Charlie Rangel is the Poster Child for Term Limits

Posted by Howard Rich | Issues, Term Limits | Wednesday 28 July 2010 10:12 am

From Fox News

As the House prepares to launch on Thursday a rare, public ethics inquiry into alleged misdeeds by New York Rep. , it is clear that Rangel remains defiant. He is fighting the House Ethics Committee tooth and nail, claiming that he wants to “make certain, before this election, people know who is.” Most Americans know who Rangel is: the poster child for .

Rangel, who has served nearly 40 years in the House of Representatives, including a tour as head of the powerful , illustrates the corruptive nature of political tenure.

Ask those who keep watch over our congressional scoundrels for the most common characteristic of nominees to the annual Most Corrupt list, and they will nominate prolonged service. Indeed, (CREW) has listed Rangel as one of our 15 most corrupt politicians since 2008.

The tragedy is that despite serial misbehavior, Rangel will not lose his job. The Ethics Committee (formally known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct) will likely give him a slap on the wrist, possibly in conjunction with an apology and perhaps a bunch of roses to make sure there are no hard feelings. (Rangel has been extremely helpful in raising money for his colleagues.) Moreover, voters in his home district appear poised to reelect him. Such is the power of incumbency.

Those not paying close attention might think that the charges against Rangel — which have not yet been specified but could include inappropriately using a rent-stabilized apartment for an office, filing inaccurate financial statements and using congressional letterhead to solicit funds for a center named for him at City College of New York — are a one-off. They would be wrong. As his power has grown over the years, so has the number of complaints against him. One of the most egregious acts of defiance was a 2008 trip to the Caribbean hosted by corporations seeking access to legislators. This annual event engaged the Black Congressional Caucus, which routinely streamed south for a little sun and fun, despite increasingly stringent House rules forbidding receiving such largesse from corporations. There is absolutely no doubt that those attending the event knew it violated the rules.

Ken Boehm, a representative of the , photographed the prominently and visibly placed placards acknowledging Citigroup and IBM as among the host companies. As investigators dug deeper into charges involving the outing, the Ethics Committee finally acceded to public outrage and launched a full investigation. Who was put in charge of the inquiry? Representative , himself a member of the Black Congressional Caucus who had attended the junket in 2005.

Two months ago, some 19 members — nearly half of the total — of the Black Congressional Caucus introduced a resolution aimed at muzzling the newly active Ethics Committee. They were furious that several of their colleagues — including Rangel — had come under investigation. The request for a softer, gentler Ethics committee was ignored. The credit for that goes to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Polls have made it clear that Americans are disgusted by Congress. Yet, given the manner in which our congressional districts are formed, the importance of fundraising and the power of office, it is almost impossible to bounce an incumbent — even if he is a crook. In 2008, 94% of House incumbents were reelected; over the past 35 years the number has dipped below 90% only once. This needs to change — via . Unhappily, getting those in office to pass a law restricting the number of terms that a senator or representative can serve is akin to asking for a suicide pact. Having said that, there are some enlightened members of Congress — encouraged by South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint — who are pushing for . It is doubtful that they will succeed, but it is a mission that should gain traction.

Power corrupts and it appears that extended power corrupts profoundly. Rangel should go, and his legacy should be .

Term limits on Naperville ballot

Posted by Howard Rich | Issues, Term Limits | Wednesday 21 July 2010 3:01 pm

From The Daily Herald

Naperville voters will get to decide whether to limit how long their leaders serve.

Councilmen on Tuesday approved putting a referendum on the Nov. 2 ballot asking voters if they want to prevent councilmen and the mayor from serving more than three terms consecutively.

The Naperville Voters Education League brought the issue to the council in hopes of getting it on the ballot with five positive votes in lieu of continuing to try to collect roughly 8,600 signatures on a petition.

“Let the people decide for themselves,” said the group’s leader, Bill Eagan. “It’s democracy in action.”

