Self-Imposed Term Limits? Not an Option

Washington is a place where symbolism far too often replaces substance.

You see it every time there's brinkmanship over spending: both sides rush to the nearest camera, declare moral victory, and wag fingers at the other side.

Meanwhile, the American people are left footing the bill.

The cycle repeats, year after year, regardless of which party controls the House, Senate, or White House.

The script rarely changes.

The actors do.

Yet sometimes one of the actors steps off the stage.

The news that House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, is stepping down is the kind of development that should make the country pause — not because it's shocking, but because it's telling.

Arrington was my colleague when I served in Congress.

I watched firsthand how he approached the job: a conservative, a steady hand, a Texan who didn't need to prove he was tough by yelling into microphones.

Another good House Republican announces retirement.

Arrington remains a conservative principled leader, as We the People continue to wallow in uncertainty. In some cases, we watch elected officials with no interest in doing the will of the people.

Congress is locked in what feels like a never-ending performance of political theater — more about going viral than governing.

Arrington's departure is not just another retirement.

It's a signal flare.

Because here's the irony: the very people who should be staying to restore stability and restraint are the ones walking away.

Not because they are tired.

Not because they lack backbones.

But because they recognize that Congress has stopped functioning as a legislative body and has devolved into something much closer to a never-ending campaign rally — an arena where scoring symbolic wins matters more than producing real outcomes.

Let's be honest: Americans know it.

That's why support for term limits is not just high — it’s overwhelming.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth most people don’t want to think about: If we had formal term limits, Congress would likely look even worse without the handful of experienced, principled members who actually understand the budget, the committees, the negotiations, and the consequences. The kind of members like Jodey Arrington.

The problem isn't that Congress lacks turnover.

The problem is that the wrong people are the ones leaving.

We don't have a shortage of ambition. We have a shortage of adults in the room.

What passes for budgeting today is embarrassing.

The federal ledger has become a punchline, and the punchline comes at the expense of every American’s future.

There is no serious conversation about spending restraint — not at any meaningful scale. The dollar figures being debated now would have been unthinkable even 15 years ago.

Yet they glide through the process because no one wants to be the one responsible for saying "No!"

Why?

Because saying "No!" is hard.

—It's not flashy.

—It doesn't earn applause.

—It certainly doesn’t secure cable news bookings.

But principled fiscal governance is precisely what Congress was elected to do. The primary job of the legislative branch is not to "send messages," and it's not to "make statements."

It is to pass responsible budgets, ensure oversight, and protect the long-term stability of the nation.

Right now, almost no one in Washington is rewarded for doing that job.

The shutdown drama — whether it resolves today, tomorrow, or next month — has always been the symptom, not the disease.

The disease is a culture in Congress where everything is political theater, and nothing is about policy. Where the incentive structure pushes members toward spectacle and away from seriousness. Where the governing process is viewed as a stage, not a duty.

The American people deserve better.

Jodey Arrington's departure isn't proof that the system is hopeless.

It's proof that the system is salvageable — but only if more leaders refuse to play the game.

He exercised a self-imposed term limit — not because he had to, but because he believed his service should be defined by principle, not permanency.

If more members did the same — if they governed first and performed later — we would not be staring down yearly fiscal cliffs.

We wouldn't be running deficits that mortgaged our children's future.

And we would not need "shutdown brinkmanship" to force conversations which should be a daily occurrence. 

Maybe the lesson is this: We don't need term limits on service.

We need term limits on ego.

Because public office isn't supposed to be a career.

It's supposed to be a commitment.

Then again, policing egos in a way that would be successful is unconstitutional.

Let’s just settle for term limits.

Jim Renacci is a former U.S. Congressman, businessman, and conservative leader dedicated to putting America first. Read More of his Reports — Here.