Limiting Congressional terms is unquestionably the solution to our economic woes. It should be proposed as the best Economic Stimulus Package on which our country can confidently and permanently rely. Maybe some haven't thought of this as "Economic Stimulus", but if you are patient, and read the following argument, maybe you will agree. Suggestions for improvement to this proposal are welcome.

(Before you click that arrow on top left of this page because you know Congress will certainly never limit themselves,  understand that we are not asking Congress to do it. There is another way. We are taking this argument to the state legislatures and requesting a constitutional convention for this purpose. Congress has no vote in state legislatures - they will have no choice.)

First the proposal:

Amendment 28 to Section 2 of United States Constitution:

"Members of the House of Representatives may be elected no more than 3 times to two-year terms, nor may he (she) serve more than 8 years under any circumstances. Congressmen currently serving as of the date of passage of this amendment are fully exempted from these limits."

Now the Reasoning:

Interpretation of the United States Constitution is said to be an ongoing process. Some believe it was meant to be "elastic", that it is a living, breathing document. This argument is often made by those who don't like the constraints the manuscript places on governmental authority. That said, most of us would have to admit that  there certainly is some ambiguity there, and that maybe some things should be changed - the legal way, the way it was intended to be changed.

When the Constitution was written, Congressional terms were set at two years. The reason for that was that it was considered an obligation some were called upon to accept, but it was expected to be a major inconvenience.

In 1787, most potential Congressmen did not own or have much access to private luxury jets or even fuel-efficient smart cars. In order to get to Washington (or New York or Philadelphia) a few times a year, they would have to saddle up Lightening or prepare their horse-drawn carriage for the journey. They would bounce along over the rocks and ditches and through the trees, cross rivers and streams and other rough terrain for days at a time wondering why they ever agreed to accept such an assignment. They had no Flexoril, Alleve or XM Radio to ease the pain. They even had to evade the odd band of hostile Indians along the route now and then.

These men would have to leave their businesses or farms (legislating was not their primary occupation) and their families and hope that both would be there when they returned. They had to stay away from home for as long as several weeks or more at a time for compensation of only $6 per day - and that was only for those days actually in session.

Only the most noble and loyal would even consider this position. To expect anyone to sacrifice and endure this unpleasant assignment for more than two years was far too much to ask of even the most patriotic American. The Congressional term was established as a short-term gig so that good men would actually agree to accept this terribly inconvenient and burdensome responsibility for the good of their own families, friends and countrymen.

A good man is one who is responsible for his own obligations and takes care of his family. His family is his primary obligation. He must place them first so that he doesn't burden others. To ask anyone to leave his family for too long a period of time not was only unfair to him, but most honorable, trustworthy people wouldn't consider doing it at all. So two years would be enough of a sacrifice for his country. It was supposed to be a chore, so that only good men would accept it. That is why they were considered a "public servant".

Our first Congressmen were truly public servants. Our founders didn't see the need to limit the term of such an unpleasant undertaking, there was more concern that they would last even the full two years. Because it was initially such a hassle, the time to serve was agreed to be relatively brief so that good people would be willing to make the short-term sacrifice. After two years, it was someone else's turn to serve and to sacrifice for his country.
 
Fast Forward 200 plus years

It was never envisioned that Congressional life would morph into the coveted position it has, with massive adoring staffs and millions of dollars in budget for each member. It was never intended to be a lifelong career of ever increasing power and influence, filled with pageantry, adulation and wealth.

Today we have lawmakers entrenched for decades at a time, rarely volunteering to step aside for another. The royal treatment received and the perks they've created for the own positions are disgraceful. It is a travesty of the English language that the term "public servant" is still used to describe them today. A servant serves his master; he does not lord over him.

In the first decades of the 1900s, government spending fluctuated between 6 and 8 percent of total national spending (GDP), leaving the private sector with 92 - 94% control.  Now our government is approaching 40% and they want to own and control large corporations, and dictate the activities of many others. Before 1900 there were four U.S. Congressman and Senators who served more than 30 years; now we are over 220. A career congressman is now the rule rather than the exception. This has naturally produced undisciplined and excessive spending and an overbearing, oppressive federal government simply because it benefits those in power.

