Labrador term limit bill needs a change

It’s acceptable to disagree with your elected representative.

In fact, it’s almost a citizen’s obligation.

Of course, we’re all happy to chime in when we think someone we helped put in office is getting things right.

Bravo!

But wait, today we have a story about both sides of that coin — he’s right, he’s wrong — and not only that, it concerns the very same basic idea.

U.S. Rep. Raul Labrador, our own Idaho First District congressman, has made ripples by taking the unofficial lead with a group of conservative House members called the Freedom Caucus.

Labrador, though, isn’t just talking about potential legislation — he wants very much to create it — and not much enthuses our representative more than the issue of term limits.

He bristles at the notion of “professional politicians” who spend most of their lives in Washington, and then perhaps take on a cushy lobbyist position with some firm they once were charged with regulating.

THAT’S WHY Labrador, with 12 co-sponsors, has introduced a bill that would amend the U.S. Constitution.

If the bill becomes law, senators and representatives would be limited to 12 years in office — two six-year terms in the Senate and six two-year terms in the House.

“To restore constitutional balance, we must bring the career politicians home and replace them with patriots ready to make the hard choices necessary for prudent governance,” Labrador said in a statement announcing sponsorship of the term-limit bill.

“The Founding Fathers expected elected officials to serve temporarily and return to their communities. I went to Washington for public service, not a career.

“Term limits would reinvigorate Congress by attracting candidates ready to serve and prepared to go home to live with the consequences of their actions.”

For the record, I am totally in agreement with Labrador on this issue — but not quite exactly as he’s spelled it out.

WHERE I have to balk is with the concept of giving House members those six two-year terms.

With all due respect to our representative, I’d advocate for the same 12-year limit, but cut it into three four-year terms so they don’t have to fret about campaigning day and night.

Why the nit-picking?

Well, because it feels like anyone serving a two-year term has barely had time to be sworn in before he or she is raising money and then immediately running for re-election.

Seriously, the second year of each House member’s stint is basically prepping for a primary (if there’s going to be one) and then hitting the stump for a general election.

Aren’t you weary of representatives spending half their elected time just trying to stay in office?

I STATED at the beginning of this piece that it is a citizen’s right to disagree with a public official when circumstances warrant it.

Therefore, it’s very much in our electoral tradition that the people’s representative can respond on an issue like this.

And Labrador did, quickly.

“I can’t support four-year House terms,” he said. “By electing the entire House every two years, the people can send a timely message to Washington and demand a course correction.

“The House is the most responsive of our institutions, and we need to maintain that direct connection to the people.”

Fair enough. We disagree.

Assuming you believe in term limits, then, what’s the best plan for the House?

Should these representatives quit running for re-election almost half their time and thus do enough work to produce meaningful law — or is Labrador correct that the public needs a chance to clean out the place every two years?

Your verdict, please.

• • •

Steve Cameron is a special assignment reporter for The Press. Reach Steve via email at [email protected].