LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

Term limits might curb congressional money lust

Richard Pratt, Las Vegas

Sunday, Nov. 8, 2009 | 2:02 a.m.

I would like to add my two cents to the commentary on the lack of leadership in Washington started by Dave Mesker’s letter in Wednesday’s Las Vegas Sun and continued in Friday’s Sun by Subhas Dhodapkar.

Mr. Dhodapkar hits the nail on the head when he points out that members of Congress are more concerned with getting reelected than doing what is right. The whole game is about raising money for reelection.

Former Sen. Fritz Hollings of South Carolina talked about the “money treadmill” in his interview on “Bill Moyers Journal” in July 2008. He said he had to raise $30,000 a week for six years to fund his last reelection in 1998.

He spent weekends doing fundraisers rather than going home to South Carolina to talk to constituents. As Hollings stated, “The game is money. I got to get the money. To heck with constituents, I gotta get contributors.”

Subjecting Congress to term limits would be a big step in minimizing the money-raising issue. But I would like see it taken a step further by limiting both the House and Senate to a single eight-year term. A one-and-done deal. No reelection for anyone.

The benefits would be huge. No more pressure on congressmen to have to raise money for reelection. No more pressure on congressmen to vote on issues based on political contributors’ wishes. No more pressure to vote along party lines all the time.

It would save taxpayers millions of dollars by reducing the number of elections that taxpayers would have to fund. Bad apples would be handled through recalls and impeachments.

Sounds like a great solution except for one thing: The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Discussion: 11 comments so far…

By mycroft6

11/8/09 at 5:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

I just read something last week that there are 271 millionaires in congress.
By ghostcommander

11/8/09 at 8:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

We already have term limits. Every general election the voter makes the choice from the candidates running. One votes for the candidate of their choice. Enough stated.
By enteaser

11/8/09 at 10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

ghostcommander,
Enough stated...you are a moron!
By KillerB

11/8/09 at 11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

ghostcommander -- I'm with you on this one.

enteaser -- you're name calling again. Whether that shows your low level of maturity or lack of intellect is, like you, irrelevant here. Expect to be ignored like a mouthy child.
By enteaser

11/8/09 at 11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

ghostcommander said, and I quote...
"We already have term limits."
...that is not true. That is a moronic statement as evidenced by the fact that another moron supported it. Thus my statement, that gc is a moron, is a statement of fact and not name calling. KB, I expect you to ignore me because I represent the truth and you can't handle the truth.

By the way, we do need term limits in congress just like we have term limits for the president.
By SgtRock

11/8/09 at 12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

"Every general election the voter makes the choice from the candidates running. "

I believe the re-election rate of incumbents is around 98%.

Obviously, the incumbent has a large advantage against any challenger in the primary and the general election.

Once they get election then it is nearly their job for life.

We have term limits for the Presidency. I think they are good but I know that it will only help out marginally with corruption.
By LarryVegas

11/8/09 at 1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Those politicians need to be "curbed..."
By teamster

11/8/09 at 9:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

The party of NO needs to be curbed.
By LarryVegas

11/8/09 at 10:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

I thinks they should remove the term limit on the Office of the President.

I thinks that Obama will need more then two terms to make a decision on Afghanistan...
By teamster

11/8/09 at 11:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Obama will need more then two terms to fix
the mess Bush left.
By enteaser

11/10/09 at 2:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

This will come as a shock to ghostcommander and killerB...

DeMint Introduces "Term Limits for All" Constitutional Amendment
Amendment would limit every House member to 3 terms, every Senator to 2 terms

November 10, 2009 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) introduced an amendment to the United States Constitution that would apply term limits to all members of Congress, limiting U.S. Representatives to three terms and U.S. Senators to two terms in office. The amendment is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas). As an amendment to the Constitution, it would require a two-thirds majority vote approval in the House and Senate and must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.