Term limits are not a new notion. Career politicians are, without a doubt, the worst possible outcome. In fact, I’ve said more than once that paying them is a mistake. Every time a legislature tries to give itself a raise, or more benefits, or any income at all, my advice is no. New Hampshire pays its House and Senate members 100.00 a year plus mileage (basically). Leadership gets a few extra bucks. It’s a citizen legislature, and if you want to serve a long time, you’re not going to get rich doing it.
Legislators, however, are forever arguing that they can’t do their job or can’t get “good people,” because “good people” can’t afford to spend too much time in the legislature.
No shit. That’s the point.
The longer you’re there and the greater the financial incentive to show up, the greater the risk to rights, liberty, and human flourishing.
It behooves the people to insist that their legislators spend more time in the real world, where they must make an actual living.
There are plenty of state-level examples, but the US Congress is by far the worst. They are paid too much and spend too much time there; they should not get benefits and an annual stipend for life after just five years in office, and yes, term limits are a good idea, but not without other changes.
Much like any other legislature, however, they are not going to vote to get less pay or fewer benefits, nor are they going to vote to limit how long they can milk the Federal cow and the taxpayers who feed her.
Chip Roy has had more than a few great ideas, and this is one of them, but it has no chance in Congress of becoming policy.
Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas has proposed cutting off pay and power from House and Senate lawmakers once they’ve served 12 years in their respective legislative chamber.
“A Member of Congress (including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress) who has served 12 or more cumulative years in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, as the case may be, may not, on and after the date that the Member reaches 12 years of service in the Member’s respective House of Congress, be eligible for any covered benefit described in subsection (b),” the text states.
No leadership roles, pay, or benefits after 12 years sounds great. If you want to stick around, go ahead, get reelected, but the taxpayer isn’t carrying you after that. I’m sure we’d have some takers. The off-the-books benefits are worth more than what the taxpayers provide, and the possibility of curtailing careerism is appealing. But did you know that most members of Congress have not served for even 12 years?
Yes, we have plenty of lifers, but the averages would surprise you. The average tenure in the U.S. House is only 9 years, while the U.S. Senate is 11 years. That kind of blew my mind. Which means anyone hoping to get reelected would fall under the new rule if it had any chance of getting passed.
It doesn’t, and as a rule, subsequent bodies could amend or repeal it, but it will never become a rule, so that’s hardly important. Unless it’s all for show.
Look I voted to end my pay and benefits but I’m still willing to serve. New Congress gets sworn in and repeals or alters the rule.
I like the idea, but a better idea would be to end lifetime stipends and benefits for former members who served only a handful of years. You can offer them the benefits but make them pay COBRA like everyone else. If it’s out of their pocket, they’ll probably find something else.
You lose the job, no more pay, period.
Next, we can consider term limits, but getting there from here is problematic. Congress isn’t voting for it, and I have doubts that an Article V convention would result in positive changes (that’ll start a fight, just watch).
So, what can we do?
Absent a moral and well-educated electorate, it will remain a problem that House and Senate rules will not begin to fix.
