vote. Takes the power away from the big city machines.
#19
Virginia also has a part time legislature. From Wikipedia: 'The state constitution specifies that the General Assembly shall meet annually, and its regular session is a maximum of 60 days long in even-numbered years and 45 days long in odd-numbered years, unless extended by a two-thirds vote of both houses. The governor of Virginia may convene a special session of the General Assembly "when, in his opinion, the interest of the Commonwealth may require" and must convene a special session "upon the application of two-thirds of the members elected to each house.'"
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
01/12/2015 21:56 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Nancy 
