A Real Term Limit

Wehrwolfen

Senior Member
May 22, 2012
2,750
340
48
By Thomas Sowell
3.20.13


When a pol admits she’s been around too long…​


What are advocates of term limits trying to accomplish? If they are trying to keep government from being run by career politicians, whose top priority is getting themselves reelected, then term limits on given jobs fail to do that.

When someone reaches the limit of how long one can spend as a county supervisor, then it is just a question of finding another political office to run for, such as a member of the state legislature. And when the limit on terms there is reached, it is time to look around for another political job — perhaps as a mayor or a member of Congress.

Instead of always making reelection in an existing political post the top priority, in the last term in a given office the top priority will be doing things that will make it easier to get elected or appointed to the next political post. But in no term is doing what is right for the people likely to be the top priority.

Those who favor term limits are right to try to stop the same old politicians from staying in the same old offices for decades. But having the same career politicians circulating around in the same set of offices, like musical chairs, is not very different.

In either case, we can expect the same short-sighted policies, looking no further than the next election, and the same cynical arts of deception and log-rolling to get reelected at all costs.

There are undoubtedly some high-minded people who go into politics to serve their community or the nation. But, in the corrupting atmosphere of politics, there are too many who “came to do good and stayed to do well” — especially if they stayed too long.

Recently, California’s Senator Dianne Feinstein gave a graphic demonstration of what can happen when you have been in office too long.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
The American Spectator : A Real Term Limit
 
The only choice we have into making sure government is for the people is to limit the power the government has over the people.
Limit the power thus limiting the money thus limiting corruption.
 
We will need a Constitutional Convention to effect any real changes in our dysfunction government. The GOP controls about half of the statehouses, so only about nine more states would be needed for the required 2/3 majority. (3/4 would still be needed to pass any proposed Amendments.)
 
Just for the benefit of those of you too lazy to use it, we already have term limits:
 

Attachments

  • $ballot-box.jpg
    $ballot-box.jpg
    13.6 KB · Views: 63
The only choice we have into making sure government is for the people is to limit the power the government has over the people.
Limit the power thus limiting the money thus limiting corruption.

The problem with this is that everyone has a different idea of who the people are that the government should not control. It is always "don't control me but you should really control them".
 
We will need a Constitutional Convention to effect any real changes in our dysfunction government. The GOP controls about half of the statehouses, so only about nine more states would be needed for the required 2/3 majority. (3/4 would still be needed to pass any proposed Amendments.)

What makes you think the GOP has any desire to change the government?
 
The only choice we have into making sure government is for the people is to limit the power the government has over the people.
Limit the power thus limiting the money thus limiting corruption.

The problem with this is that everyone has a different idea of who the people are that the government should not control. It is always "don't control me but you should really control them".

There should be no distinction. Liberty to all.
 
There is no need for term limits, the situation could be addressed by a simple federal law stating that no pay or remuneration of any kind may be received beyond an elected officials term in office. If the retirements and other perks go away they will be less likely to stay in elected office for 30 years.
 
There is no need for term limits, the situation could be addressed by a simple federal law stating that no pay or remuneration of any kind may be received beyond an elected officials term in office. If the retirements and other perks go away they will be less likely to stay in elected office for 30 years.

Agree
 
The only choice we have into making sure government is for the people is to limit the power the government has over the people.
Limit the power thus limiting the money thus limiting corruption.

Good idea, but you have them in the wrong order.

Limit the money, which limits the corruption, which limits the power.

Support public financing of elections and get the buying and selling of our representitives' votes out of the system.
 
The only choice we have into making sure government is for the people is to limit the power the government has over the people.
Limit the power thus limiting the money thus limiting corruption.

Good idea, but you have them in the wrong order.

Limit the money, which limits the corruption, which limits the power.

Support public financing of elections and get the buying and selling of our representitives' votes out of the system.

No, the order is correct. Power, money, corruption.
 
The only choice we have into making sure government is for the people is to limit the power the government has over the people.
Limit the power thus limiting the money thus limiting corruption.

Good idea, but you have them in the wrong order.

Limit the money, which limits the corruption, which limits the power.

Support public financing of elections and get the buying and selling of our representitives' votes out of the system.

No, the order is correct. Power, money, corruption.

Money is the root of it all. If you can't recognize that, things will never change. All you're doing is spouting slogans that don't mean anything. To limit the government you have to take the money aspect out of it first. You're putting the cart before the horse.
 
Last edited:
The old saying goes: first you get the money, then you get the power.

If you think you can fix govt and have them work for the people without taking the money out. You're fooling yourself and no one else
 
Good idea, but you have them in the wrong order.

Limit the money, which limits the corruption, which limits the power.

Support public financing of elections and get the buying and selling of our representitives' votes out of the system.

No, the order is correct. Power, money, corruption.

Money is the root of it all. If you can't recognize that, things will never change. All you're doing is spouting slogans that don't mean anything. To limit the government you have to take the money aspect out of it first. You're putting the cart before the horse.

No I'm not. The love of money is the root of all evil.....The reason there is money in politics is because there is power. If politicians have limited power what leverage would they have to help a business make more money. They couldn't, thus corporations would invest their money elsewhere.

Politicians are rich because they have control. Who you think is richer.... A state Senator or a Federal Senator? Why? POWER. Money doesn't buy you power....power makes you money.
 
There is no need for term limits, the situation could be addressed by a simple federal law stating that no pay or remuneration of any kind may be received beyond an elected officials term in office. If the retirements and other perks go away they will be less likely to stay in elected office for 30 years.

Actually, this would make them more dependent on sweetheart deals once they leave office.
 
We will need a Constitutional Convention to effect any real changes in our dysfunction government. The GOP controls about half of the statehouses, so only about nine more states would be needed for the required 2/3 majority. (3/4 would still be needed to pass any proposed Amendments.)

What makes you think the GOP has any desire to change the government?

The GOP has supported a Balanced Budget Amendment for many years.
 
There is no need for term limits, the situation could be addressed by a simple federal law stating that no pay or remuneration of any kind may be received beyond an elected officials term in office. If the retirements and other perks go away they will be less likely to stay in elected office for 30 years.

Actually, this would make them more dependent on sweetheart deals once they leave office.

Maybe, but they would not be taxpayer supported any longer. The Constitution only requires we pay them while they are in office, we don't have to support them forever.
 

Forum List

Back
Top