• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would setting term limits and wages tied to average wage help motivate congress?

Would setting term limits and wages tied to average wage help motivate congress?


  • Total voters
    27

TheBook

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
880
Reaction score
358
Location
Olympia, WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is an idea I keep hearing thrown about, and was wondering DP's opinion on it.

Would setting term limits for congresspeople (4 for Representatives, 2 for Senators) as well as changing their wage to one in line with the average income of an American citizen help force congress to be more focused on serving the people rather than simply serving themselves? Or would it simply make them more likely to seek out more cash from lobbyists and make it easier to insert shills for a specific group in a race?
 
Why 4 for Reps and 2 for Sens?
 
i'm for tying their salary and benefits to the national average.

especially vacation and health care options.

also, if tax revenue drops, they can be laid off and rehired as independent contractors.
 
This is an idea I keep hearing thrown about, and was wondering DP's opinion on it.

Would setting term limits for congresspeople (4 for Representatives, 2 for Senators) as well as changing their wage to one in line with the average income of an American citizen help force congress to be more focused on serving the people rather than simply serving themselves? Or would it simply make them more likely to seek out more cash from lobbyists and make it easier to insert shills for a specific group in a race?

I am obsessed with term limits, I see nothing positive from having lifetime politicians. I think for every term served in the elected federal government, you should have to spend 10 years out of office in order to be eligible to run again.

The states can do whatever they want.
 
i'm for tying their salary and benefits to the national average.

especially vacation and health care options.

also, if tax revenue drops, they can be laid off and rehired as independent contractors.

Seems a bit off-the-mark to try to lean on the 'national average' when it's average but not the norm: people's perks and benefits increase and improve as their value in corporation/business/society improves and increases.
 
Term limits are just a cop out for the voters. There are term limits - they're called "elections." If you feel that strongly about the incumbent, vote for the other guy.
 
Term limits are just a cop out for the voters. There are term limits - they're called "elections." If you feel that strongly about the incumbent, vote for the other guy.

Yes - this.

I hear it about the presidency all the time: "We don't have time to impeach him - election is next year" and "we don't have to put up with him much longer - elections are only two years away"

Term limits remove people's concern for what's going on because 'it'll be over soon'
 
I would agree with pegging their salaries to some objective marker of economic performance, but I absolutely disagree with term limits. I want my government managed by professionals, not an endless parade of rookies that are forced out of office the very moment they start figuring out how to do their jobs.
 
No, it wouldn't do much at all. In Louisiana we term limit our state reps and they get around it by changing service, basically they will term out in the congress and then run for the senate, then when they term out there they find another elected position available. You would constantly have to pass new laws every time these reps found a loophole. The pay issue I would have thought was good until it was reported that these reps inside trade, money is already not a discouragement and their unique ability to do what we legally cannot in the market has immunized them from any monetary disincintives to make bad decisions.
 
Not sure about term limits, I think it would bring some positive elements, but it would also undermine the power of the people to elect the person they feel best represents their interests. As far as salary goes, the politicians should be subject to the same types of cuts/pay grade they're enacting for their local public sector.
 
This is an idea I keep hearing thrown about, and was wondering DP's opinion on it.

Would setting term limits for congresspeople (4 for Representatives, 2 for Senators) as well as changing their wage to one in line with the average income of an American citizen help force congress to be more focused on serving the people rather than simply serving themselves? Or would it simply make them more likely to seek out more cash from lobbyists and make it easier to insert shills for a specific group in a race?

I voted for term limits. Then you verbally through in changing their pay. I have no problem with what they make. They probably ought to get a COLA like others do. It's a taxing job. :)rofl)

We shouldn't have nor should we need career politicians. We need representatives of the people. Period. An incumbant has such an advantage that it tilts the scales away from "fair" toward "just because." Also, those Congressmen (most of them) who spend their whole term in Congress planning for their re-election? At least a 1/4 of them would, hopefully, be acting purely in the interests of the people. JMVHO.
 
I picked other.I think term limits would just make it harder for them to something wrong. It wouldn't stop any corruption. I do support term limits. Serving in office should be seen a privilege not a long term career.I think there should be two terms for each office, no voting for their own pay, no benefits, no retirement, no secret service once your term is up, no trading stocks while in office, no outside income while in office.
 
Term limits are just a cop out for the voters. There are term limits - they're called "elections." If you feel that strongly about the incumbent, vote for the other guy.

That would be true if it wasn't for the fact that most registered voters do not pay attention to what their elected officials do.
 
Seems a bit off-the-mark to try to lean on the 'national average' when it's average but not the norm: people's perks and benefits increase and improve as their value in corporation/business/society improves and increases.

in that case, they're lucky to get the national average.
 
i'm for tying their salary and benefits to the national average.

especially vacation and health care options.

also, if tax revenue drops, they can be laid off and rehired as independent contractors.

Why not tie wage and befits for what their state average is?
 
Why not tie wage and befits for what their state average is?

i'd entertain that option, certainly.

they need to be more in touch with constituents and less in touch with elites.
 
This is an idea I keep hearing thrown about, and was wondering DP's opinion on it.

Would setting term limits for congresspeople (4 for Representatives, 2 for Senators) as well as changing their wage to one in line with the average income of an American citizen help force congress to be more focused on serving the people rather than simply serving themselves? Or would it simply make them more likely to seek out more cash from lobbyists and make it easier to insert shills for a specific group in a race?

