Mandatory Debate Attendance and Term Limits...

I believe these two things would have great influence on getting our lawmakers back in line with the American people. First regarding debate attendance; debate for our lawmakers is nothing more than getting their opinion "on the record" so to speak. Debate rules need to be changed. How many times have you seen on CSPAN a speaker in either the house or senate where he is speaking to virtually an empty chamber? Don't we pay these people to sit in those seats? Do they have something better to do?  I believe if there is any action or debate on the floor, all members must be present. If they are not, what is the purpose of debate? Debate is to force everyone to hear the other's side of an issue. For our reps to make the case for the policies they are pushing. When no one attends during debate sessions except those presiding over it and the current person speaking, what is accomplished? By not attending, both sides never hear the others first hand and are never forced to look them in the eye during debate. They only go off soundbites created for press conferences. I would venture to state that forcing attendance to all debate sessions by ALL members of the chamber, much more insight as well as truly spirited debate would emerge. This never happens now except on the news, off the record, where total obfuscation can be used to hide true aspirations of policies forced on the American people. A nice pre debate speech is prepared, delivered, and entered into the record. Period. We don't get to see any back and forth which is really what is needed in order for Americans to truly understand issues. Questions should be allowed back and forth between members of other parties. This does not happen now. I believe because lawmakers do not want to look like they do not know that answers. They are right to be worried. Many of them would not be able to handle the pressure. They would not know answers or could not give meaningful rebuttals to points made. This would show who deserved to be there and who does not. If your rep or senator cannot persuade then they are inept at what they were elected to do by their constituents. I never hear anyone talk of this except I heard Ted Cruz mention it once recently. I have thought this for years. We need open, spirited, but not so overly structured debate in front of the American people and we need it now.

Regarding term limits. I have pondered this and was once against term limits with my thinking being that what if we get a really good rep, then we would not be able to keep them. I have realized that this is so rare and a non issue that it should not even be considered as a reason against term limits. I also had thoughts that term limits would also allow us, the people to become more lax in oversight of our reps knowing that even a bad rep would not last long because of term limits. Now I realized this would actually be a good thing. Human nature will always creep in if term limits are not instituted for our lawmakers. If they remain past 1 or two terms, their focus will always be on re-election instead of doing the right thing for the country as a whole. It is inevitable. The lack of term limits is establishing a ruling class that believes they deserve to stay in charge of us because of course they know better. They have experience because they have been in gov't for a long time. I would say this is exactly the  problem. They know too much. They know how to cause real damage and do.

Awaiting your reply and comment,

TUSC