Presidential term - What about one 6 year term?

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

And now Obama, seems to have run out of energy based on the Zogby poll.

 

 

I'd say the president's situation has quite a bit to do with this: LINK

 

Knapp, that is an eye opening link and you are correct on your statement above. I wonder if the difference now is the difference between Bill Clinton and Obama and Newt and Boehner. After the 94 congressional election and then the bitter 'govt close down', Clinton became more pragmatic and so did Newt and they agreed to disagree but also agreed to work together where they could. I think Obama is more uncompromising in his ideals (and I don't mean that in a bad way - he is a true believer) and our current House Speaker is more of an obstructionist - because he is also a dufus who has no original ideas like Newt did. Your link may provide more information as to why the ACA did not receive any Repub votes. 1st I heard of it. Yes, Front Line tends towards being a lib show, but if this is all true and no reason to doubt it - I'll stand wt you and blame the repubs for the majority of the ineffectiveness of current governance.

 

 

Serious question - this has been in the news for a year and a half. How do you not know about this?

 

Knapp, I honestly didn't read any articles on it. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to research every thing as deep as some of you guys. I suspect it to be true in practice based reality of what was happening and on policy disagreements but not as an organized effort as noted in the article. I can see repubs and dems being unable to get things done just because of their ideological differences but I had not read or researched any organized efforts to just be obstructionists for the sake of it alone. This was the first documented evidence I saw on it. Thanks for sharing it. To be honest with you, I have even less esteem for these current set of repub leaders. Unfortunately, any new set that would replace them on the horizon would be TP people and not more moderate/pragmatic people. I'm sure this cuts both ways when a repub is president but again I've not looked for the kind of documentation this article showed.

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

A bigger improvement (imo) would be Congressional term limits though. With a substantial percentage of both chambers being retired every 2 years, we'd have a better chance of not having everything politicized to kingdom come.

I think that Congressional term limits would encourage more polarization.

 

 

Explain?

 

Look at any of the contested primaries in the last few months. Do you think that those primaries encouraged candidates to compromise?

 

Term limits = more contested primaries.

 

Carl & NUPolo8 please explain more. While we have more contested primaries, how does that encourage greater stagnation in DC? I'm thinking this may be your answer but please confirm: 1. The primaries may end up producing more ideological pure congressmen who have to stand their ground and not compromise. 2. Term limits would cause congressmen to make 'their mark' and not compromise plus it would tear down any working relationships between the parties (as if we have some now??).

 

I thought term limits would help because, in order to make their mark while they have their term, they will have to work wt members of the other party and seek to correct issues instead of holding and building the party line for years and years. The longer people are in DC the more they begin to think a like and close out new solutions. They also may be more beholding to long term relations with lobbyists to keep their money to continually get re-elected.

[TGHusker]

 

More serious questions, do you assume that only Republicans do this when a Democrat is in office? And that the opposite doesn't or didn't happen?

I don't think that I've seen this level of legislative inactivity at any other time in my life. Have you?

 

To be honest with you - I agree.

[NUpolo8]

 

 

 

 

A bigger improvement (imo) would be Congressional term limits though. With a substantial percentage of both chambers being retired every 2 years, we'd have a better chance of not having everything politicized to kingdom come.

 

I think that Congressional term limits would encourage more polarization.

Explain?

Look at any of the contested primaries in the last few months. Do you think that those primaries encouraged candidates to compromise?

 

Term limits = more contested primaries.

Carl & NUPolo8 please explain more. While we have more contested primaries, how does that encourage greater stagnation in DC? I'm thinking this may be your answer but please confirm: 1. The primaries may end up producing more ideological pure congressmen who have to stand their ground and not compromise. 2. Term limits would cause congressmen to make 'their mark' and not compromise plus it would tear down any working relationships between the parties (as if we have some now??).

 

I thought term limits would help because, in order to make their mark while they have their term, they will have to work wt members of the other party and seek to correct issues instead of holding and building the party line for years and years. The longer people are in DC the more they begin to think a like and close out new solutions. They also may be more beholding to long term relations with lobbyists to keep their money to continually get re-elected.

If it follows The California story what will quickly happen is that certain seats become de facto blue or red (obviously, this already happens to a degree). So the democrat or republican elected to their gerrymandered seat simply will not compromise or reach over the aisle for their term. Because if they're good political soldiers when they term out they cross the street into the lobby company of their choosing and of their political persuasion, for their six figure "consulting" job.

 

So if you're after breaking the relationship between elected officials and lobbyists, this would be the worst way to accomplish this.

[knapplc]

Gerrymandering is the elephant in the room. That's the last thing the politicians will correct, because it saves their political hides (both parties) but it's one of the most pressing electoral issues we have today. It virtually ensures a two-party system will endure, and these two parties will stay in power, for the foreseeable future.