We need Congressmen to again understand what it is to live day to day with their spending and laws. We must return them to the their originally intended role of "servant" as it should be. The only way to accomplish this is to limit their time in office and force their return to the private sector.

EVIL OR ONLY HUMAN?

Human nature dictates that we all act in our own individual self-interest, and there is nothing wrong with that. This is not to suggest that we are hedonistic, only that we will usually do what we believe is good for ourselves and our families.

What has this to do with Term Limits? To expect United States Congressmen and Senators to act any differently than an ordinary human, is not logical. To believe that they will place our economic growth, happiness, freedom and prosperity above their own is simply contrary to human nature. 

Our forefathers recognized the human natural instinct by suggesting only two-year terms because of the original difficulty and sacrifice involved. They failed however to anticipate the future enormous benefits associated with the position 200 years later which encourages them to want to stay forever. Had they, no doubt terms would have been limited. This was a mistake - a mistake that can be corrected through the amendment process.

We naturally place our own happiness and prosperity, power and influence, whatever there may be of it, before others outside our family without shame, and especially before that of people we don't even know. We can be sympathetic for others pain and suffering, whether it be physical, mental, or financial, but we do not place it above our own well-being.

We should be proud to openly admit that we favor our family over yours and over that of our Congressman. We can even favor our family over that of our own blood brother. He should expect that of us, as we should of him. You should place your family's welfare over mine. In fact, if you didn't one would have to wonder what difficulty might your family endure as a direct result of your misplaced priorities.

Our Congressmen are no different. They favor themselves and their families and friends over ours. This is not inherently evil; it is admirable. There is nothing wrong with this. To care for one's family first and foremost is not selfishness, it is a healthy human attribute. For anyone to suggest that his Congressman cares more about others than he does himself and his own family is lost in a fantasy world.

If there existed a Congressman who somehow really was more concerned about his constituents than his own family, it would suggest that he really is not mentally stable enough to hold the office based on his obvious moral shortcoming. Family comes first. To argue the contrary is irrational and harmful reasoning. Furthermore, one's job should never come before one's family. To demand that it should, would be to require abnormal human behavior.

Congressmen are not super human divinely-inspired beings determined to promote sound moral fiscal policy and ethical behavior at any sacrifice to themselves, They are also not the evil spawn of Satan, determined to cause terror and havoc at every opportunity (though many more are believing that). No, they are ordinary humans somewhere in-between, no worse, no better than we are.

Because they are just like us, we can conclude then that the personal objective of a Congressman is basically the same as ours: to maintain his own power, position and social standing and the well-being of his family. Remember, a man's moral obligation is to his own family. We should logically expect therefore that he would act in ways that will best enable him to meet these objectives. When policy dictates he make a choice between his family and his country, he will choose family every time - as would most of us.

Another aspect of this idea that government's role is to be benefactor of the poor is that it is easy to justify in one's mind that helping others is a good thing - even if with someone else's money. Some people really do suffer, and do need help. For this reason most head leftward as soon as the congressional doors open to them and eventually, they actually start to believe that wealth redistribution is the right thing to do, and that justice and fairness has nothing to do with rewarding the productive or allowing the indolent to suffer the consequences of their lack of it.

Regardless of party affiliation, bringing home the pork, buying votes, wealth redistribution and increasing or creating government programs and jobs, encouraging the enlarging of the beneficiary citizen base which support him, results in re-election, and power maintenance. Logical for him, but it interferes directly with our personal ambitions because it takes our money, time and sacrifice to achieve his goals.  He must necessarily negatively impact our ability to provide for our families in order to continue to provide for his. This process removes money from the private sector, money that would otherwise result in the creation of lean and well managed private jobs and growth, and places it under governmental control for their own beneficiaries, jobs and increased growth.
 
