Some things just never go away.
One of them is the idea to impose term limits on members of Congress.
Once a big deal in the 1990s, discussion about imposing term limits has died down to a whisper in recent years. But the idea is apparently not dead.
In fact, just this week an Arizona congressman introduced an amendment to the Constitution limiting terms for House members to three and senators to two. That would mean six years for House members and 12 years for senators.
Now, members of Congress can serve as long as their constituents keep electing them. Joseph Lieberman was elected four times to the U.S. Senate from Connecticut and retired last year. After opposing term limits while in the Senate, he now endorses them.
Strange, isn’t it?
Anyway, have you ever really thought about why people want to impose term limits on members of Congress but tend to ignore everyone else from township auditor up mayor or county commissioner?
There have been exceptions in some states where limits have been placed on state legislators. Plus, Pennsylvania has term limits for statewide offices, including governor, attorney general, auditor general and treasurer.
However, for the most part, the emphasis has been on Washington rather than local government for limiting how long elected officials can serve.
The argument for limiting term of House members and senators is that after a certain point they lose touch with their constituents. Nobody has yet determined when they arrive at this point. Could it be four years, six years, 10 or 20?
So, if they do lose touch with the folks back home, why is that? It can’t be because they aren’t back home in their districts enough. The House, for example, is scheduled to be in session 126 days this year, thus giving them the rest of the year at home.
Could it be that they lose touch when they receive huge campaign contributions from various political action committees and are heavily lobbied by those organizations?
The answer, of course, is yes. As a result, they end up paying more attention to the lobbyists than they do to the constituents who put them in office in the first place.
Candidates for local offices receive campaign contributions, but nothing resembling those received by federal lawmakers. And, they don’t have lobbyists sitting outside their offices on a daily basis.
Furthermore, there have been mayors throughout the country who have served multiple terms and did not fall out of favor with the voters.
The people who get elected to Congress are no different from those who win election locally. But the one thing that distinguishes the two is campaign funding. Limiting terms may make some people feel good, but it will do little to change the culture in Washington as long as the money continues to flow.
Some things just never go away.
- John K. Manna
John K. Manna: Party labels shouldn’t matter in local contests
Anything is possible in elections, but often improbable when it comes to school board races in Pennsylvania. In the Nov. 5 election, voters went to the polls in six of the eight school districts in Lawrence County and were faced with little choice.
John K. Manna: State finally has road, bridge repair plan
Pennsylvania finally has a program in place to fix roads and bridges and provide more money for mass transit. The massive undertaking — pushed by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett — will cost about $2.3 million per year, most of which will be paid by motorists in the form of increases in gas prices at the pump and fees.
John K. Manna: Three former governors give their endorsements
Another election is history, which means another election campaign season is under way. Actually, some Democratic candidates running in next year’s gubernatorial contest couldn’t wait and began campaigning months before this year’s election.
John K. Manna: Taking a look at Tuesday’s election results
What to take away from Tuesday’s election in Lawrence County. Maybe not much, but let’s try. Voter turnout was awful — just below 20 percent. Based on records of the county Board of Elections, it was the worst turnout for a general election within the last 30 years.
John K. Manna: Voters must make choices in ‘off-year’ contests
I don’t know who coined the phrase “off-year election.” The implication is that it’s not as important as presidential, gubernatorial and congressional elections.
John K. Manna: Why would anyone run for office?
Why are you running for office? This is often the first question — a softball one at that — candidates for public office are asked. And sometimes we get great answers and sometimes we’ll get something like, “Hmm, let me think.”
John K. Manna: Doing away with school property taxes would cause new problems
In less than a month, a bill in the Pennsylvania House went from committee to adoption. I’m certain it’s no record, but considering the significance of the legislation, the House wasted little time. But this is one bill that House members should have taken longer to consider and even defeat in its current form.
John K. Manna: Despite significance of races, history suggests a low turnout this fall
The deadline to register to vote in the November election is just nine days away. It’s highly doubtful we’ll see hordes of unregistered people rushing to the courthouse to get their names on the registration rolls generally because odd-numbered year elections simply don’t generate as much interest as those in the even-numbered years.
John K. Manna: State should foot the bill for education
OK, here’s my periodic look at property tax reform in Pennsylvania, or the lack thereof. Rep. Seth Grove of York County offered the latest proposal to deal with school property taxes. He calls it the Optional Property Tax Elimination Act.
John K. Manna: Voters are always hoping for something better
Ed Rendell a candidate for Philadelphia mayor? His name is being tossed around as possibly running again for mayor, a post he held before he ran for governor.
- More John K. Manna Headlines
- John K. Manna: Party labels shouldn’t matter in local contests