Connect with us

Big League Economics

Derrick Wilburn Explains Why Democrats Are So OLD

Published

on

Derrick Wilburn of Rocky Mountain Black Conservatives (RMBC) explains in a stirring new piece shared on Facebook why the Democratic Party leaders are so old, while the Republican Party — adherent to its own term-limit laws — provides fresh faces in committee leadership.

Wilburn writes:

Quick, name a nationally-prominent Republican who’s under 60 years of age. Those who pay even the least bit of attention to the political game can likely name Tim Scott (52), Marco Rubio (46), Mia Love, (48), Ted Cruz (46), Rand Paul (54), Trey Gowdy (51), Nikki Haley (46) among others.

Trending: HMM: Actress Rosario Dawson Comes Out as Lesbian Just One Month After She ‘Dated’ Cory Booker

In recent weeks as many as 7 Republicans who are current committee chairmen have announced their intentions to retire from Congress. Why? Many in the media are attempting to sell the narrative that its because they sense impending doom. Not true. Its’ because the Republican caucus term limits its chairmanships and these have reached the end of their terms.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

A recent piece in TheHill.com spotlights a key difference between the way the Republican caucus & Democrat caucus in Washington D.C. operate, but a difference few in the USA are aware of: “The term-limit policy, put in place by former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in 1994, was designed to keep the party from growing stale by regularly injecting new blood and fresh ideas into the mix.”

The GOP’s self-imposed rule is that legislators can not serve more than six years as the party’s top lawmaker on a committee. So once you’ve chaired a committee for six, you’re out and it someone else’s turn. And there’s no back-dooring it. Once you’re done, you’re done. You can’t return to committee member status for a year or two then run for Chair again. They can chair another committee, but not the same one again.

Democrats have no such rules and its at least a part of the reason there’s such a lack of youth in the Dem caucus leadership.

Apply the same question which opened this newsletter to today’s Democrat party leadership — *quick*, name a prominent Democrat, someone with presence on a national level — who’s under 60 years of age. Nancy Pelosi (78), Harry Reid (tho now retired most can name him, 80), Diane Feinstein (84), Chuck Schumer (68), Maxine Waters (80), Elizabeth Warren (70), Bernie Sanders (76 – tho technically an Independent not a Democrat) & the list goes on. All nationally prominent, all 70, 75, 80+ years of age.

Where’s the youth? Blame, at least in part, a lack of (self-imposed) term limits.

Democrats pay their dues early in their careers by carrying the water (i.e. providing necessary votes) and one day ascend to the desired position of Committee Chair, then stay there, …forever.

So what happens often times is younger Democrats win local elections, get to D.C., look up and realize that these old farts aren’t going anyplace! The old guard is from districts in which they can’t be un-elected; they’ve been their for 25 years; been chair for 14; are currently 72 years old meaning they’ll be Committee Chair for at least another 10 or 15 until they retire (if they ever do.) So the young bucks realize, “I’m frozen out.”

For example: Rep. John Conyers, who was forced to (finally) resign in December amid the #MeToo scandal, was born in 1929. Conyers helped draft the presidential articles of impeachment — against Richard Nixon! Conyers first won a seat on the Judiciary Committee in 1965. He first became Chair of the House Oversight Committee in 1989.

Imagine you’re a young lawyer, say 46 years old, a Democrat who just won an election and your dream has been to get to D.C. one day and chair a committee that’s chaired (when Dems are in power) by 70 y/o Elizabeth Warren. You know good & darn well that you’ve no hope of that chairmanship for another 10 or 15 years! What’s that do for your hopes for your future?

You’ve heard of, seen and know Trey Gowdy, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Tim Scott, and they’re nationally prominent because they get a shot at the top much earlier in their careers and that, at least in part, summarizes why pretty much the only Democrats you see on the nightly news speaking from a podium into a microphone at press conferences are old farts. Nancy Pelosi, Chuch Schumer. That’s just about it.

The situation caused the National Review to write a major piece which it titled “Old-Guard Democrats Refuse to Leave the Stage” sub-title “They’re keeping new leaders from emerging.”

Are term limits a good thing? That debate rages on. But the Capital Hill Republican party took the step of self-imposing them 25 years ago and it cannot be argued that the step has not created some very noticeable separation and differences between the parties.

-A Derrick Wilburn original

 

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

You Might Like

Big League Economics

OUT OUT OUT: Study Shows That Each Illegal Alien is Up to a $6,500-Per-Year Burden for the U.S. Taxpayer

The cost of illegal immigration is massive.

Published

on

A ground-breaking new study has shown that illegal immigrants cost the U.S. taxpayer approximately $6,500 per year by soaking up welfare cash and other government benefits after they break the law to enter the country.

The study, commissioned by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), showed that that small states are particularly burdened by the illegals, and the money and services are going to aliens instead of veterans, children, and the disabled.

FAIR surveyed ten small states and determined that illegal immigration cost them an average of $454 million per year.

“To put that figure into context, that $454 million expenditure is more than 200 times what the state of Montana budgets for its entire Veterans Affairs program, and it is 2.5 times the total sum that West Virginia invests in its state university,” the report states.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Dan Stein, president of FAIR, notes that the native populations of these small states are getting squeezed the most by the burden caused by illegal immigrants. These individuals are essentially being replaced as a once-great nation transforms into a globalist economic zone.

“In many ways, the influx of immigrants into less populous areas of the country has an even greater impact on long-time residents than it does in larger and more urban areas,” Stein said.

“These areas have neither the tax base, nor the economic and social infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the growing numbers of immigrants taking up residence,” he added.

The FAIR study, Small Migrant Populations, Huge Impacts, analyzed Alaska, West Virginia, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Montana, Mississippi, North Dakota and Maine to discover their startling conclusions regarding the costs of illegal immigration.

“Many local officials tout immigration, including illegal immigration, as a remedy to economic stagnation. However, as this report reveals, the reality is precisely the opposite,” Stein said.

“Illegal immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower overhead,” he added.

FAIR released the following video to accompany their newly released study:

“This report highlights the fact that the adverse effects of unchecked mass immigration, combined with an immigration selection process that does not choose people based on individual merit, job skills and education, are now being felt in all parts of the country,” Stein explained.

“Americans, in every part of the nation, are being affected by antiquated and unenforced immigration policies, which is why it is at the top of the list of voter concerns heading into the 2020 elections,” he added.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


You Might Like

Trending