The Case for Term Limits Many of us hear the term “Deep State” quite frequently, but I bet some of us don’t know exactly what people are referring to. One of the reasons for this is the term had been overused. I found a definition for it online which defined it as, “a body of people, typically influential members of government agencies or the military, believed to be involved in the secret manipulation or control of government policy.” The definition is pretty good, but many people give it even a deeper meaning by saying there are those who are not in the government who are part of it and they are usually rich people who give funds and orders about what action they want. Some have said there is no such thing while others agree. While many people disagree with each other on politics there seems to be more agreement on limiting terms for all elected officials. There are some government jobs that have an age limit. Elected Supreme Court Judges in New York State have a limit of 70 years old with up to three two year extensions if they are allowed. This has in the past caught some who had Dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. There is no such limit on the House of Representatives, the Senate or the U.S. Supreme Court. I don’t know how many of you are old enough to remember when a very old justice, who will remain nameless, was carried into the Supreme Court on a stretcher? I don’t think party affiliation should have anything to do with term limit legislation because it certainly affects both sides equally. There is another reason why I believe it is important to have term limits and that is not to allow the lawmakers to get too cozy with the lobbyists. Two four year terms are plenty for any elected official. As people get older, they are just not as sharp. I am old and can attest to this. They also usually get more medical problems which may take away time from their duties. I also believe they should not get so much time off. The US Senate is only in session an average of 165 days a year and the House of Representatives is in session an average of 146.7 days a year. Should our elected officials get full time pay for a part time job? I bet most of you would like a gig like that. They also have a lot of extra perks. The pay for most lawmakers is $173,000. The Speaker of the House gets $223,500 and the President pro tempore of the Senate gets $193,400. The others who get $193,400 are the House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, and the Senate Minority Leader. Our lawmakers get a 419(k) and pensions, a Thrift Saving Plan which is tax-deferred, retirement after 5 years and can receive up to 80 percent of their salary depending on time served. If Pelosi would have retired in 2019 it is said her pension would have been $102,000. Lawmakers pay into Social Security. They have the choice of the best health plans. They receive an allowance for personnel and in 2017 this was $944,671 a year. Senators get even more. Their allowance was $3.5 million a year for staff and equipment. They are immune from certain laws which we have to abide by. Many people don’t realize they get special treatment. They get free reserved parking at airports and they can book flights on many different planes and only have to pay for the one they use. Try doing that and see what happens to you. Then there are all the state, city and local government officials. It is not surprising California and New York pay their legislators the highest salaries. California pays $110,459 a year and New York $110,000 a year. New Mexico pays nothing and New Hampshire almost nothing at $200 per term of two years. Why would anyone want this job? I will answer that with another question, why do you think they take a job without pay? Some people go into politics who are very rich and they even donate their salary to charity. Others who go into the House and Senate become very rich. How is this done on a salary of only $173,000. I say only even though this would be a real nice salary for most of us, but it doesn’t reflect how some lawmakers retire far richer than they were when they got into government. There is a small movement that was organized to only let US naturally born citizens run for any office. So far it has received a little more than lip service. If you were born in a foreign country and became a US citizen you still could not run for national office. The government is full of civil servants and appointments at every level. This includes the national level, the state level, and city and local levels. Some of these people have risen very high up in their agencies while others were appointed to prestigious positions in these agencies. One of the problems with this is those heads of agencies and their assistants who were appointed sometimes yield too much power. Take Herbert Hoover for example. He was former head of the FBI for 48 years. This brings up the question should there also be term limits on appointments to agency heads and assistant directors? It seems to me the agency heads and their assistants being in charge of an agency for far too many years is almost the same as one being elected to a legislative position. Hoover had an incredible amount of power and even elected officials were careful with dealing with him lest they get on his bad side. Over the years it was said he had collected dirt on many politicians and they knew it and was why he remained in his position so long. There is no denying the FBI became famous under his tutelage, and one has to commend him for that, but he was there far too long. If one looks at how long directors stay in office in the Central Intelligence Agency, they would find most served less than 8 years. The person who was the head the longest was Richard M. Helms, he was director for about 8 years. I just don’t see how limiting terms would hurt anything. I do believe however the terms of agency heads should never expire at the same time a president is elected, to avoid confusion. I am only talking about agency heads and their assistants, but I also believe if the president wants to replace them before that he has the right.
|