I don't want to set term limits because I believe in the value of professional politicians. However, I do believe in age limits and would like to set them at 75. I think that at about that age a politician wouldn't be able to fully grasp the nature of the technological advances in all industries to effectively legislate them.

I would, however, like to see something done with regards to congressional pay. I don't know if average wages would be a good way to base it on. Perhaps a better way is to require all congressional raises to be approved by a national referendum or by approval by a majority of state legislatures.
 
i'm for tying their salary and benefits to the national average.

especially vacation and health care options.

also, if tax revenue drops, they can be laid off and rehired as independent contractors.

What about the whole, "representation", thing? Where will my constitutional rights be, if my congressman gets laid off?
 
Term limits would definitely be a good idea for reducing corruption. As for tying their wage increases to median wage increases...meh. I doubt it would have much of an impact.
 
Seems to me that term limits, by themselves, would make matters worse. If politicians are lured by money and power, term limits would entice them to be even more aggressive to accumulate what they can while they can. I'm really not concerned with length of office, and I believe citizens should retain the right to vote for whomever they want. I think it's the influence of outside money that is the biggest problem and the most easily fixable. Get rid of outside money, and much of the problem goes away. Though I do think that most politicians are corrupted more by power than money... not that the money isn't desirable in its own right, of course.

Except for mandating that they live under the same laws they pass for us, I don't know what can be done about the power aspect.

Other points made..

Pensions: A pension similar to a 401k while in office (percentage of income limits, matching money up to percentage limits if 'profitable', etc.), but not a 401k to avoid conflict of interest, that must be rolled over to a private 401k with 90 days after leaving office.

Benefits: Some want to provide no benefits at all. Really? Sorry, no. Same type of benefits a person working for a large corporation would get. Individual contributions, etc.

Pay: No, none of this national referendum crap. I do like having state legislators having input, though.
 
Last edited:
I would agree with pegging their salaries to some objective marker of economic performance, but I absolutely disagree with term limits. I want my government managed by professionals, not an endless parade of rookies that are forced out of office the very moment they start figuring out how to do their jobs.

Is there any evidence that legislators with many years of experience are better at their job than the rookies? And if so, how much of that is due to seniority rules and back-slapping connections with other "professional" legislators, as opposed to actually writing better legislation?
 
Seems to me that term limits, by themselves, would make matters worse. If politicians are lured by money and power, term limits would entice them to be even more aggressive to accumulate what they can while they can.

Unlikely. By limiting the amount of money and power a person can acquire through political office (by reducing the timespan), we're less likely to attract people to office who are only interested in money/power. Outright bribery is not common, it tends to take the form of campaign contributions instead. If congresspeople aren't worried about their reelection campaign because they are term-limited, then the influence of money will be much more limited. Their ability to otherwise line their own pockets is limited, short of blatant bribery.

I'm really not concerned with length of office, and I believe citizens should retain the right to vote for whomever they want.

I don't believe that there are very many irreplaceable people who are serving in our Congress or who have ever served in our Congress. Every district has hundreds or thousands of people who are intelligent, politically knowledgeable, and have a similar ideology to the mainstream voter.

I think it's the influence of outside money that is the biggest problem and the most easily fixable. Get rid of outside money, and much of the problem goes away. Though I do think that most politicians are corrupted more by power than money... not that the money isn't desirable in its own right, of course.

Getting rid of outside money is easier said than done...I don't see how it's so "easily fixable" except, incidentally, by eliminating the motivation to contribute all that money to individual politicians in the first place...such as through term limits.
 
What about the whole, "representation", thing? Where will my constitutional rights be, if my congressman gets laid off?

don't worry. when he or she is re-hired as an independent contractor with no vacation or benefits, you'll get even more cost effective representation.
 
Term limits would definitely be a good idea for reducing corruption. As for tying their wage increases to median wage increases...meh. I doubt it would have much of an impact.

Term limits wouldn't reduce corruption. Rather, it would increase it. Politicians who are naive as to how lobbyists influence them would be at greater risk to them. Also, long-term politicians can have a better feel of the pulse of all their constituents, including those who belong to the opposing party.
 
Unlikely. By limiting the amount of money and power a person can acquire through political office (by reducing the timespan), we're less likely to attract people to office who are only interested in money/power. Outright bribery is not common, it tends to take the form of campaign contributions instead. If congresspeople aren't worried about their reelection campaign because they are term-limited, then the influence of money will be much more limited. Their ability to otherwise line their own pockets is limited, short of blatant bribery.
I believe that the majority of people who enter politics early in life do so for honest and noble reasons, and end up being corrupted by outside money and power well into their careers. Removing the money influence keeps the job attractive to them while they're still reasonably honest.


I don't believe that there are very many irreplaceable people who are serving in our Congress or who have ever served in our Congress. Every district has hundreds or thousands of people who are intelligent, politically knowledgeable, and have a similar ideology to the mainstream voter.
Totally agree there are many qualified people. Still doesn't justify removing the voter's right to make their own choices.


Getting rid of outside money is easier said than done...I don't see how it's so "easily fixable" except, incidentally, by eliminating the motivation to contribute all that money to individual politicians in the first place...such as through term limits.
It's a relative statement. I favor, "can't vote, can't contribute", which would go a long way toward solving the money issue without stepping on individual citizen's rights to make their own choices at the ballot box. Term limits would make the urgency of special interests getting the 'right' person in office even worse. You want to take away the money, just take away the money. Don't dance around it.
 
Back
Top Bottom