[jeffkrol]

apparently not (even for committee chairs)..........
this is getting funny.

In a year when many of the newly elected Republicans ran for Congress with a promise to observe self-imposed term limits, a pair of senior lawmakers is trying to avoid similar caps that would prevent them from chairing two of the most powerful committees on Capitol Hill.

Reps. Jerry Lewis of California and Joe Barton from Texas are seeking a waiver to party rules that prevent any Republican from holding the top spot on most of the major committees for more than six years. Mr. Lewis, who chaired the Appropriations Committee when Republicans last controlled the House in 2006, and Barton, who held the top spot on Energy and Commerce, would like to reclaim those posts when their party regains power next year.

New York Rep. Peter King would also need a waiver to take back control of the Homeland Security Committee...................Mr. Boehner has interpreted the rule to not make a distinction between time spent as a committee’s ranking member and time spent as chairman. Republicans say the policy, created after the GOP wave of 1994, is a check on entrenched chairmen who could abuse their power.

Lawmakers who would be affect by the rule, of course, disagree.

“He can make an extremely good case why he would do by far the best job of the chairman,” said Mr. Lewis’s spokesman Jim Specht. “He doesn’t see two years as being entrenched.”

Things could get even trickier after 2012 when several lawmakers set to head top panels will hit leadership term-limits. Some on the Hill have argued the rule needs to be changed.

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the fiscal conservative set to head the Budget Committee, would only get two years at his job before being term-limited out. The same would hold for Florida Reps. John Mica at the Transportation Committee and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen at the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Ryan’s office declined to comment

Some GOP Lawmakers Wait for Waivers - Washington Wire - WSJ

[Parallax]

We already have term limits; 2 years for the House, and 6 years for the Senate. The real shame is that the voters aren't smart enough to impose them at the polls.
The results of the last election would seem to indicate that they are staring to wise up, though.

[jeffkrol]

The results of the last election would seem to indicate that they are starting to wise up, though.

That's funny, good one......
for later:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[Ira]

There's actually a Congressman named Jerry Lewis?

There's the big story right there.

[reeftool]

We already have term limits; 2 years for the House, and 6 years for the Senate. The real shame is that the voters aren't smart enough to impose them at the polls.
The results of the last election would seem to indicate that they are staring to wise up, though.

I have started my own policy of voting out incumbents. On the last election I only voted for 2 incumbents and they had not yet served a full term due to being appointed after the previous person resigned. I will be happy to vote them out next time if I'm not happy.

[kswier]

I have started my own policy of voting out incumbents. On the last election I only voted for 2 incumbents and they had not yet served a full term due to being appointed after the previous person resigned. I will be happy to vote them out next time if I'm not happy.

Voting out incumbents blindly just because because you are not happy with the political environment is just silly. While there are a lot of incumbents that are propagating problems in Washington, there are a few who are good. Every politician should be judged on:
- Are they capable of taking on responsibility?
- Do they solve problems academically, or are they partisan hacks (aka. will they use their brain)?
- Can they work with other people to get things done?
- Do they perceive reality? (aka. you cannot bring the deficit under control by just cutting expenses or by just cutting taxes, both need to happen)

I think the most important criteria is that politicians need to look at issues in an academic (what is best) sort of way, rather than a political way. I do not care if a politician is an incumbent, republican, democrat, independent, etc. We should all vote for politicians that are willing to look at what is best and make real compromises to get things done.

[Phil1]

""While there are a lot of incumbents that are propagating problems in Washington....""

Some recent examples come to mind that could only be removed by the Grim Reaper. They are so damn old, they were in diapers, one had a terminal brain tumor, many sleep all day and you know someone has a hand up thier butt working the mouth when it is time to talk. These political toads are so entrenched that it takes hand grenades or better to get them out. I suspect some of them were excellent examples of the taxidermist's art while still on the payroll. Some too had the stuffing and seams coming apart.

I don't believe the founding fathers intended our representatives to be permanent, effectivly impossible to replace and to become our version of royalty. Term limits works just fine for Presidents and many governors and lesser gov't offices, WTH not for the Senate and House. Twelve years is long enough to screw things up and amass vast wealth while the families are pedalling influance and favors. Dachle and Biden as past and present examples.

[Nesster]

Of course, by fixating on incumbents we tend to forget the downside of a herd of greenhorns: witness the "I have to wait for health insurance!" thread in this section... and some of the less savory outcomes of the last time a large freshman class came to town - for one, they immediately trashed the 'gentlemens agreement' about earmarks, setting off that particular explosion that's now a target of the same political party that originated it.

Not all incumbents are uncaring, selfish oafs, though some are. Not everyone replacing an incumbent will be an improvement - in fact, many will end up doing worse in the very areas they campaigned against. This is a well known psychological fact.