Some might ask:  "What difference does it make whether one works for the government or a private company? A job is a job.  Well, it isn't just as simple trading a private job for a government job. We may sacrifice two or three or many more private sector jobs for a single government beneficiary job because of the inherent cost, inefficiency and lack of accountability.

Unlike the private sector, unless government takes ownership of assets as they do in Communist regimes, it doesn't have the ability to generate revenue in order to pay for the jobs it "creates". They must extract money from the individual through confiscatory taxation to spend it publicly. The only source of government money is through the taxation of private sector production. Borrowing it for current public appropriation only means we will be billed later to satisfy the debt.

Each government job is funded with private tax dollars. Removing workers from the private sector to place in government positions naturally leads to lower private sector production and revenues. This necessarily leads to lower government tax revenue. Fewer workers translate directly to lower production. Fewer men make fewer widgets. Fewer widgets produced results in lower corporate sales. Given the same tax rate, Lower corporate sales results in company earnings decline which in turn leads to lower taxes paid. To maintain the government jobs they've created, they must therefore increase taxes on the reduced earnings of the remaining private sector, eventually bankrupting us all in favor of themselves.

In order for government to grow, the private sector and the revenues earned must necessarily shrink. There is an undeniable inverse relationship. So - these lawmakers must directly interfere with our ability to accomplish our goals in order achieve theirs. Our objectives then are in direct conflict with our lawmakers. They are more than a little different; they are diametrically opposed.

We are not anarchists. Most of us understand the need for some government, but how much is enough? Maybe we don't have the answer to that exactly, but we do know that what we have now is far too much. We have to somehow limit its scope and power.

What do we do? Can we vote for the right guy and get what we want?

One lone legislator, (or even several acting together) on principal, refusing to participate in pork projects, spouting freedom, lower taxes, waste in government, self-reliance or over-regulation, can't do it. First, he doesn't normally get elected by promising to reduce benefits to voters, and so he has little to offer the large block of voters who support the candidate who promises the most from the public treasury.

If by chance he does somehow receive enough votes to gain office, he almost certainly is not re-elected because he can't get enough of the others in Congress to agree with him to make a difference. The result is he is able to do virtually nothing to directly benefit his own constituents. By standing firm on these conservative issues, and refusing to compromise his old school work ethic and personal responsibility and property rights principals - he loses the next election in a landslide. Congressmen don't often behave with fiscal restraint because to act in this way is in conflict with their own personal goals - which is of course, to stay there.

The problem we face as taxpaying citizens is that the personal self-interest of legislators is direct conflict with our own.

We have no right as individuals to demand: "no you can't take any more from us". All government need do is to pass a law increasing our taxes by 10% and … poof  - … so it is written, so it shall be done. By the mere stroke of a pen in the hands of a ruler, someone else now has the legal right to our earnings or accumulated wealth by this redistribution. Our standard of living necessarily decreases because we have less money to fund ourselves. If we refuse to comply, we go to prison.

We producers can't keep pulling an increasingly heavier economic cart. Eventually, we will have to get on board ourselves because we will have no more to give and won't be able to support our own families. Then who will pull?

We must eliminate this antagonistic relationship. In order to regain our freedoms, we need Congressmen to want what we want on a "macro-level". The result of their macro-level goals must be the same as our micro-level goals in order for our nation to prosper. Their micro-level goals have always been the same as ours: family, friends, power, and wealth. To achieve theirs now, though they must crush ours.

How do we force government lawmakers to desire the same result from their legislation as we the taxpaying citizens? We make them citizens too, not rulers. Limiting their time in government will transform their thought process from ruler back to taxpaying citizens. They will be citizens first, legislators second, not the reverse. This will lead to more sound governmental economic policy as it will be in their best interest to do so.

We know that Congressmen would never support term limits on themselves; they would find a way to stop it. They are far too powerful and won't allow it. But could we come up with the right proposal that would actually benefit those in power, meet their personal goals and ours as well?
 