Mayor George Pradel, who is in his fourth term, said he is not in favor of .

“I feel if someone is doing a good job in the position and people want them … and the person is willing to serve, they should be able to do it,” he said.

Councilman Doug Krause, who has been on the council since 1989, also cited the experience and institutional knowledge of incumbents.

However, Councilman Grant Wehrli said it is also easy for longtime councilmen to become complacent.

“While there is some knowledge that goes on in being here, anybody should be able to step up in a short matter of time and be able to do this job of overseeing their government,” he said. “There is no legacy here. We are merely stewards sitting in these chairs trying to do the best.”

Councilmen voted 6-3 to put a term limit referendum on the November ballot. Councilmen Judy Brodhead, Bob Fieseler, Kenn Miller, Grant Wehrli, Paul Hinterlong and Jim Boyajian voted in favor while Mayor George Pradel, Doug Krause and Richard Furstenau voted ‘no.’

If voters decide to support , councilmen and the mayor will not be able to serve more than three terms consecutively beginning in 2011. The limits would not retroactively apply to the terms current councilmen have already served.

“I think it’s only fair we look forward,” Miller said.

8th hopefuls talk term limits, cutting spending

Posted by Howard Rich | Issues, Term Limits | Wednesday 14 July 2010 3:55 pm

From The Jackson Sun

MCKENZIE — Conservative candidates for the 8th Congressional District seat talked about , cutting spending and bipartisanship at a forum here Tuesday night.

The forum at McKenzie High School included Republicans Stephen Fincher, Dr. George Flinn, Dr. Ron Kirkland and Randy Smith as well as independents Donn Janes and Mark Rawles.

The candidates said they are for large cuts to government and largely supported tax cuts to stir up new jobs and economic development. They either supported earmark reform or eliminating earmarks all together.

Most said they would look to a new, potentially majority conservative bloc in the House to help them push through the changes they want or talked up their personal ability to get it done.

Candidates were asked about how they feel about working with Democrats to accomplish goals. Fincher has criticized Kirkland for saying he would reach across the aisle, and Flinn released an ad last week attacking Kirkland for work with groups that donated to Democrats and Fincher for voting in May’s Democratic Crockett County primary.

Fincher said he refused to work with national Democrats because they represent the values of San Francisco Democrats, not those of West Tennesseans. Flinn talked about working with Democrats to lower county commissioner pay in Shelby County.

Kirkland, Smith and Rawles said they would be willing to work with Democrats if they shared their principles. Janes said some work with Democrats would have to be done in Congress because Republicans and conservatives are not likely to pick up enough seats to push through what they want on their own.

All of the candidates supported : Fincher and Kirkland would not serve more than 12 years, Janes 10 years, Smith 8 to 10 years, and Flinn and Rawles for six years.

Flinn told the crowd that he would pack 28 years worth of work into six years. Janes followed that up by asking, “Is that in dog years, Mr. Flinn?”

Janes said he picked 10 years to make sure the initiatives he pushes in office pan out.

Rawles talked about growing up in housing projects in Jackson and overcoming his initial circumstances. He said he thinks Congress will weigh in the coming years moves that could turn the country from a democratic republic to an outright socialist or communist country.

For the latest on the 8th District race, read the “Motion Carried” blog at jacksonsun.com/motioncarried

WHAT ABOUT TERM LIMITS?

Posted by Howard Rich | Issues, Term Limits | Wednesday 30 June 2010 2:29 pm

From Tristate-Media

ATLANTA – Do we need ? Would you be surprised to know the average length of time a U.S. senator serves is 12.9 years? Or the average term served by a U.S. representative is 11 years? But too many of them seem to have been there forever. Those numbers are averages from the Congressional Research Service at the Library Of Congress.

The entire House is running for re-election this Fall and one-third of the Senate. Some people say their senators or congressmen are all right. “Good old what’s-his-name is OK.” All the others are political hacks.

