GOP term limit proposal threatens to re-open Democratic rift

EvilEyeFleegle

Dogpatch USA
Gold Supporting Member
Nov 2, 2017
16,885
9,930
1,280
Twin Falls Idaho
I've always been in favor of term limits--even though this smacks more of the usual 'tit-for-tat' than it does any genuine desire for positive change. Trump was against term limits...as was Kevin McCarthy.


Democratic leaders are hammering Republicans for considering term limits on committee leaders of both parties if the GOP flips control of the House next year — even as some moderates say it’s not such a bad idea.
The rift highlights a recurring predicament for Democratic leaders, caught between newer lawmakers keen to rise in the ranks and veteran members just as eager to keep their place in power.
That fight was thrust into the spotlight when Punchbowl News reported Monday that GOP leaders, bullish about their chances of winning control of the House in November’s midterms, are considering a change in the chamber rules that would cap committee leadership at three terms.
Republicans have long maintained that same six-year limit for members of their own conference. The difference this time around is that the idea that they’d apply it to House Democrats as well, even though they haven’t adopted such limits.
If the rule were to be adopted, a number of long-serving Democratic committee leaders — including Reps. Bennie Thompson (Miss.) of the Homeland Security panel; Adam Smith (Wash.) of Armed Services; Maxine Waters (Calif.) of Financial Services; Frank Pallone (N.J.) of Energy and Commerce; and Bobby Scott (Va.) of Education and Labor — would lose their top spots next year.
Other Democrats had a decidedly different view. For some moderates, who have fought for years to install committee term limits on the Democratic side, the idea that Republicans would force the Democrats’ hand was a welcome one.
“High functioning organizations become so by building strong benches and limiting the tenure of leaders, usually ~10 years,” Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), a member of the centrist New Democrat and Problem Solvers groups, tweeted on Monday. “No matter which party controls Congress in ‘23, we should adopt term limits for committee chairs & get serious about developing a new generation of leaders.”
The term-limit debate surrounding leadership of both the committees and the broader caucus has long been a contentious one among House Democrats, dividing lawmakers, and even top leaders, on the question of whether new limits should be installed. Proponents argue that term limits bring new faces and fresh ideas to the leadership ranks; opponents argue the merits of governing experience and the fruits of seniority.
The opposition to new limits is particularly pronounced within the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), whose members — including Thompson, Waters and Scott — lead a handful of powerful committees. The CBC did not respond Monday to a request for comment.
For McCarthy, who’s hoping to seize Pelosi’s gavel if the House changes hands next year, the notion of applying universal term limits in the next Congress marks a dramatic shift from just a few years ago.
In 2019, McCarthy had reportedly proposed to relax the GOP’s internal rules to allow Republican committee leaders to remain in power beyond the three-term limit. One idea for doing so was to have majority chairmanships count against the six-year window, but not stints as ranking member in the minority.
The push came after a 2018 cycle when Republicans lost control of the House amid a wave of retirements. The trend caught the attention of then-President Trump, who said the term-limit rule had forced “real leaders” to run for the exits; he urged GOP leaders to eliminate the cap. After some discussion, the change was not adopted.
McCarthy’s office did not respond Monday to requests for comment.
The GOP’s position on term limits could soon be put to the test. Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.), senior Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, is seeking a waiver to the GOP’s rules in order to keep that seat next year.
 
I support term-limits.
Too many people just vote for the incumbent even if they are too old or ineffective.
Even if you like your rep, there may be a better one in the wings if given a shot.

That's.....not what this is about. And I suspect this thread is going to largely devolve to people talking about two different things and not realizing they are two different things.

This is not about limiting the number of times a person can be elected to office. It's about the internal workings of the House of Representatives.
 
That's.....not what this is about. And I suspect this thread is going to largely devolve to people talking about two different things and not realizing they are two different things.

This is not about limiting the number of times a person can be elected to office. It's about the internal workings of the House of Representatives.
The OP needs to take a course in "technical writing" the thread title says one thing, and the OP babbles about nonsense.
 
I appreciate the intent of term limits, but I think the idea misses the point. We need to change the election rules and processes that protect the vested powers, that prop up the two party nonsense and block out competition.
 
Or maybe you could try reading past the headline. The OP's title was perfectly accurate. Stop blaming others for your laziness.
The linked article is very clear, I never got to it because the OP verbiage was so convoluted.
This is a case where the linked article would have been enough.
The title should have mentioned "Committee Chair Term Limits" and I would have skipped this thread, ugh.
 
I've always been in favor of term limits--even though this smacks more of the usual 'tit-for-tat' than it does any genuine desire for positive change. Trump was against term limits...as was Kevin McCarthy.


They were part of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. He got term limits brought to the floor for the first time.
 
I've always been in favor of term limits--even though this smacks more of the usual 'tit-for-tat' than it does any genuine desire for positive change. Trump was against term limits...as was Kevin McCarthy.