Some opposed to limits make an argument that goes something like this:

Opposing Argument 1:

"We already have them. All voters have to do is vote them out". Congressmen often make this same argument themselves.

Well, with Congressmen serving for decades at a time, and Senators finally being ousted when they are closer to 100 than retirement age only following felony convictions, we all know that the power of incumbency is a nearly insurmountable obstacle for a challenger. They stay as long as they can because they enjoy the job and power. Who wouldn't?  The longer they stay, the more powerful they become. If we are honest with ourselves, most of us would admit that it would be very tough to resist the temptations of those powerful positions and would also do what we could to keep them. Human nature is what it is.

Opposing Argument 2:

"It takes a long time to understand how to be an effective, productive Congressman"

Some argue that it is such a difficult position, that takes a long time to understand the ins and the outs, the procedures, and so they need years of experience in order to be effective. If that were really true, there would never have been two-year terms in the first place.

Logic would indicate that if it takes longer than a few months for a freshman legislator to be able to understand how and where to add to or propose new legislation, or how to vote "Yes" or "No" on another's proposal regarding what is good or bad for the country, than something is either wrong with the process, or the Congressman himself. The solution? One or the other has to be changed.

More than likely it does not take years to know how to get copies of proposed legislation. Probably within the first few weeks, they can find where and when the votes are to be taken. Most of us learned that in the eighth grade when we went to Washington D.C. for a three-day visit. Even a freshman Congressman, whose grammar school never made the trip should be able to figure it out within a month or so.

For you freshmen Congressmen who argue that it takes a decade or longer to understand this process, we offer help. The Capitol Building is where your discussions are held, and most votes are taken. It is located at East Capitol St. NE & First ST. NE, Washington, D.C. 20002. You usually meet in the House Chamber (that means "Big Room") in the South Wing. (Don't go to the North Wing, that is for Senators. They have their own Big Room, and you are not allowed in there.) Ask your committee chairman how to present or add to a bill if you have a good idea.

Even for United States Congressmen, it shouldn't take more than a week to find the Big Room, and maybe only a few more months to discover how and where to go to present one's own thoughts or to vote.

There is little doubt though, that it probably does take a while to understand the details of how to develop a strategy to game the system for one's own benefit, while at the same time somehow convincing most constituents it is all being done for them. Remember the primary concern of a Congressman is himself and his family, just like us.

We have to use this natural human instinct of self-interest to our advantage. This may seem distasteful at first, but consider the following:

There are two main groups of people who consistently fight against term limits using primarily the arguments above: the Congressmen themselves of course, and also their constituents who like them. OK that seems like everyone, - but it isn't, mainly because the constituents who like and support their own guy don't like many of the "other thieving, corrupt parasitic scoundrels" from those other wacko states.

Lets start with Congressmen wanting to stay.

They would never support limits on themselves, and though can't legally stop an amendment through the channels of a Constitutional Convention, they can be expected to do everything within their supreme power range to resist such a move. To believe that citizens have enough power to eliminate them all at this point in our national deterioration is absurd. They would make the legal procedure so difficult, because their very existence depends on it. Or who knows? Maybe they would illegally declare that it never happened, or was completed incorrectly. We would have no choice but to give up - UNLESS we can get them to somehow support it for their own selfish interest as well.

Propose term limits for only for new, incoming Congressmen. Yes, those in office now absolutely are the problem; but they don't know we know it - either that or they just don't really care because they are so powerful. They are clearly not the public servants they were intended to be, they are our rulers. They dictate; we obey. Grandfather the old vermin because we know we can't get it done otherwise. Lets focus on winning the war; this battle is already lost.

Here's why we might be able to win with this approach:

Current members might support this for their own self interest

Those in office now would actually gain even more lifetime power because the new guys would only be "Temps" - as originally intended by our constitution. The old guard would have seniority for chairmanships, influence and power brokering. Since they could be ousted only by vote, they would become stronger and stronger (just like now), but even more so because they would encounter less competition from those coming in. This advantage would be obvious to them. They would likely support increasing their own power this way because they could continually be re-elected and gain more and more influence, which is in accord with their own personal self-interested goal.

