Congressional term limits? I hope so!

I have never been much of a political person. Perhaps that stems from my childhood when I felt much the outsider during most of my school life. I figured that those who wanted power could pretty much fight for it among themselves. As long as I was not physically or mentally affected by their antics, I let them go for it.

I am beginning, if certain Congress persons get their way, to feet mentally affected by proposed cuts just when I am eligible to receive them. Not that I am greedy. I, like millions of others, are no longer living on a “fixed” income. I am now living on a “diminishing” income. There are some days when stress raises its ugly head. What affects me mentally eventually affects me physically.

In my humble opinion:

People need to lead for a while and then step down. Organizations need fresh blood. I don’t see much difference between a local group and a national group. I no longer believe our leaders should serve as long as they are elected. There, to my thinking, is too much buying of elections by people (individuals and corporations) who want payback when their candidate reaches Congress. I feel that much of what is wrong with America today could be partially fixed by term limits.

I received an email today. I’ve seen it several times before. It concerns term limits for our national leaders. Although I consider myself apolitical, I must agree with most of what is said. I have forwarded this email many times but nothing seems to be done with it. It is time for people to step up and demand that a vote be taken on these ideas as a Constitutional Amendment. What do you think? Do you agree?

I decided to fact  check and eliminated those statements which were false.

“The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3

months & 8 days to be ratified!  Why?  Simple!  The people demanded it.

That was in 1971…before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to

become the law of the land…all because of public pressure.

I’m asking you to forward this email ( refer this blog) to a minimum of twenty people on your address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the

message.  This is one idea that really should be passed around.*

It has been passed around for years. I wish something was now done about it.

*Congressional Reform Act of 2011*

*1. Term Limits.*

      *12 years only, one of the possible options below.*

       *  A. Two Six-year Senate terms* 

        *  B. Six Two-year House terms*

         *  C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms* I prefer this option the best. I think six years is enough. 

*2.  No Tenure / No Pension. *

        *Congresspersons collect a salary while in office and receives no pay when

         they are out of office.*

*3. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.  Congressional pay

will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.*

*4. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the

       same health care system as the American people.*

This is misleading. However, I found this quote interesting. “On average, the government pays 72 percent of the premiums for its workers, up to a maximum of 75 percent depending on the policy chosen. For example, the popular Blue Cross and Blue Shield standard fee-for-service family plan carries a total premium of $1,120.47 per month, of which the beneficiary pays $356.59. Washington, D.C.-based employees who prefer an HMO option might choose the Kaiser standard family plan. It carries a total premium of $629.46 per month, of which the employee pays only $157.36.”

They pay Blue Cross $70.00 more per month for a family of four than I pay for only myself. For the HMO, I pay more than $100.00 more.

*5. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American


I learned something new today. The e-mail I received complains that Congress shouldn’t be an “elite that is above the law.” But that’s not the way the authors of the Constitution saw it. They worried that presidents might try to bully House or Senate members by threatening to arrest them on trumped-up charges. So to preserve the separation of executive and legislative powers, the founders gave elected lawmakers a certain degree of immunity.

U.S. Constitution

Article I, Section 6  They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

*6. All contracts with past and present Congresspersons are void effective

1/1/11.  *

I am not certain to what contracts this refers but I’m leaving it in anyway. I don’t believe Congress persons should be able to financially benefit from their positions if that is what is happening.

*The American people did not make the current contract with members of

Congress.  Congresspersons made all these contracts for themselves**.*

*Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers

envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go

home and back to work.** *

*If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take

three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. *




There you have it. I took out the point about social security since members of Congress do participate in SS, but I doubt there are any persons presently in Congress who will have to rely on any payments from those funds in order to survive, unlike the millions who will suffer if it is eliminated.

I firmly believe in term limits for Congress. I never have understood why the term of office was controlled for the President and not for Congress. It is time lobbyists had less time to corrupt honest citizens (hopefully at one time they are honest) who desire to serve our country just for the sake of serving our country. Perhaps more of them can remain honest if it is only for six years. I surely hope so.

  …deserve to be served by a Congress interested in the good for the people, not themselves, not corporations, not the billionaires trying to buy our country.

 Namaste. Attic Annie


1 Comment

Filed under Casual conversation, general topics, government, musings, politics, senior citizens, Uncategorized

One response to “Congressional term limits? I hope so!

  1. “People need to lead for a while and then step down.”

    That’s the way the Founding Geezers wanted it, and thought it so obvious that they didn’t bother to write in term limits. Somebody would leave the farm, go to Washington to try to keep the country running smoothly, then after two years (in the House), go back to the farm.

    One problem, the way it is now, is that the first thing a new Congressman has to do when he takes office, is start campaigning for the next election. Which means, raising money. Heck, it’s only two years away – and these days, that’s like, tomorrow.

    The second thing he has to do is line up the lobbyists and big contributors. Then maybe, if he has some time left over in the day, he’ll think about the folks back home.

    We’ve got a new bunch of Republican congressmen – maybe they’ll break out of that mold – but I’m not hopeful. I’ve seen “Mr Smith Goes to Washington”. (The politicians here wanted the movie squelched, because they thought it portrayed the Senate in a bad light, The Europeans censored it, because it showed that the People could have some influence on their leaders.)

    One argument against term limits is that by the time they get it figured out, they have to leave. But if government wasn’t so big and gnarly, that wouldn’t be the case.

    Another, sort of related, problem is that originally, Congressmen represented the People, and were therefore elected by them, for a short term. Senators represented the States, and were therefore appointed (by the governor), for longer periods. Nowadays, they’re both elected the same way, and it doesn’t seem like there’s that much difference in how they operate.

    “I have never been much of a political person. … As long as I was not physically or mentally affected by their antics, I let them go for it.”

    I think those day are over. The current government is reaching so far down into our lives that we can’t escape. We’re all affected by what they’re doing. Most of our financial decisions are affected by the tax laws (“if I do this, how will it affect my taxes?”). Now, our health care is being controlled by the government. (“You must buy our health insurance, or pay a penalty” – unless you’re one of Obama’s “privileged classes” and can get a waiver – like McDonalds, or any number of Unions.

    The question is, what to do? how to react? Most individuals, acting alone, can’t do much. The few rare movers and shakers rise above the crowd by getting the crowd behind them. But doing that is a full-time job, and I can only sit on the sidelines and cheer for the Good Guys.

    I think the proposed amendment is way to complicated – covers too much ground. It’ll never get off the ground – there are far too many special-interest groups against it. It would be simpler if it just said

    “Sentaors shall be limited to two six-year terms. Congressmen shall be limited to two [maybe three] two-year terms.

    I think a bigger problem is the fact that these people (some of whom would not qualify as certified morons) keep getting elected. There are more than a few people in Congress now (and a few in the Senate) who would have been run out of town on a rail in the 19th century.

    Unfortunately, the only reasonable conclusion, given that, is that the electorate is even dumber than they are.

    Someone once said that a thriving democracy depends on an informed and involved electorate.

    We lose on both counts.