We don’t need another election cycle like this one to understand the problem with Washington.
As is the practice in Washington, there are too many lawmakers arriving in Congress promising change, and then spending decades protecting the system that keeps them in power.
A recent Associated Press report on Democratic deliberations over House committee leadership offered a revealing look at the infamous dysfunction. Democrats are likely to take control of the House, but many of the lawmakers positioned to lead the most powerful House committees are the same faces who have held those positions for years.
Democrats are actually openly talking about whether to embrace term limits, but some of its most senior members are already dismissing the idea.
And that’s why congressional term limits are so desperately needed.
Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi has served as the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee since 2005. That’s more than 20 years.
Rep. Adam Smith of Washington has led Democrats on the Armed Services panel since 2011. Rep. Maxine Waters of California has held the top Democratic position on Financial Services since 2013. Others have occupied comparable leadership posts for nearly a decade.
Their longevity might demonstrate experience, to a point. It also illustrates how easily public service can become a permanent career, with leadership positions treated as possessions rather than responsibilities entrusted to elected representatives.
Congress, like all elected bodies, were intended to be citizen-governments, not eternal appointments for bureaucrats.
House Republicans generally limit lawmakers to three terms as committee chairs or ranking members. Yet, even that system is hardly a substitute for meaningful limits on congressional service, but it at least recognizes that leadership should not be an entitlement that comes with surviving long enough in Washington.
Republican House Majority Leader Steve Scalise says the limits create opportunities for younger lawmakers to rise. Democrats should listen. Their own members are making the case.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania says term limits could make Congress more vibrant. Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington argues that limits would help develop a deeper bench of leaders. Houlahan offered the most compelling argument in the AP report: “Endless is not the magic number.”
Colorado already understands why limits matter. Term limits for state and local offices have helped weaken the entrenched political relationships that can turn public service into a private club. Across the state, from the Legislature to city halls, limits have helped curb cronyism by preventing elected officials from holding the same offices indefinitely and building political fiefdoms around them.
It’s been a help, not a cure.
Term limits are no guarantee against corruption, incompetence or backroom dealing. President Donald Trump is a living illustration of that fact. But term limits are a necessary safeguard against the concentration of power that makes those abuses easier to sustain.
Washington has resisted that safeguard for too long. Americans have repeatedly expressed disdain for the idea of lifetime congressional seats. But incumbents remain extraordinarily difficult to dislodge, particularly in primaries, where a veteran lawmaker’s established network of donors, political allies and campaign cash can overwhelm challengers before voters have a meaningful choice.
The best solution would be a pair of constitutional amendments. One law should limit how long members of the House and Senate can serve. Just as critical would be another law imposing meaningful campaign finance restrictions that end bottomless political donations and anonymous spending designed to influence elections.
Some experienced lawmakers will be lost, and in some cases, that won’t be a bad thing. It’s the cost of opening our representative government to new voices, new ideas and leaders who are accountable to voters rather than to the finance machinery of Washington.
It’s a given that expecting this, or any future Congress, to pass a Constitutional amendment with a super majority in each house and the wait for ratification by 38 states is a lost cause.
Instead, Colorado, next January, should lead a national effort to enlist 34 state legislatures to impose term limits through an amendment to the Constitution and then persuade four more to impose the amendment, bypassing Congress entirely.
And yet the Framers saw no need for them.
Frankly, I trust them far more than you, who faces no such limits either.
Imagine appealing to a group of people that your team has been badmouthing for the last 50 plus years to support your argument.
Imagine life with a brain.
Imagine life with a brain that works.
Term limits won’t really address the problems with our politics. Voters of both parties have proven they will elect an openly corrupt and dishonest candidate over an honest and decent candidate almost every single time. Until that changes term limits are irrelevant
DO NOT VOTE TO LIMIT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. Term limits on elected officials only strenghten the power of the professional lobbyists and the bureaucracy. After Colorado voters thought they were voting for congressional term liwmits, state legislative term limits were all they could impose. But as soon as our voters passed state term limits the lobbyists and state bureaucrats took over. I cannot begin to tell you how many state government bureaucrats simply refused to even listen what our elected state legislators wanted to do for their constituents who had problems with how state government offices refused to even anwer their calls. These state bureaucrats even told me that they could simply wait until I was term limited out of office because they would be there long after I and my fellow legislators were gone. The same was true for the professional lobbyists who numbered more than five times the number of state legislators. They waited out any legislative oppositon to their big business interests for when we were term limited out. Yes there are many congressional legislators who are there too long. But now at the state level just when a state legislator learns how to counter the big business lobbyists and state bureaucrats those legislators are replaced or term limited with new elected officials who do not yet know why they cannot affect the positive change they promised their voters. The problems never change because the lobbyists and state bureaucrats remain the same with no one really able to affect any positive change. DO NOT MAKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EVEN LESS RESPONSIVE BY FUTHER EMPOWERING THE UNELECTED LOBBYISTS AND FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS.
We don’t just need term limits, we need age limits. It’s not just that these people are in office for over a generation, they’re staying in way past their physical and mental sell-by date, to the point they have to be wheeled out and told how to vote, like McConnell and Feinstein. The only reason they stay in isn’t public service, it’s because they’ll lose the luxe lifestyle they’ve become accustomed to while in office and don’t want to live on a pensioner’s income.
Put the cutoff at 70, and if you still want to serve in politics, get a consultancy and you can still take advantage of the Acela Corridor cocktail parties. But make no mistake, everyone is replaceable, and you’ll be forgotten in less than a year after you’re gone.
I would prefer to see the first action be the banning of stock purchases as a seated member of the Congress. It is unethical.
Age limits are necessary. Mitch McConnell has been unable to fulfill his responsibilities for quite some time. Diane Feinstein was so confused in her final years that it was embarrassing for ALL of us. Grassley has already declared he expects to die in his office. In business, the only people who work this long (or die in their office) are those who established their own business. Maybe 70 or 75 years…..(ask some medical professionals) but these roles should not be treated as lifelong jobs, by voters, by the Congress, or by the President (who is already term limited.)
Term limits may well address age limits, but honestly, presidents entering office at age 80 seems sub-optimal to me.