Also, lets face it: current Congressmen care about as much for the incoming freshmen they don't even yet know, haven't met, from states they never visit, as they do about us - ZERO. They care about themselves their families, their power and influence. By grandfathering them, we are not attempting to threaten their livelihood at all.  We are augmenting it - temporarily.

Our advantage is that the newly acquired power the old guard may wield would only be temporary to the individual, not the body politic. Once they are gone there would be no up-and-coming lifelong politician to whom to hand the baton of everlasting influence and control.

Without the resulting benefits of unlimited re-election, new legislators would know that they would have to pay their share of the cost of their votes just as do we. Under the current unrestrained system, they either bring home the pork, or risk the wrath of slighted voters and the support of their miffed colleagues. Term-limited legislators wouldn't likely engage in these shenanigans because it would no longer be in their personal self-interest to do so. In fact, not only would it no longer directly benefit them, it would hurt them as much as does us. They would truly be one of us again - mostly.

It is not selfish to want to protect and provide for one's own family. It is normal behavior. We can count on people to act this way; it is human nature. Let's stop denying it, accept it, honor it, use it - and win with it.

The other argument from constituents: We like our guy

Many voters would not support term limits because although they realize Congressmen in general have too much power, and are a major problem, their own guy brings the bacon back home to them. He isn't such a bad guy. They may have even shook his hand, or heard him speak live. It is those other rascals who take their hard earned tax dollars and deliver it to another part of the country to those rotten layabouts and illegal aliens who don't even pay taxes. Those guys are the problem. They are the ones who have to go, (but not our guy). They may argue that term limits might leave them at a disadvantage because they believe that their representative is so good for them. It is likely that many voters would not support limits unless it did not affect their own congressman.

"Term limits? - but we can keep our guy as long as we want? Great!"

Fine, - continue voting for your guy until he loses. He will eventually either lose, die, or retire a multi-millionaire and someone new will be a temp on level ground with the other temps.

The simple proposal again:

Amendment 28 to Section 2 of United States Constitution:

"Members of the House of Representatives may be elected no more than 3 times to two-year terms, nor may he (she) serve more than 8 years under any circumstances. Congressmen currently serving as of the date of passage of this amendment are fully exempted from these limits."

That's it.

Sure, one six year term in the House of Representatives would be better. When Congressmen have to run for re-election every two years it may take a lot of time away from work. The amendment should be simple. Rather than argue to modify two items, term length and overall limit to access to the national trough, one change is probably easier to implement. Limit only. Congressmen currently serving are not affected by the limits and so can pillage the treasury until they retire - but it will be more difficult than even they think.

Many would like to add Senatorial limits too, as would I. -  but one battle at a time. Since all bills must go thorough the House, Senators can't really do much without them anyway. The Congressmen will eventually work to take care of limits on Senators because they will want to move up to become Senators when their  own terms expire. Let them start the Senate term limit discussion. They very likely will call for it themselves because it will benefit them to do so.
 

RESULTS - LESS CORRUPTION

Term-limited elected officials would instinctively be less corrupt. This proposal is not about eliminating the overbearing, power hungry, corrupt, ruling class elitists, we can't; it is about never allowing them to be replaced. Since we can logically expect each of us, including new Congressmen to act in his or her own self-interest, we can now expect that Congressional interests and goals will be more similar to our own.

In the absence of a lifetime ruling position, and discounting the inevitable outright illegality and treachery of some, self-interest would generally suggest that a Congressman would now support fiscally responsible national legislation because rather than being insulated from the results of their votes in Washington D.C., they would soon have to live, work and raise families under the laws they've enacted. They would want to pay less for government and increase freedoms again because they know they must return to the private sector. Government would naturally become smaller, more frugal, and who knows, maybe even the Fair Tax could be implemented.

