Share This Page

Dingell's lesson

| Saturday, April 12, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Watching a news station recently, I found the best reason in the USA to demand term limits for all of Congress.

Michigan's John Dingell Jr. has served in the House of Representatives since 1955 — 29 terms. Now 87, he decided not to seek another term.

His father held the same seat from 1933 until 1955. The two had served for 82 years — unreal!

It gets better: His wife, 27 years his junior, is planning to run for the same seat.

These congressmen get entrenched, get comfortable and do nothing. Detroit is going bankrupt along with other cities in Michigan. We the people need to demand that a referendum be placed on the ballot in 2016 to put term limits in place.

Congress is not going to do it. It is too greedy and power mad. If we can get this passed, that would put an end to career politicians.

I would also add that they should receive only the retirement benefits they earned while in office, which means no lifetime health care.

They should also use their own cars and pay for their gas. All of their other perks should be scrutinized as well — expense accounts, meals, etc.

Maybe that would make them live under the same laws they make for us. Again, we need to demand this before 2016.

Julie Walczer

Delmont

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.