Democratic leaders are hammering Republicans for considering term limits on committee leaders of both parties if the GOP flips control of the House next year — even as some moderates say it’s not such a bad idea.
The rift highlights a recurring predicament for Democratic leaders, caught between newer lawmakers keen to rise in the ranks and veteran members just as eager to keep their place in power.
That fight was thrust into the spotlight when Punchbowl News reported Monday that GOP leaders, bullish about their chances of winning control of the House in November’s midterms, are considering a change in the chamber rules that would cap committee leadership at three terms.
Republicans have long maintained that same six-year limit for members of their own conference. The difference this time around is that the idea that they’d apply it to House Democrats as well, even though they haven’t adopted such limits.
If the rule were to be adopted, a number of long-serving Democratic committee leaders — including Reps. Bennie Thompson (Miss.) of the Homeland Security panel; Adam Smith (Wash.) of Armed Services; Maxine Waters (Calif.) of Financial Services; Frank Pallone (N.J.) of Energy and Commerce; and Bobby Scott (Va.) of Education and Labor — would lose their top spots next year.
Other Democrats had a decidedly different view. For some moderates, who have fought for years to install committee term limits on the Democratic side, the idea that Republicans would force the Democrats’ hand was a welcome one.
“High functioning organizations become so by building strong benches and limiting the tenure of leaders, usually ~10 years,” Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), a member of the centrist New Democrat and Problem Solvers groups, tweeted on Monday. “No matter which party controls Congress in ‘23, we should adopt term limits for committee chairs & get serious about developing a new generation of leaders.”
The term-limit debate surrounding leadership of both the committees and the broader caucus has long been a contentious one among House Democrats, dividing lawmakers, and even top leaders, on the question of whether new limits should be installed. Proponents argue that term limits bring new faces and fresh ideas to the leadership ranks; opponents argue the merits of governing experience and the fruits of seniority.
The opposition to new limits is particularly pronounced within the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), whose members — including Thompson, Waters and Scott — lead a handful of powerful committees. The CBC did not respond Monday to a request for comment.
For McCarthy, who’s hoping to seize Pelosi’s gavel if the House changes hands next year, the notion of applying universal term limits in the next Congress marks a dramatic shift from just a few years ago.
In 2019, McCarthy had reportedly proposed to relax the GOP’s internal rules to allow Republican committee leaders to remain in power beyond the three-term limit. One idea for doing so was to have majority chairmanships count against the six-year window, but not stints as ranking member in the minority.
The push came after a 2018 cycle when Republicans lost control of the House amid a wave of retirements. The trend caught the attention of then-President Trump, who said the term-limit rule had forced “real leaders” to run for the exits; he urged GOP leaders to eliminate the cap. After some discussion, the change was not adopted.
McCarthy’s office did not respond Monday to requests for comment.
The GOP’s position on term limits could soon be put to the test. Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.), senior Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, is seeking a waiver to the GOP’s rules in order to keep that seat next year.
Term limits on committee chairmanships is an intentional distraction by the Republicans to avoid the real need for term limits on them being in Congress.

I used to be a firm anti-term-limits person because, on the surface, it seems that people should be able to vote for whomever they choose but when you consider the deception and manipulation of the message and the masses using modern technology, we just seriously need a check on voter stupidity.

Don't get distracted on leadership limits and insist that the leadership get replaced every 6 years because those people are no longer in Congress.
 
I'm not fond of term limits. I think the people of their state should decide who they want in power, not conveniences for installing a know-nothing who could turn out to be.

My main concern is with Washington politicians creating a one-party system with themselves in power..
 
I'm not fond of term limits. I think the people of their state should decide who they want in power, not conveniences for installing a know-nothing who could turn out to be.

My main concern is with Washington politicians creating a one-party system with themselves in power..

I'm not fond of term limits either, basically we are not exercising good judgement in who we vote for nor are we paying enough attention to what is going on in Washington, and I mean when either party is in office. IMHO, we are not engaged enough and we're going to pay a price for that. Sadly, future generations will be paying too for our mistakes and malfeasance.

My understanding is that laws already exist to remove elected and unelected individuals, but we are not doing so and ultimately the accountability for that rests with us. Our justice system is biased and unjust and the media no longer tells us the whole objective truth. The only voices being heard these days are the extremists and the special interests and the rest of us are being ignored. Term limits will not change any of that. The incumbent leaves and the new person comes in and it's still business as usual.
 
I support term-limits.
Too many people just vote for the incumbent even if they are too old or ineffective.
Even if you like your rep, there may be a better one in the wings if given a shot.
It's not so much about who may be better. It targets the career, intrenched, and corrupt. Those that are owned by special interests and lobbyists. When are we going to wake up and change this unethical system and the shady behavior it supports?
 

Forum List

Back
Top