Consider grandfathering the current parasites. Yes they will temporarily have more power until they retire, which is why they may actually support it, but is more important that their constituents support it. We can be sure that they won't fight as hard against it if they themselves are not limited by it. Sometimes we have to take a step backwards to take a giant step forward, but only a little one here. The host body nation may initially suffer some hemorrhaging, but like an old-fashioned blood-letting, it will be gradually cleansed and purified.

Can a 20-year grandfathered Congressman who is voted out run again later? Yes. He is exempted. Keep in mind that in reality there isn't much chance of any veteran Congressmen who has been beaten in an election of ever returning, there was a reason he lost. Though possible, it doesn't seem important enough to worry about. The amendment has to be simple enough for the poorly educated to understand without too much tinkering.

Although this is not an immediate remedy, it won't take as long as it may appear to work in our favor. With the combination of roughly from 6 - 8 -10% being rejected for re-election for some kind of scandal, theft or just plain being out-voted, and a few more retiring or dying every term, before we know it we will have nearly one-third of Congress on term limits. They will be our advocates rather than partners in crime with the old parasites. Between the new "temps" and the few honorable members remaining from the grandfather clause, not much more government induced economic harm will come to us. They may actually do some good again.

The newly elected term-limited congress will make mistakes of judgment, just like any human beings. It is also possible that some may try to grab as much as they can while they can because they know they can't stay, but this kind of semi-legal larceny will be more difficult to get away with as other members would now have a personal vested interest in stopping it rather than encouraging or joining in on it. We should be able to count on the new term-limited Congress to at least begin to try to do the right thing more and more, rather than less and less.

Certainly there are other worthy Constitutional amendments that would benefit our country. If we can accomplish term limits in this fashion, we may not need to force the others, they may be the natural result. The new term-limited congress will be more receptive to addressing our concerns because they will inherently have our interests at heart. They will be on the side of the American citizen and can be expected to do the things to protect freedoms and our country.

To unconditionally and completely trust anyone in power is always a very dangerous mistake. We have to remain ever vigilant and take care that these new congressmen do the right things. For example, we can't allow lifetime pensions for 6 years of work, or vote themselves multi-million dollar pay raises. Everything can't be solved at once, but maybe we can go a long way towards renewed freedom by winning this important battle about term limits.

The left often argues that the U.S. Constitution may have been written by thoughtful, maybe even inspired men in the 1700's but they could not possibly have anticipated life in the 21st century. It is hard to argue with that. Liberals often use that logical reasoning to eradicate freedoms one by one for the alleged good of the many, usually increasing regulatory obligations or tax by citing someone's idea of "safety" or fairness. We need to use that same reasonable argument to bring independence back.

Our founders never anticipated the coronation of lifetime politicians. However, the main reason for limiting these terms is not to try to maintain what our founders may have wanted, but simply because it is wrong to perpetuate such an unworkable system. To argue whether they would have limited terms it or not had they known is irrelevant. This is why we have the amendment remedy, and the state's right to implement it, to right such wrongs.
 
There exists the real possibility that a state' originated Constitutional convention could morph into an enormous basket of demands of the left, who believe that everyone is entitled to all wealth in the country, regardless of source, effort, ability, determination or sacrifice. We could go far a-field of the simple term limit proposal here attempting instead to institute new legal rights for all kinds of things like free health care, jobs, housing, food, heat, Cable television, a new car every three years, a chicken in every pot so to speak - which or course the "wealthy" will be forced to provide. Yes - this could happen, but it is a chance we have to take. If we don't try, we will continue to be a nation of rulers and slaves - or as the Russians described: proletariat and bourgeoisie.

The alternative to term limits is to surrender our children and grandchildren to the near omnipotent rulers we have today who promote more intrusive and Draconian methods which will enslave our heirs for generations to come.

Want to sign the national term limit petition?

Term Limits National Petition

Send an E-mail to your local Libertarian Party in support of this proposal:.

Escambia County Petition

Christopher M. Barra, M. S.
Libertarian Party Chair
Escambia County, FL