[NUpolo8]

You believe these things. Could we see some links showing this to be true?

 

Well you could start in 2006 where a Democratic Congress refused to vote on an immigration bill when W asked for it. Or the complete lack movement or motivation for social security reform, one of W's stated goals in his second term. I'm not I'm the position to provide links right now, but I wouldn't think you would need proof to see that the 05-07 years were not exactly an example of a government that was working.

 

It's not a single party problem. It's the politics of today.

[knapplc]

It is not only a single-party problem. It is mostly a single-party problem.

 

Note how rates of filibuster-blocking cloture tend to ratchet up when the Republicans are the minority party.

 

 

 

Edit - another example:

 

 

What we're seeing is unprecedented by a minority party.

 

And the kicker is, they planned it, and we've known they planned it for 18 months now. And there are still people who are just discovering this plan today.

[carlfense]

 

Well you could start in 2006 where a Democratic Congress refused to vote on an immigration bill when W asked for it. Or the complete lack movement or motivation for social security reform, one of W's stated goals in his second term. I'm not I'm the position to provide links right now, but I wouldn't think you would need proof to see that the 05-07 years were not exactly an example of a government that was working.

It's not a single party problem. It's the politics of today.

 

 

 

. . .

 

We're only at halftime for the 113th Congress, but if current trends hold, it's well on track to being the least productive lawmaking effort in the nation's history.

 

During this Congress' first yearlong session, just 58 bills became law — and many that did were about naming post offices or transferring federal lands. In fact, the most memorable act of Congress this year may well have been its failure to act in time to avoid a government shutdown.

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/24/256696665/congress-is-on-pace-to-be-the-least-productive-ever

[NUpolo8]

It is not only a single-party problem. It is mostly a single-party problem.

 

Note how rates of filibuster-blocking cloture tend to ratchet up when the Republicans are the minority party.

 

 

 

Edit - another example:

 

 

What we're seeing is unprecedented by a minority party.

 

And the kicker is, they planned it, and we've known they planned it for 18 months now. And there are still people who are just discovering this plan today.

 

A lot of that stems from when the Republicans go into the minority, they -go- into the minority. Usually in a mandate style sweep. So it's their only option in our system. The few times it's happened to the Democrats, they do it too.

 

I'm not defending the current Congress here. I'm just saying they're following history. To say they've invented this is giving them too much credit.

[TGHusker]

Gerrymandering is the elephant in the room. That's the last thing the politicians will correct, because it saves their political hides (both parties) but it's one of the most pressing electoral issues we have today. It virtually ensures a two-party system will endure, and these two parties will stay in power, for the foreseeable future.

You are right - if we want term limits we need honest elections. Gerrymandering doesn't produce this. I wonder what Congress would look like if boundaries were drawn more naturally by county/city lines.

As NUpolo noted - he thinks the retiring guys would move over to the lobby jobs. This would have to be reformed as well - can't lobby for 10 years once you leave congress. In our current environment both of these are basically long shots at ever happening. Perhaps the States need to take control wt a State Constitutional Convention as Mark Levin has proposed in his Liberty Amendment book. (I know many of you would disagree with Levin greatly, but I know Congress has no incentive to fix themselves. The two party gig is too good for both parties as long as they can take turns being in power)

[knapplc]

I suppose it's a good thing that nobody is saying this congress, or the Republicans, are the first to use these tactics, then. Because nobody is saying that.

 

What we're saying is, before these tools were used as a method of forcing compromise. Today, they're used to simply block everything a president is trying to do. And that's unprecedented, and not open for debate.

[LukeinNE]

 

 

Look at any of the contested primaries in the last few months. Do you think that those primaries encouraged candidates to compromise?

 

Term limits = more contested primaries.

 

 

I come at it from the other way. Term limits = less to lose = more prone to govern responsibly.

[knapplc]

Or another way - the more frequently candidates turn over, the more people the lobbyists have to buy.

[carlfense]

I come at it from the other way. Term limits = less to lose = more prone to govern responsibly.

What's the surest way to win a primary in a red state? What's the surest way to win a primary in a blue state?

 

Plus if you're term limited out why not just give the richest job offer-er exactly what he or she wants? You don't really have to worry about public opinion at that point.

[LukeinNE]

 

I come at it from the other way. Term limits = less to lose = more prone to govern responsibly.

What's the surest way to win a primary in a red state? What's the surest way to win a primary in a blue state?

 

Plus if you're term limited out why not just give the richest job offer-er exactly what he or she wants? You don't really have to worry about public opinion at that point.

 

 

Political campaigns have been about: "if the other side wins, the world ends" since time immemorial. I'm less concerned with rhetoric than I am action. The other question frankly has more to do with ethics reform, in my view. A probably more important, but separate question.