Term Limits Desperately Needed

Little did the voters of California realize in 1992 that Dianne Feinstein had been elected Senator for Life.  More than 30 years later, Senator Dianne Feinstein has died.  She was 90.  A couple of months ago, she was participating in an appropriation meeting when one of her aides told her to "just say aye."  Feinstein said, "Aye."  Was the senator the one making the decision or was it the aide?  Or was it some unseen person behind the scenes.  Clearly, Senator Feinstein's mental faculties were not what they had been earlier in her political career.  She should have long since retired.  She is not alone in this.

Senator Mitch McConnell (age 81) has repeatedly frozen midsentence in recent months.  He is more than a decade beyond the traditional retirement age.  Joe Biden (age 80) regularly loses his train of thought, speaks incoherently, and rambles off topic.  The leading candidate for the Republican Party is Donald Trump (age 77) and would finish another term older than Joe Biden is now.  Clearly, term limits are needed.  In the case of the Presidency, we already have that.  However, we may need a maximum age.  Maybe an amendment that you can't run for president after the age of 70.  Heck, that could go for the House and Senate too.

One of the problems with term limits is that they only apply to elective offices.  They should apply to federal service in general.  After all, a bureaucrat who has been working in the system for 30 years is going to walk all over some newbie Senator or Representative.  I have already stated my desire to return to the spoils system, which would allow a full housecleaning every 4 to 8 years, but term limits would be a second best choice.  Say 12 years on the federal payroll and out.  Careerism in government is anathema to limited government.

For example, the Tennessee Valley Authority was created during the Great Depression to bring the Tennessee Valley into the 20th century.  90 years later, it is still operating.  Why?  Because, as Ronald Reagan often said, "a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life."  The bureaucrats have a disincentive to success; success will reduce funding and perhaps eliminate their jobs.

The current system is an obvious failure.  Time to reboot the system.

Senator for Life

Richard Lugar, Senator from Indiana, lost in the primary tonight.  Though I know little of his opponent, I am pleased by this.  I distrust career politicians; it is my big beef with my governor.  Lugar was first elected to the Senate when I was 9 years old.  If his successor were to last as long, I'd be in my 80s.  As it happens, Lugar is 80 and wanted to serve until he was 86.  Must everyone try to be a Strom Thurmond (47 years), Ted Kennedy (46 years), Robert Byrd (51 years), or Daniel Inouye (49 years and counting)?

Too many of these politicians, be they Republican or Democrat, treat their offices as a title of nobility.  Though they may say they are our representatives, they soon come to view themselves as our rulers.  Few people choose to become servants if there are other options.  However, public servant attracts a lot of "selfless" people.  It is amazing how wealthy these folks get by lowering themselves to be our servants.  This is just another word game.  Few of them serve us, and those who do are generally freshmen who have yet to be corrupted.  It is funny how President for Life is correctly viewed as undemocratic and bad but Senator for Life or Representative for Life is considered normal and even good (seniority, don't you know).

My first option to fix this problem in the Senate would be to repeal the 17th Amendment.  My second option, which could fix things in the house as well, would be to propose a 12 year limit in elective office in the Federal Government.  Doesn't matter the combination of posts but a limit of 12.  Of course, that would require an amendment to the Constitution.  Or, perhaps we could find a judge who would simply rule such; that's how we amend the Living Document these days.