Once upon a time, didn’t seem necessary to your writer. Elections were enough to ensure a little sanity might prevail in the ensuing two years, but I came to see this as a flawed premise.

I’m still of the opinion the framers of our government were smart enough to account for many things in future centuries. What they could not know was the extent to which powerful interests and the money they wield can sway lawmakers. Efforts to stanch the growth of the special interests seem to go nowhere.

We need . The President can serve only two terms, as set out in the 22nd Amendment. Some governors are limited to two terms. Why not limit U.S. senators to two terms, or 12 years, and congressmen to six terms, or 12 years? That’s enough time to show up for work on purpose, get the job done and move on to something else, probably as a lobbyist.

Politics used to be an amateur sport, of sorts, but somewhere along the way we handed this over to the professionals who know the blush that comes with election and the power it brings. Some early members of Congress were wealthy enough that they could serve for a period. Ego was part of propelling the ambitious to run, but terms were served then members went home.

The founding fathers were prescient when crafting the final form of the Constitution with all members of the House running for re-election every two years. Later, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution meant direct election of senators rather than election by state legislatures. There would thus be a holdover of two-thirds of the senators every two years.

Fast forward to the present.

Just like the TV news business with its crop of consultants, the political consultants seem to do the only important advising and consenting to which the elected servant listens. The senate gives advice and consents to some presidential actions. Senate and House staff members do much more behind the scenes than we’d believe, but we hear about almost none of that.

The Center for Responsive Politics says the 2008 campaigns cost $5.3 billion, with $8.5 million having been spent to win the senate seat in Minnesota. Norm Coleman spent $20 million contesting the election count and lost anyway. The average senate candidate had to raise $3,881/day for each day of the six-year term.

Raising that money means there are a lot of promises to be made. Compromise can be hard and is sometimes impossible. A newcomer to, say, the Senate, has to make a lot of bargains before he or she even gets to Washington. Then, it’s payback time and taxpayers wind up doing the paying while “Good old what’s-his-name” stays in office.

Stay tuned.

Goodnow was recruited by in 1982 as an anchor/editor at the new Headline News channel and left the network in 2000. He began work as a journalist some decades ago. Reach him at cnnihn@gmail.com.

Mark DeVol Commits to Bonded Term Limits

Posted by Howard Rich | Issues, Term Limits | Monday 28 June 2010 4:33 pm

From The Tenth Amendment Center

In a bold move demonstrating his commitment to the founding principles of a limited federal government, congressional candidate Mark DeVol has posted a $1 million bond to guarantee his belief in and support for .

DeVol, running as an independent for Tennessee’s Third District seat posted a bond to insure he will never seek additional terms, DeVol issued this statement:

“True citizen representation will ensure the majority of those serving in the U.S. House will bring to the policy debate their experiences from the private sector that result in decisions that are truly in the public’s best interest.

“A three-term limit means that, every two years, one-third to one-half of the U.S. House will consist of first-term representatives. This is crucial in diminishing the excessive concentration of power via committee chairmanships.

“With a limited term of service, leadership will rise through experience instead of seniority, a process that reflects more effectively the public’s opinion.

“For the concept of Citizen Legislator to have meaning, those serving in Congress must clearly view their time in office as a leave of absence from their day-to-day jobs and careers.

“This is most effectively demonstrated by refusing to accept pension and health-care benefits. A willingness to accept these taxpayer-funded perks, especially after only a few years of service, is consistent with a mindset of entitlement.

To learn more about Bonded please visit the Alliance for Bonded at www.bondedtermlimits.org or visit Mr. DeVol’s website at www.devol2010.com to see a copy of his signed promissory note.

Mark DeVol is running as an independent for Congress in Tennessee’s 3rd District. He lives in Anderson County, near Andersonville and Norris. He’s been a small business owner for the past 24 years – running DeVol Millwork, which services the residential and commercial construction industry in East Tennessee. Visit his campaign website at www.devol2010.com.

Next Page »
e-wallet Wordpress Theme