Would there be any downside for the people if Congress had term limits of just o

Position:Home>History> Would there be any downside for the people if Congress had term limits of just o

Question:

And what would the downside be!? Why didn't the founding fathers put term limits on Congress!? ( or did they!? )Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

There are downsides to both options!.
Term limits would mean you would eventually have to face a completely new congress!. The plus side would be with the congress we have now!.!.!. we could get rid of them in a much easier manner than just "vote them out" If we had term limits we would not have to fear them being "out of touch" with the populace!. Each new congressman would be fresh and!.!.!. hopefully the odds would be they knew what the public wanted unlike what we have now!.!.!. a do nothing, cry baby, finger pointing bunch!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

In fact the Founding Fathers didn't put term limits on the presidency either!. The downside of term limits for Congress, in its most simple form, is that it keeps representatives and senators who were elected by the people and would be elected again by the people from continuing to represent the people!.

The upside is freshness and new ideas!. However, lobbyists and others in Washington do not have term limits!. They would hold a distinct advantage over members of Congress who were always new!. Senators and representatives who have been in office for some time, it can be argued, are better equipped to deal with the Washington political machine!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

At the previous respondents point out, having a SINGLE term limit for Congress would prevent members from developing a knowledge-base!. Senators serve 6 years, but the members of the House only serve for two!.!.!. they would barely have time to unpack !!

Another SIMPLE downside would be in the COST to the taxpayer: printing of letterhead and moving costs!. also, think of currently, where House members have to serve FIVE years (2!.5 terms) and then they get LIFETIME benefits: including a pension, health benefits, and social security benefits!. IF Term limits were enacted, they would shorten the requirement to ONE year and stick the taxpayers with a bigger bill!.

The FOUNDING Fathers didn't include term limits because THEY expected Congress to be more of a SACRIFICE than a full-time job!.!.!. the Congress of 1789-1815 received payment of $6 per DAY (in today's dollar), and only while in SESSION !! The idea would be someone would serve one, two, perhaps three terms and go HOME to take care of their land and business!.

IF that $6 per diem was in force TODAY, the current Congress would have made $1,560 in salary for 2008 to date!.!.!. sadly, today they make $169,300 a year!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The downside would be continuity!. With the people we have, they know best how everything works, but they get complacent, where the new people would bring in new ideas!. The problem with that is the old timers refuse it, because it changes things they are used to!.

I think there should be an age limit, this would force a turn-over, and hopefully better ideas and better ways to run the country!.Www@QuestionHome@Com