I agree with your idea but it should be 12 years max in congress. 6 two year terms in the house, 2 six year terms in the senate, or a combination house and senate service that adds to 12.
Some are suggesting way too short of time 5 years max. It will take any non politician several years to learn the ropes and then be in a position to lead and implement good policy.
Other suggestions include POTUS in there total years of service. Keep the branches of government separate as the constitution does. 12 years in congress and then 8 years as POTUS is fine if we elect quality people. Itās a huge improvement of 50 years of government service we have now.
I agree, and love the idea my only criticism of the idea is the term limit you put. I would propose a 6 or 8 year term max. I believe this keeps the representation of āServant to the peopleā as this position was never meant to be a career choice. This would limit investment ādonorsā would make with ill/corrupt intent. I also believe it will get more people in with new fresh ideas as time moves forward we need to make sure weāre moving with it but in the right direction.
I honestly think a decade is too long. Given that much time lets the corporate lobby dig in. We canāt end the corporate lobby and control over congress with 10 year terms.
I donāt believe age is a true marker of intellectual abilities. My Uncle was 108 when he died. He was sharper than most of the people I know still alive today. Term limits are a must. Career politicians are much easier to corrupt. They stop working for the public and work for their corporate donors. We need to SEVERELY cap corporate donations. No more than 10k per term. Limit their reach.
I would say ok only if the staff also goes and cannot return for at least 2 years. Chopping off the head would give us nothing but unelected staff running everything. A lot like what we have now.
Term limits strike me as more of a constitutional amendment issue than policy per se.
Also, every election is an opportunity to vote out an incumbent. We the People have been too lax in guarding our liberty. We should be working on getting out the vote of likeminded people (only 66% of eligible voters vote!) rather than arbitrarily limiting terms.
The key is to remove all means of public servants becoming wealthy. Public servants should be public servants at heart. If they earn 180,000 yearly their worth should reflect that.
I have been saying this for 40+ yrs. No one should have a āLIFETIMEā job in government! Out in the ārealā world, people are FORCED to retire by 67 and most do not get a pension. I personally believe in the TERM LIMITS for local, state and federalā¦ with a MANDATORY retirement at 67. yes that would upset the current administrationā¦ BUT, it would ALSO force the YOUNGER generation to get involved again!
Being a politician was never meant to be a career but a period of service.
This is how we end up with people that have no idea how non politicians live.
It needs to stop.
I believe that the Convention of States is a strong answer to many political issues within the Federal Government. Our founding fathers created a beautiful document ( US CONSTITUTION) . Within this document there is a powerful tool that , we the people can get control of a bloated government. The tool that I am referring to is Article V. I urge everyone to look at it.
Yes absolutely! If an individual is in politics their whole life itās because they havenāt accomplished anything and make empty promises. If they actually did what they say they will, if they actually put the peopleās best interest at the forefront and not their financial gain, a lot more change to benefit the working class, would be happening. If these career politicians actually made change they wouldnāt need to be career politicians , theyād find something else to do
The apprenticeship idea could create another subculture that we donāt want. We also do not want to circumvent their constituents by creating an āheir apparent.ā
By reducing the number of consecutive terms, you give the people an open window to additional candidates and force the representative to earn the office on a longer arc. It would also reduce the ācampaigning in officeā phenomenon.
Furthermore, there is something to be said for the responsibility of the constituency to grow in their civic understanding so that they donāt elect the same representatives for decades. If, after a break from office, the candidate has earned the privilege to serve again, so be it.
We should also not make it a financial burden for someone to take on this role as well as not allowing them to get rich.
Like the salary should be high. Say 300k per year (pulled that out of the air). And they cannot accept any money from any groups nor invest in the stock market, etc.
And they should not be allowed to take a position with a company that they have direct policy control over for a period of time.
Could this incentives āget rich quickā behaviors? If you know you canāt have a career in public service, then why not get in, get rich, and get out?
I like the idea, but would not want to inadvertently make the corruption issue worse