And we should limit the president to one 6 year term. That way, the person in office doesn't feel compelled to constantly campaign for reelection, and won't fear making decisions that prove unpopular. The government needs to get back to working for the people, not for the wealthy CEO's and bankers.
We already have term limits; each member of Congress must stand every two years, every Senator each six years. Institutional memory matters. It's another reason why everyone should vote.
How many watched the four debate for governor last night?
If there are limits, they should be in effect for all states, not imposed within a state by that state.
The harm term limits try to alleviate is caused by entrenched long-timers with disproportionate power due to seniority. We've seen that when some states have term limits, those without have representatives who have an easier time climbing the seniority ladder.
People want term limits, but most don't even bother to vote. There are at least 4 candidates of governor this year. Just get off your rear and vote for one of them.
A constant turnover of legislators will empower the the unaccountable staffs and bureaucrats even more.
That same constant flow of new faces may be more willing to cut down the old hands and bureaucrats down to size.
I conclude that if term limits do ever get passed, they will not solve all the problems that we would like them to, but they will definitely change the game.
Jason - you make a good point about it being a state-level decision. My comment was more of a practical matter. As beneficial as term limits might be, there's no way in hades I'd choose it for my state if the next state over was not choosing it. Do YOU want a Rep with 2 years seniority, knowing seniority determines relative strength, going up against a Rostenkowski, or a Boehner?
My argument against term limits is and has been California. More than two decades of term limits and Sacramento still competes with Albany for the most dysfunctional state capitol in the union.
That's because the individual politicians don't run things. The political parties run the show.
Until you break the power of the parties, nothing will ever change.
And we should limit the
And we should limit the president to one 6 year term. That way, the person in office doesn't feel compelled to constantly campaign for reelection, and won't fear making decisions that prove unpopular. The government needs to get back to working for the people, not for the wealthy CEO's and bankers.
Every elected office should
Every elected office should have a term limit.
We already have term limits;
We already have term limits; each member of Congress must stand every two years, every Senator each six years. Institutional memory matters. It's another reason why everyone should vote.
How many watched the four debate for governor last night?
If there are limits, they
If there are limits, they should be in effect for all states, not imposed within a state by that state.
The harm term limits try to alleviate is caused by entrenched long-timers with disproportionate power due to seniority. We've seen that when some states have term limits, those without have representatives who have an easier time climbing the seniority ladder.
People want term limits, but
People want term limits, but most don't even bother to vote. There are at least 4 candidates of governor this year. Just get off your rear and vote for one of them.
Scott - I think the poll is
Scott - I think the poll is referring to the number of terms an elected official can serve.
Tim - I disagree. Let the states decide. Federal government is too big already.
Here are two thoughts about
Here are two thoughts about term limits:
A constant turnover of legislators will empower the the unaccountable staffs and bureaucrats even more.
That same constant flow of new faces may be more willing to cut down the old hands and bureaucrats down to size.
I conclude that if term limits do ever get passed, they will not solve all the problems that we would like them to, but they will definitely change the game.
Jason - you make a good point
Jason - you make a good point about it being a state-level decision. My comment was more of a practical matter. As beneficial as term limits might be, there's no way in hades I'd choose it for my state if the next state over was not choosing it. Do YOU want a Rep with 2 years seniority, knowing seniority determines relative strength, going up against a Rostenkowski, or a Boehner?
You also make a good point.
You also make a good point. Just another thing I'd like to see changed. Seniority should only go so far.
My argument against term
My argument against term limits is and has been California. More than two decades of term limits and Sacramento still competes with Albany for the most dysfunctional state capitol in the union.
That's because the individual politicians don't run things. The political parties run the show.
Until you break the power of the parties, nothing will ever change.