Term Limits Are A Good Idea

I seldom have much good to say about Republicans in Congress. In general, I think they are obstructionist and favor the giant corporations over the rights of individual citizens. But as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day -- and I think some Senate Republicans have found one of those times where they are right.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and several colleagues in the senate are trying to revive the idea of term limits for those in Congress. They are proposing a constitutional amendment that would limit service in the House to six years (three terms) and service in the Senate to 12 years (two terms).

De Mint (pictured) says, "Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians. As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buy off special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork -- in short, amassing their own power."

I'm not a big fan of Senator DeMint, but there is little doubt that he is absolutely right about this issue. Far too often, we have politicians of both parties who act in their own interest rather than the interest of the citizens they were elected to serve (just look at a number of the blue dog Democrats).

I know some of you may think that term limits would cause the Congress to lose some valuable experience. I disagree. That's why Senators and Representatives hire a competent staff. That staff is supposed to do the research so they can supply their bosses with the requisite expertise to deal with complicated issues.

I firmly believe that our Founding Fathers meant we should be governed by elected citizen representatives -- not by a class of professional politicians acting in their own interest. I also believe term limits might inspire some political courage (a quantity that is far too rare these days). Those in Congress might be more likely to vote in the interests of the citizens, knowing that they won't have a career in Washington however they vote.

I doubt if this amendment has much chance of success, because it must have the support of two-thirds of the members of both houses of Congress (and that's what killed it last time it came up). If it does fail, it'll be because the professional politicians voted to maintain the status quo.

I have no doubt that if the citizens could vote on this amendment, it would be approved by a huge margin.