Stan Evans famously quipped that conservatives often come to Washington denouncing it as a cesspool. But shortly after their arrival, they find it more like a hot tub. This witticism certainly applies to the "Contract with America" House Republicans elected in 1994 who remain in Congress. The New York Times has published a graph showing that the budget-cutting class of '94 Republicans have become, in all but two cases, the budget-busting congressional establishment.

I used to be against term limits because the simple sentence "Voting Is Term Limits" said it all. Unfortunately, voters don't say anything - one could argue that this reflects that people are happy. Something like 98% of Congress gets re-elected.

Term Limits would not lmiit our choices. If Congressman X on his way out was a popular Republican, the new Republican candidate would associate himself with the incumbent.

I think better policy would be passed by legislators who know that they are not going to get re-elected. I could be wrong - what are the thoughts from the FF readers?

I'm with you, Rob. I think term limits are not inherently a good thing -- because I like tradition, stability, and continuity, etc. -- but I think it would go a long way toward increasing Congress's ability to resist pork, and that is REALLY important. It wouldn't be so bad, really. It would also discourage a special class of career politicians and thus enhance the connectedness to commoners' concerns and problems. Class of 94 proves the power of the establishment to make pod-people of all challengers and subversives. Very depressing.

Yea, If the 94 class fell into the incumbent trap do we really have any hope with the current process? It's just too damn comfy to be an incumbent.

Knowing they would not be re-elected, how many legislators would do some slashing and burning to government programs? I think a lot more would. Republicans would be more true to their conservative principles.

2 sides to every coin.

Now, would the same effect happen among the democrats taking a harder leftist position? I tend not to think the effect would be as strong on the left beacuse proclaiming more $ for X program is always easy to sell back at home to voters - they pretty much do all they can under the current system.

Term limits is certainly one answer to the crisis of civic awareness and resonsibility.

The real culprit here, though, the massive control that the Federal Government exerts on the States and the apathy it engenders. People just don't give a damn.

However, if the states had more autonomy and more freedom (in America, go figure) to determine their futures and their laws, I firmly believe that a new culture would spring up that actually cares about government and the decisions it makes. If individual involvment at the local level could help shape one's state into a place that reflects the beliefs and values of its residents, politics becomes much more personal, and therefore much more important. Once people are interested, they'll learn more, understand more, and start to make the right decisions and hold their representatives accountable.

As it is now, most of the country (red states) feel as if they are ruled by Washington and "The Coasts". No one cares about politics in an environment where very little that you do matters, or laws that your state passes get struck down by Federal courts.

So, I guess term limits is the best way to counter what good judgement and civic pride would otherwise see to success. But it's sad that's it's come to that.

(I also know that the DAY Roe v Wade gets returned to the states, the vast majority of Americans will suddenly be interested in State politics again, and will see the role of their state in the Union in a very different light. It could be that Roe is the monkey on all of our backs.)

The best form of term limit is an informed and energized voting base. It's ironic that you could energize a public on limiting who other people can vote for when you cannot energize them on voting a new guy into office every once in a while.

Face it, the American people believe in pork. Because "their guy" is not the guy to worry about, according to most. But if we can't effectively manage change where we have a vote, why should we automatically assume that the places where we don't have a vote ought to change. Term Limitations is an embodiment of the sentiment "It's not us--it's the other guys that are the problem."

We are short-sighted enough as a country, there is no reason we need to institutionalize more short-sightedness. As conservatives--if you believe in smaller government (the two aren't always equal, IMO)--and you see your guy's name on the list, you ought to vote him out.

If not enough conservatives can get energized enough, we have what we have.

Some have said the republicans have spent money like drunken sailors. I have even said this myself. These people are worse than drunken sailors. At least drunken sailors spend their own money. The republicans spend everyone else's money.

SeaKing, I understand your sentiment. Not only do I believe "it's the other guy" I also believe it's my guy - class of 94 has proved that even if you have a "conservative republican" congressman he is still going to fall in the trap.

Choices in political philosophy will not be limited. Choices in establishment insiders with years of connections would be.

I think Homer's closest to the bullseye - so much of our money and authority gets shuffled to DC, it's hard to create any real change. A Wyoman has no control over the snooty Vermonters; a New Yorker can't fathom the yahoos from Tennessee. But if your state had to suddenly pass laws and fund programs, then you'd have to start to pay more attention - and with the hope that you can make a difference by changing a few thousand minds on the county level, rather than have to build a million-strong consensus across half a time zone.

Another thing not yet mentioned is the preposterous gerrymandering that goes on. A 20-mile long, 200-yard wide district may successfully isolate all the voters of one party and guarantee a seat for someone, but that someone never has to actually do anything to keep the job.

Most of the time you get House incumbents in danger only when their districts get merged after a census, unless they're stupid enough to pull a Rostenkowski or Traficant. We need honestly-drawn districts following simple geographic guidelines; none of this crap.

Yea, that map is crap! There is one up here in mass that is really crappy too (3rd district of MA). pure crap.

100%