Congress needs one-term limit

The American public has grown increasingly disillusioned with Congress — and for good reason. Year after year, approval ratings hover near historic lows, yet over 90% of incumbents are routinely reelected. Something is clearly broken. Career politicians, entrenched partisanship, and influence-peddling have created a system that serves itself more than the people. It’s time for a bold fix: a single-term limit for all members of Congress.

Yes, just one term. No re-elections. No second chances. Serve your country once, then step aside. This might sound extreme, but the benefits are undeniable-and long overdue.

It ends the era of the career politician. The Founders envisioned public service as a temporary duty, not a lifelong profession. With a one-term limit, there would be no time to build an empire, no incentive to cater to special interests for long term gain. The focus would shift back to legislating and public service, not fund raising and campaign strategy. I envision a 5-year term for the House and the Senate. Ten states would vote every year for their representatives.

It liberates lawmakers to lead, not pander. Imagine a Congress where representatives and senators didn’t have to spend half their term worried about the next election. Without the pressure of reelection hanging over their heads, lawmakers could make decisions based on principle rather than poll numbers. Controversial but necessary reforms — on debt, climate, immigration, or healthcare — are often avoided because they’re politically risky. A one-term Congress would be free to confront hard truths, not kick the can down the road for fear of upsetting voters or donors.

It injects fresh voices and new perspectives.

It could ease partisan gridlock. Much of today’s dysfunction stems from political tribalism. Lawmakers play to their base, demonize the opposition, and avoid compromise, because their next primary depends on it. But if there’s no next primary, there’s no incentive to grandstand for party loyalty. A one-term limit could lower the temperature. Without electoral consequences, politicians might be more inclined to work across the aisle, listen to alternative views, and focus on what works instead of what wins.

It restores public faith in government. The biggest benefit of all? Trust. Americans are cynical because they see Congress as a rigged game-a place where incumbents keep getting reelected despite dysfunction, scandal, and inaction. A one-term limit would send a powerful message: no one owns a seat in Congress. Every representative is temporary. Every voice matters.

Of course, there are challenges. Critics will argue that experience matters and that a one-term limit throws out good lawmakers along with the bad. But a system that relies on a few “experienced” legislators to keep the lights on is already fragile. Plenty of talented Americans are ready and willing to serve-and a one-term system would ensure they get the chance. Others might say that one-term isn’t long enough to accomplish anything. But if legislators knew they had only one shot, they might approach the job with a sense of urgency we rarely see today.

Yes, it would take a constitutional amendment. Yes, it would be a political battle. But history shows that structural reforms are possible when the public demands them. Let’s demand this one. One term. No reelection. Just service.

Let’s fix Congress before it becomes unfixable.

Greg Evans

Bend

 

Time to improve transportation

 

State lawmakers have released a framework to fix financial shortfalls in our transportation system, and I want to encourage all lawmakers that the time is now to transform our transportation system to meet the needs of the emerging economy and honor past agreements.

The new economy that will figuratively and also literally drive Oregon forward is around clean energy and sustainability. Building and maintaining transportation infrastructure that supports the flow of goods, services, and people is critical.

Transportation is already an industry that is part of the emerging energy economy.

For example, alternative fuel transportation is growing. The International Energy Association’s Global EV Outlook report predicts that “electric cars market share is on course to exceed 40% by 2030.” In the U.S., more than 1 in 10 cars sold was an EV in 2024.

Establishing shovel-ready sites along our major transit corridors (I-5, I-84, 97, etc.) would support fueling stations for these and other alternative fuel vehicles. Projects like this invite investment into Oregon’s economy, creating more jobs for Oregon workers and enticing companies in the transportation and energy industries to come to Oregon. Creating appropriate, phased taxation of alternative fueling systems can help offset decreasing gas tax revenues and help to equitably bear the cost.

Additionally, honoring commitments from the 2017 transportation package for pedestrian and community pathways helps to alleviate wear and tear on our transportation system. Simply put, fewer cars driving means less impact on our roads. Additionally, if it is easier to walk or bike to a job, store, or restaurant than to drive, more people will do that. Having people walk and bike benefits public health, as people who walk and bike support their physical health. Continued investment in interconnected bike and pedestrian pathways is a multi-win situation, and those projects already agreed upon in the 2017 package must be continued.

Finally, there needs to be greater oversight and accountability for ODOT. The cost overruns on some of the mega-projects have been astronomical. The I-5 Rose Quarter project was originally bid out at $400 million dollars. It is now estimated to cost around $1.9 billion!

We all get it. No one could have predicted supply chain issues or inflation associated with an international pandemic. The tariff war is making things worse, as organizations struggle to predict costs. Nonetheless, important programs like Safe Routes to School, Great Streets, Oregon Community Paths and more need continued funding. We don’t need poor financial management, and it is critical for the legislature to create a solution that ensures our tax money is well spent.

We also don’t need cuts that impair maintenance and operation of our roads and sabotage jobs and economic growth. Cuts always sound like prudent fiscal management, but in this time of immense technological and social change, we need investment.

Investment is building the future for Oregon. Cuts will leave Oregon less desirable as a destination for companies.

In immense change, there is immense opportunity. Lawmakers can fix funding shortfalls and build for the new energy and transportation economy.

Jim Tolles

Bend