We were wrong on Term Limits

[acludem]

Term limits are very, very bad. They lead to a bunch of people with absolutely no clue what's going on making decisions that massively thousands and even millions of lives. Every other type of organization wants experienced people in leadership positions? Why not in the government? Don't give me this bullshit about career politicians either. Most of our founders were career politicians. It's a tradition that goes back to before the constitution.

The real winners when you institute term limits are bureacrats and lobbyists who don't have term limits. They see a bunch of new faces that they can control, or relatives or friends of faces they already control.

Here's an interesting column on this issue from a former supporter:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...0,2519521.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

acludem

 

[insein]

I think that the argument can be made for both sides of this issue. One is that the people should be allowed to elect whoever they want for as long as they want. That gives you what we have in the congress. Senators that are senators for 40 years because anything that they might have done wrong can be forgotten in 6 years when election time comes.

Then there is the presidency. We get guys in there for a long period of time and the ideas become stagnant. Even Bush, who i voted for twice and have been satisfied with in many areas isn't living up to the hype after 6 years. I know full well you wouldnt want another 4 years of Bush would you, acludem?

I think you need the combination of term limits to keep fresh faces in politics that are there to accomplish things and not get reelected with the elimination of beuracracy. I know thats a pie in the sky dream since a beuracracy is only in place to expand the beuracracy. With term limits, it would create more of an interest in the populace as to who they vote for. They would know that even if the elected official isnt the person that they like, they won't have to live with that person forever as their elected official. Sure that means some good leaders would get the shaft but it also means that bad leaders would only have so long to screw things up.

Its a tough issue to make a definitive decision on.

 

[theHawk]

I don't think presidents should be re-elected. Have them serve a 6 year term and get a new one. The president should never have to worry about getting re-eleced, he should be soley focused on what is good for the country.

 

[Mr. P]

I don't think presidents should be re-elected. Have them serve a 6 year term and get a new one. The president should never have to worry about getting re-eleced, he should be soley focused on what is good for the country.

Hummm I could support that, heck it takes a year or so just to get yer feet planted good, then its campaign time. They all need term limits. How long do you think it takes for a politician to learn the ropes of producing pork, 4, 6, 8 years?

 

[Stephanie]

I'm beginning to think we need to set an age limit also...

How old is Sen. Byrd now, 105yrs old?

 

[Mr. P]

I'm beginning to think we need to set an age limit also...

How old is Sen. Byrd now, 105yrs old?

Hey, not a bad idea..If a Pilot can't fly after 60 why should these guys be able to pass laws?

PS..Pilots can fly after 60..just not for an airline.

 

[acludem]

It takes a long, long time to really learn the entire legislative process (i.e. writing legislation, navigating committees, learning how to compromise, how to deal with bureacrats and lobbyists, etc. etc. etc. Like any job, it takes years.

As for the Presidency, I'm opposed to term limits there also. Term limits don't get anyone out to vote and they don't open up the electoral system any. In reality, they close it off even more because parties now have to constantly scrounge new candidates for positions, and often can't find highly qualified people to run for these seats.

Term limits on Congress were even discussed at the Constitutional Convention. The founders decided against them believing them folly. Here's another article that shows why term limits are bad, it's from the New American, hardly a liberal source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no12/vo12no12_limits.htm

acludem

 

[insein]

It takes a long, long time to really learn the entire legislative process (i.e. writing legislation, navigating committees, learning how to compromise, how to deal with bureacrats and lobbyists, etc. etc. etc. Like any job, it takes years.

As for the Presidency, I'm opposed to term limits there also. Term limits don't get anyone out to vote and they don't open up the electoral system any. In reality, they close it off even more because parties now have to constantly scrounge new candidates for positions, and often can't find highly qualified people to run for these seats.

Term limits on Congress were even discussed at the Constitutional Convention. The founders decided against them believing them folly. Here's another article that shows why term limits are bad, it's from the New American, hardly a liberal source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no12/vo12no12_limits.htm

acludem

I dont really see this as a liberal vs conservative issue. This is just what you personally believe. I can think of alot of liberals that dont like term limits as well as conservatives. Then i can also think of alot of both that like them.

 

[pegwinn]

Speaking as someone who has waffled on this........ I finally found my comfort zone.

I think the total years of elected service should not exceed Thirty. At retirement you get 75% of your base pay. At twenty years you can retire at half pay.

Within that Thirty years. No more than two consecutive terms in any office.

For example. If you serve two terms as a Rep you can either take a term off, run for the Senate, or run for President. Then you could do another two terms as a Rep if that is your comfort spot. The military calls this "broken time" and it's a hedge against seniority. I suppose one could even do a stint as an Ambassador or something (which wouldn't count against your thirty year limit).

I don't mind someone building experience but I really oppose them being so entrenched that they are an institution unto themselves. I hope that made sense.

To the poster who was discussing how long it took to learn the system.... Sounds like an excellent reason to do away with "parliamentary" procedure and IT21 the process. If it is that complicated, we need to ask what benefit it brings.

Just my two cents.

 

[insein]

why are we paying them a pension, pegwinn? 90% of Americans dont get any pension let alone the fat stack this buffoons receive on top of the money they made/stole over the years. Policitians are public servants. The money needs to be removed from it and then you will have only people willing to be public servants doing it.

 

[CharlestonChad]

PS..Pilots can fly after 60..just not for an airline.

Then they get to make the big bucks importing drugs from Columbia.

