Term Limits-What Do You Think?

[M&K's Retrievers]

It is obvious that members of Congress are not going to enact term limits 'cause your not going to vote to fire yourself. What if Congress agreed to pass term limits effective 1/1/20. Effective 1/1/20, no one can hold any elected Federal office for more than 10 years combined. It wouldn't help us now but it would eventually get a form of term limits done. Once you have been in Washington for 10 years in any capacity your done. That would include ambassadorships or cabinet positions including Czars.

Just a thought regards

[dnf777]

I used to be in favor of term limits, but now I just don't think they'll work. They only correct one tiny facet of the overall problem.

Without finance reform and limiting the role of lobbyists and SIG contributions, term limits will only take a corrupted process (elections) and make them more frequent. More corrupted elections by themselves may actually increase the problem, rather than stop it.

The POTUS has term limits. Has it increased the quality of the office of president? Or made elections any less screwy? MHO, is NO. We just have more of them.

Another assumption that may not be true is that term limits will release incumbents from the pressures of re-election, and thus, do the right thing. That is most certainly a double-edged sword. Without fear of being kicked out (because its going to happen anyway) what's to stop incumbents from simply legislating in favor of the highest bidding lobbyist, and screw the constituents? Take the money and run in x number of years.

So I guess I'm not really against term limits, per se, but just don't think they'll solve any problems.

[M&K's Retrievers]

Dave, if you remove a career possibility for the people, maybe they will not have enough time to learn how to steal and be there forever. I don't believe a career in political office was the intent of the founders.

[JDogger]

Me, I'm for post limits.

Say you register on RTF. Then ya start postin'. Yer not a 'guest', and ya haven't won 'read only' status.

Ya get 100 posts for free, no timeline. After 100, ya get 500 per year, but ya gotta be a sponser and send Chris a check. Say, maybe $50 per year. Over 500 per year ya get assessed a 'bloviating' surcharge' of $.02 per character.

Sure would cut down on the copy and paste crowd, and those who post 'cause they like to go back and read what they said.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting


JD

PLS note smilies

[depittydawg]

I used to be in favor of term limits, but now I just don't think they'll work. They only correct one tiny facet of the overall problem.

Without finance reform and limiting the role of lobbyists and SIG contributions, term limits will only take a corrupted process (elections) and make them more frequent. More corrupted elections by themselves may actually increase the problem, rather than stop it.

The POTUS has term limits. Has it increased the quality of the office of president? Or made elections any less screwy? MHO, is NO. We just have more of them.

Another assumption that may not be true is that term limits will release incumbents from the pressures of re-election, and thus, do the right thing. That is most certainly a double-edged sword. Without fear of being kicked out (because its going to happen anyway) what's to stop incumbents from simply legislating in favor of the highest bidding lobbyist, and screw the constituents? Take the money and run in x number of years.

So I guess I'm not really against term limits, per se, but just don't think they'll solve any problems.

I think you're right on about the money in politics. It's destroying the functionality of our government. Thank you Supreme Court!

[paul young]

i'm in favor of the idea. the Devil is in the details.

i'd also like to see retired politicians afforded the same health care benefits as the rest of us.

i guess you could say i'm against the idea of a ruling class, which is what we have now. not many of our politicians are truly serving the people they were elected to represent.-Paul

[YardleyLabs]

Term limits require a Constitutional amendment and are therefore unlikely to be adopted under any likely set of circumstances. I also think the issue is more complex than it appears on the surface. One of the problems in legislation now is that the primary sources of expertise rest with lobbyists and bureaucrats. Experienced legislators who have years of experience dealing with the legislative issues associated with a particular area, have the ability to offer some balance against undue influence. Inexperienced legislators are working blind and are less effective against the force of bureaucrats and lobbyists. Unfortunately, the other side of experience can be moral and intellectual corruption. I don't know where the balance lies since that will vary between individuals. However, I would be concerned with limits that were less than 20-25 years.

[hotel4dogs]

we already have term limits here in IL.
One term in office, one term in prison.

[subroc]

I believe strongly in term limits. Just use the election process to accomplish it.

[Hew]

I believe strongly in term limits. Just use the election process to accomplish it.

EXACTLY.

The call for term limits, to me, is a reflection of our society's growing sentiment that nobody is ever responsible for their own actions.

You spilled hot coffee in your own lap? That can't be your fault. Sue the bastards who sold you the coffee!

He's a thug and a thief? Yeah, but he did have a rough childhood...full of violence and racism.

We've got some politicians who are crooks? Well we can't be expected to vote them out of office using an electoral process that millions of Americans died to defend. Let's protect us from ourselves and have term limits.