What would be your suggestion for Senator and Congress Term Limits?

• Under the Constitution, members of the United States Senate may serve an unlimited number of six-year terms and members of the House of Representatives may serve an unlimited number of two-year terms.
• In the 1990s, reformers put congressional term limits on the ballot and the main Republican Party platform was to pass legislation setting term limits in Congress.
• A proposed amendment limited members of the Senate to two six-year terms and members of the House to six two-year terms. The amendment was never passed.

With Term Limits should Senators and Congress recieve total benifits after serving the total maxium years or should there be an adjustment retirement package?

I am not against it, but my only fear is a brain drain.

So, would you phase it in? Or, would there be a mass exodus? Because, a large amount of members would probably need to step aside as a result.
I don't want the Senate ran by 75-100 new people. Too much inexperience.

Maybe, if you phase it, something like in 2 year increments for certain members of the House or 6 year increments for 1/3 of the Senate.
That way each 2 year or 6 year cycle new blood is cycled. The members of the House or Senate there the longest would go first, and then you make your way up.
Might get complicated though....

As for a retirement package, I'm the view they should not get one.

Career politicians are what makes this country suck. I would guess that there should be at least a 10-15 years max.

I don't think term limits matter for Congress but I would like to have a method for eliminating career politicians.

Maybe just cap consecutive terms served at two and allow them to run after a break in the cycle. This would provide some churn while keeping talent and experience available in Congress.

ptown_trojans_1;1745526 wrote:I am not against it, but my only fear is a brain drain.

So, would you phase it in? Or, would there be a mass exodus? Because, a large amount of members would probably need to step aside as a result.
I don't want the Senate ran by 75-100 new people. Too much inexperience.

Maybe, if you phase it, something like in 2 year increments for certain members of the House or 6 year increments for 1/3 of the Senate.
That way each 2 year or 6 year cycle new blood is cycled. The members of the House or Senate there the longest would go first, and then you make your way up.
Might get complicated though....

As for a retirement package, I'm the view they should not get one.

Interesting view point about phasing it out...
Here my other point if you have term limits once the senator or congress runs that term out he or she than can run for the other Office if voted in for the lenght of that term... so in reality one individual could hold political office 12 years senator and 12 year congree a total of 24 years...


Agree no retirement package ...

I'm not for term limits at any level.

Use your suffrage to get them out.

Majority rules.

BRF;1745549 wrote:I'm not for term limits at any level.

Use your suffrage to get them out.

Majority rules.

So you believe our presidents shouldn't have term limits either then?

I can see both sides of the argument. Perhaps meet in the middle. Remember this quote from Warren Buffet?

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

like_that;1745603 wrote:So you believe our presidents shouldn't have term limits either then?

Correct

I would add that after leaving office no former congressman or senator could become a lobbyist for at least 10 years.

Repeal the 17th amendment.