 

[acludem]

I like career politicians. I like career teachers, police officers, corporate executives, airline pilots, blackjack dealers, auto mechanics, appliance salespeople, real estate agents, insurance agents, etc. etc. Career politicians are good for this country. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush were/are all career politicians, or spent a large part of their working years in politics. So were/did Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, Barry Goldwater, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Bob Dole.

What's wrong with a career in public service? If people don't like their public servant, they need to get off their asses and vote him/her out.

acludem

 

[Mr. P]

I like career politicians. I like career teachers, police officers, corporate executives, airline pilots, blackjack dealers, auto mechanics, appliance salespeople, real estate agents, insurance agents, etc. etc. Career politicians are good for this country. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush were/are all career politicians, or spent a large part of their working years in politics. So were/did Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, Barry Goldwater, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Bob Dole.

What's wrong with a career in public service? If people don't like their public servant, they need to get off their asses and vote him/her out.

acludem

I have no problem with career public service. I have a problem with career office holders.
Sure the public can vote them out, sounds easy too; the problem is it’s not.

These days John Doe opponent, has little chance of getting his message heard by the voters over an entrenched incumbent. Why? Money of course. Incumbent campaign funds from pacs, lobbyists, special interest groups etc. far exceed Joe Does’ funds. That means the incumbent has the cash to hire marketing groups, publicist, massive advertising etc.
Not a level field at all and Joe doesn’t really have a chance. That’s the way I see it. The only remedy is term limits IMO.

 

[acludem]

Don't tell that to Bill Frist, he beat a multi-term incumbent Jim Sasser in 1994

What about Tom Daschle? South Dakotans voted him out, of course his opponent had plenty of help and funding from the Rove-Bush-Cheney political machine.

There is a natural turnover in politics. People run for higher office, they retire, they move on. It's just like in every other job in America. My state of Missouri is a good example. Since I could vote in 1996, we've had one Senate seat change hands 4 times. First Jack Danforth retired. Then the famous 2000 election in which Mel Carnahan, our late governor, defeated John Ashcroft. Carnahan's widow, Jean, filled the seat for two years and then was defeated by Jim Talent. Talent is now locked in a very tight race with Claire McCaskill (who I support). House seats are the same way. In my very house district a 20 year veteran of the house was defeated for re-election in 1996. It does happen. It just takes the right candidate, party backing, and campaign strategy.

Term limits are unnecessary and downright harmful.

acludem

 

[Mr. P]

Don't tell that to Bill Frist, he beat a multi-term incumbent Jim Sasser in 1994

What about Tom Daschle? South Dakotans voted him out, of course his opponent had plenty of help and funding from the Rove-Bush-Cheney political machine.

There is a natural turnover in politics. People run for higher office, they retire, they move on. It's just like in every other job in America. My state of Missouri is a good example. Since I could vote in 1996, we've had one Senate seat change hands 4 times. First Jack Danforth retired. Then the famous 2000 election in which Mel Carnahan, our late governor, defeated John Ashcroft. Carnahan's widow, Jean, filled the seat for two years and then was defeated by Jim Talent. Talent is now locked in a very tight race with Claire McCaskill (who I support). House seats are the same way. In my very house district a 20 year veteran of the house was defeated for re-election in 1996. It does happen. It just takes the right candidate, party backing, and campaign strategy.

Term limits are unnecessary and downright harmful.

acludem

:rotflmao: Tell Ted Kennedy he could lose..Yeah it happens, just not to the ones that have power. It's not the power of the people either, it's the power of the inner workings politics.

I don't think limits would be harmful, maybe you have examples. I'm for them.

 

[acludem]

Here is a very long report on Term Limits in California, just the forward is all one really needs to read to know whats in the report. These two researchers concluded that term limits lead to an increase in executive power (i.e. bureacrats), a decrease in fiscal responsibility(i.e. lobbyists), the inability of legislators to make deals (i.e. lack of experience), etc. These researchers recommend extending terms to 14 years, my recommendation is to eliminate term limits all together and give the American people in all the states their right to vote for the candidate of their choice back.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1104BCR.pdf

acludem

 

[Mr. P]

Here is a very long report on Term Limits in California, just the forward is all one really needs to read to know whats in the report. These two researchers concluded that term limits lead to an increase in executive power (i.e. bureacrats), a decrease in fiscal responsibility(i.e. lobbyists), the inability of legislators to make deals (i.e. lack of experience), etc. These researchers recommend extending terms to 14 years, my recommendation is to eliminate term limits all together and give the American people in all the states their right to vote for the candidate of their choice back.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1104BCR.pdf

acludem

No dice, I'm not talking local California politics term limits. I mean federal. It'll work just fine, after the rats die. There are people that want to serve this Country and NOT stuff their pockets at the same time.. Ya know?

 

[pegwinn]

why are we paying them a pension, pegwinn? Because I am a nice guy. If you serve your country for a large chunk of your life you get a pension. Unless it's an ubran legend, I once heard they get the pension after one term. At least I keep em in for twenty90% of Americans dont get any pension let alone the fat stack this buffoons receive on top of the money they made/stole over the years. Policitians are public servants. The money needs to be removed from it and then you will have only people willing to be public servants doing it.

But, if you can remove the pensions, I wouldn't exactly start a bar fight over it.

 

[nosarcasm]

Since the political elite has rigged the election districts, fund raising game to their benefits that 90+% get reelected it seems term limits are necessary to limit corruption on the hill. The Soviet Polit Buro had more turnovers.