It has become increasingly apparent that our legislative branch of government contains a large number of “career” politicians. These people have become not only well-known throughout the country, but also often incredibly powerful within their party, and thus within the government. Not surprisingly, these Congressmen and Senators also become the firebrands for their party, and often very much vilified in other circles (the opposing party, the media, etc.). It is also true that the most long-tenured officials in these ranks have access to committees and the associated power and influence those committees and chairs are able to control.
The problem is really this, in our view: These long-term fixtures in government are quite seldom as concerned for their districts or states, as they are their party and the maintaining of power. This applies to both parties. A constituent needs only to look at the voting records and bills introduced by their elected officials to see what those officials have actually accomplished that is in the best interest of their district, to see if they have been effective during the term they were elected to serve. The vast majority of us will be shocked at how little was accomplished. This has two components, however: First, was the legislation even created (and did it receive enough support to advance) and second, did the leader of the Senate or Speaker of the House even allow it to come to the floor for debate and vote. Again – the fixtures in government that keep returning via re-election hold that power to benefit one official, or penalize another.
Elected representatives are, by design, elected to be our representatives. They should not be elected to advance the agendas of one of our two dominant parties or special interests. Over time, however, they are financially rewarded to advance agendas that may not impact their constituents, but will give them enough resources to stay in office. There is something to be said for experience in any professional role, but there also should be limitations that allow new thoughts, new ideas, and new energy into those roles. We do that with the office of the President; why do we not also do that with our legislators?
In 1995 House Joint Resolution 2 was written to create what we believe are reasonable term limits. It was followed by a report (House Report 104-67) that offered views, pro and con, on term limits. This was part of the Republican “Contract with America”, and it proposed a 2-term limit for Senators (12 years total) and a 6-term limit for House members (also 12 years total). This is a platform the Moderate Majority supports as well.
Term limits must be adopted equally be all states. It would be detrimental for some states to adopt and other to not; that would quite possibly negatively impact those non-adopting states. This is addressed in the Joint Resolution and the associated report.
We also believe that there should be a review of how committee chairs are allocated following each election cycle. Today, the party in power in each chamber completely owns the rights to the all-powerful committee chair roles. We believe that these chair positions should rotate between parties represented in the chambers, with each election, with no party holding the chairman role in more than 60% of the committees. Additionally, no party will hold a chairman posting for a given committee over 2 consecutive sessions. We believe that this rule will force collaboration, and if that doesn’t transpire, those uncooperative elected officials are term-limited and won’t remain in their obstructive role for (what appears to be) a lifetime.