|
Redstate
Finally,
A Bi-Partisan Solution on Term Limits
By Jim Bridenstine
May 16th, 2013
Many
in our country and in the districts we represent feel that
Congress is out of touch and that members are more focused on
re-election than
on providing real solutions to our nation’s biggest challenges. We hear
from
constituents all the time that there is a lack of urgency and focus
when it
comes to solving our country’s toughest issues like tackling the
deficit and
putting policies in place that will lead to economic growth.
The
two of us, freshman members from different parties with
divergent views on many issues, have come together because we believe a
healthy
debate is warranted on how we best serve the American people and
whether, in a
time of enormous powers of incumbency and multi-million dollar
campaigns for
Congress, we can be better public servants and curb the corrupting
influence of
money and power by limiting a member’s term in office.
Public
opinion in favor of term limits for members of Congress is
unquestionable. A Gallup poll released this past January reflects the
same
trend seen year after year from countless reputable research firms.
Overall, 75
percent of American adults responding to the survey were in favor of
implementing
term limits and the support is unanimous across party lines.
That
support stands in stark contrast to the overall approval
rating of Congress, which hovers somewhere around 15 percent. Despite
the
unpopularity of Congress as a whole, sitting members still win
re-election
about 90 percent of the time due to the overwhelming benefits of
incumbency. A
system that rewards poor performance with job security is clearly in
need of a
shake-up. Congressional term limits could be the change needed to steer
the
institution back in the right direction.
Our
proposal is a simple constitutional amendment. It does not
prescribe the number of terms a member can serve; rather, it gives
Congress the
constitutional authority to pass and implement term limits. The reason
for this
structure is that by taking away the details from the amendment
process, the
likelihood of passage increases. We believe that even members who are
philosophically opposed to term limits would support a constitutional
amendment
providing the legislative branch with the ability to debate and vote on
the
issue.
Despite
widespread popularity, congressional term limits are
incredibly difficult to implement because doing so requires a
constitutional
amendment with two-thirds of both chambers as well as ratification by
three-fourths of America’s state legislatures. Having super majorities
agree on
the details of term limits, including the exact number of terms, is
nearly
impossible. Since 1995, there have been several attempts to move
specific term
limits amendments, but all have ended right where they began by being
voted
down in the House...
Read
the rest of the article at Redstate
|
