Comments on: Jim DeMint Introduces Constitutional Amendment Requiring Term Limits

By: mschmitt

mschmitt — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:09:34 +0000

By: extirpates

extirpates — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:03:12 +0000

The maximum limit should be 12 years of service at a stretch,
the individual can stand for election after they have been out of office for the same time they were in.

All lobbyists are banned from communicating with office holders for any reason.

By: Jim Tomasik

Jim Tomasik — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:23:46 +0000

My personal preference would be to eliminate all “benefits” - retirement, health care, etc - for elected officials and for their top level staffs. Secondly, no member of their family could work for the government (other than as serving military) and no member could work in any capacity as a lobbyist or for a firm that lobbys the government for 10 years after leaving office.”

I agree with the jist of your preferences but if you had your way, many of the RedState allstars currently elected would be unemployeed..

By: Steph C

Steph C — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:41:59 +0000

Also, only now are we beginning to truly utilize the internet in our activism. Incumbents can’t lie as easily as they did in the past because we’re right behind them exposing the lie for what it is.

Nor are we still apathetic because politics is moving at a much faster rate with more far reaching consequences.

The middle has woken up to the fact they are under attack and remembered that government works for us.

We can change things.

By: Richard Mullins

Richard Mullins — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:40:23 +0000

I don’t mind here and think it should work well in DC.

By: mbecker908

mbecker908 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:37:06 +0000

would be to limit the number of days in session for the Congress. Limit them to 180 days of session for the two year duration of the Congress and forbid them from meeting outside of DC for any reason, official or unofficial, unless specifically called into emergency session by the President for a set number of days to address a single issue.

By: Richard Mullins

Richard Mullins — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:30:38 +0000

that should cause quite a few to leave and never come back.

By: mbecker908

mbecker908 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:24:08 +0000

simply go work for K street.

Politicians are people who sell their souls, and sell them pretty darn cheap. And that goes for both parties.

My personal preference would be to eliminate all “benefits” - retirement, health care, etc - for elected officials and for their top level staffs. Secondly, no member of their family could work for the government (other than as serving military) and no member could work in any capacity as a lobbyist or for a firm that lobbys the government for 10 years after leaving office.

By: Menlo

Menlo — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:00:56 +0000

Personal circumstances and health issues put that out of the question for me. Besides, my own representative, Ken Paxton, is one of the few better ones.

By: Richard Mullins

Richard Mullins — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:43:42 +0000

we need go out there and maybe primary them ourselves. If they don’t want it we should just give it to them. BTW, there are more conservative Democrats in Texas House of Representatives than those 2(especially, Strauss). We have all the chance for conservatives but choose to not elect them.

By: Menlo

Menlo — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:25:03 +0000

The Texas house does not need more Republicans; it needs better (or even acceptable) ones. A house full of Republicans like McCall and Strauss won’t be any better than what is there now. These people make Republicans in Congress look like conservative activists.

The only way to do that is to get conservatives to run in primaries.

By: Richard Mullins

Richard Mullins — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:00:28 +0000

until then no way. I’m not going to trust anything the Dems and their hand picked Speaker(Joe Strauss) to business of voting in a Senator.Really, I don’t want that to happen.

By: gunnerbs

gunnerbs — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:45:11 +0000

was workable until 1913, wasn’t it?

I hear what you are saying about state legislatures, but I think that is a separate problem. The state governments have had Zero representation for 75+ years–why should we be surprised when the 10th Amendment is now brushed aside in Washington?

By: RJD

RJD — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:35:48 +0000

way to go, but the Professional Politician needs to come to an end.

By: Richard Mullins

Richard Mullins — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:00:15 +0000

but Point 3 is unworkable. Really, are suppose to trust the State house where it’s now 77/74 or the state Senate where it’s razor thin and rats are running committees? I certainly don’t want that to happen until maybe we get rid of strait party voting here in Texas.

By: Menlo

Menlo — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:45:17 +0000

I would not have the Texas legislature, among the nation’s most incompetent, elect a dog catcher, especially after last year’s debacle over the house speaker.

By: Common_Cents

Common_Cents — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:26:46 +0000

90+% incumbency rates? What more evidence do we need over a long period of time to show that something “ain’t right”.

Dr. Phil says, Hows that workin for ya. Our country has suffered great damage due to our “elected elites” continually doing damage and taking bold steps in preserving their elitism. DEMs just do it more boldly and much quicker. Golly gee, automatic pay raises so they can stay off the radar?

Drastic times needs some drastic action. Maybe affirmative action where it will be required to have X% small business owners in congress..

At the same time, I do think our apathy deserves what we get, but it really shouldn’t. There are so many outright lies and campaign promises deliberately broken its not even funny. Here the public tries to do a decent job according to campaigns to be deceived time and time again. Our “elected elite” are supposed to have some sort of fiduciary responsibility. Yet todays politcal game is lie your butt off to all voters to get elected, then do whatever you want and force the voter to catch you on it.

Something needs to be done here.

By: gunnerbs

gunnerbs — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:17:59 +0000

leaves state governments with no representation in the federal government. This is not how it was designed, and seriously upsets the balance of power. This is the reason the Senate has to ratify treaties–because a treaty is in actuality the several states entering into an agreement with a foreign country. It’s also why spending bills must originate in the (people’s) house.

By: Richard Mullins

Richard Mullins — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:06:11 +0000

and personally for lots of them that would be just fine. I think that would really well for lots of them. I’m not as sure about repealing the 17th Amendment since even in the most conservative states, a progressive is likely to win. Some state representatives/senators I wouldn’t even want to have breakfast/lunch or Dinner with.

By: Jim Tomasik

Jim Tomasik — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:21:55 +0000

It works for the President and for the Gov. of TN. It will work for the Congress as well.

All the lame duck stuff sounds pretty silly when you think about how almost all of the congress got re-elected after being in the single digit apporval ratings last year. How can it get any worse than that?

They are mostly a bunch of lame ducks who don’t care what the rest of us think now. At least we would see some better ideas come to the top. Candidates would be more inclined to debate issues during an election instead of hiding behind incumbancy and name recognition. Term limits would not put an end to these problems but it would cut back on them drasticly.