39 minutes ago, brabus said:

Hypothetical, future Pelosi doesn’t exist when there are term limits and it’s illegal to trade individual stocks. More pay + limits + ban on stock trading may actually attract people who are willing to serve, are paid enough to not let income be a barrier, and the guardrails of limits and stock bans should mostly curb the Pelosi types. Understandably this is a tall order as we’re talking substantial changes to the system that the elite will fight tooth and nail.

Put politics on the list of no fucking way for me and most normal people, but say, “come do this, you’ll be paid 1M/yr and you won’t do it for more than 4-6 years.” That would bring public office off the no fucking way list for a lot of people, especially if USERRA protected - can go right back to your other career once done through electoral defeat or term limit…as the founding fathers intended.

I've never been able to see the connection between term limits and resolving corruption. Am I to believe that a congress person can't engage in unethical behavior during their first term??? If anything, it just puts them under a time crucible to get all the goodies they're looking for run through as quickly as possible; it fast tracks whatever corrupt impulse is there in the first place. There's no inherent constraint placed on corruption by time. It may limit the time that someone has to become corrupt, but a good question to ponder is why don't we put 4-6 year term limits on officers? Why aren't we all corrupt by the time we're Lt Cols? I just don't see a connection there.

The problem is lack of accountability and lack of transparency. When Nancy Pelosi was engaging in legislation that was going to benefit Nvidia and other tech companies while simultaneously purchasing stock options she knew would react positively to the actions she was taking, that all should have taken place within the public view. It wasn't classified. It wasn't secret. Basically I guess I'm effectively suggesting that congress people should be required to conduct all legislative business in full view of the public. I have no idea what that looks like, but body cameras would be a start. Drafting legislation? Put the computer screens on a YouTube stream. Meeting with a lobbyist? Have a camera crew there to stream it on X. Obviously this is ridiculous, but the core of the problem is our government is allowed to keep a lot of unsecret things secret.

Agreed, and why force a productive elective official (there are some, I swear!) out of office if they are doing a good job and their constituents are happy?  

6 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Am I to believe that a congress person can't engage in unethical behavior during their first term???

Of course that’s possible, but you’re being a bit obtuse to think a sub 6 yr congressman (hell even a 10 year) could ever be anywhere near the level of Pelosi, Schumer, McConnell, etc, even if they wanted to. And on that note, I still think many start with good intentions, it’s only after several to many years that most finally cave to the selfish desires fueled by money and power, at least to any meaningful amount. There are positive and negative outliers of course, but I think the majority wouldn’t have the time to become bought/make the kinds of plays necessary to become “the next Pelosi” if they were limited on time.

Imagine a douchebag CC for 2 years (it sucks, but everyone gets through it and the next guy is awesome). Now imagine a douchebag CC who runs the show for the next 20 years without any possibility of being fired, no matter what they do. How’s that organization’s long term culture and productivity now?

6 hours ago, ViperMan said:

The problem is lack of accountability and lack of transparency

100%. Love all your related points. These and term limits are not mutually exclusive. All of it matters and are ways to increase Congress’ effectiveness and decrease its shadiness.

Edited January 6Jan 6 by brabus

We pay people more, and ban them from owning/trading anything but TSP "letter" funds or their functional equivalents. Seems like a fair solution. 

Term limits don't really work the way people think they will. Everyone expects it will turn Congress into Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but really it just prevents anyone from getting particularly "good" at being a legislator. Which just transfers even more power to lobbyists and staffers, because people in office literally don't know how to write a bill.

I think we should shift to a 2 year budget cycle.  Reps take office in Jan, odd number years, they have til Sep even year to create and pass a budget, then a month to campaign on said budget til reelection time.

As for term limits, the other side of that is sometimes decent performers have to depart.  AR had a decent R Gov, now it has Huckabee-Sanders.

52 minutes ago, Stoker said:

really it just prevents anyone from getting particularly "good" at being a legislator. Which just transfers even more power to lobbyists and staffers, because people in office literally don't know how to write a bill.

OK, so how long does it take for one to understand the ropes? Impose reasonable term limits with that in mind. I say that number is 1-2 years. If you can’t figure it out in 2 years, you’re not smart enough to be in Congress. Set limits at 12 years, which means there’s plenty of congressman with 8+ years of experience to help lead, and teach, the process. It’s not rocket science.