Posted on 06/28/2016 11:07:39 PM PDT by V K Lee
As an avid supporter of term limits, I have addressed this subject in this column many times over the years and have received some valid and sensible opposition to my opinion. The basic counter argument is that the bi-yearly or quad-yearly elections serve as term limits, as the voters have a chance to replace any candidate, but if they are doing a good job for their state, congressional district or whatever, why should they be removed from office just because they have served a prescribed amount of terms?
Well, one rebuttal is fairly obvious and the other more obscure. We will explore both.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Great article about how the game works. Charlie is a clear thinker and a wise man.
Politicians were supposed to be people from the Real World who were moved to serve in unpleasant conditions by a sense of patriotism. That’s why the capitol is built in a swamp—it was meant to be uncomfortable.
Our Founders never wanted these career politicians sitting in Congress for 128 years at a time.
I can’t imagine Congress ever allowing term limits on itself. Elections are supposed to function as term limits but too many lofos keep reelecting garbage.
Quite true my friend, but the only solution IS term limits. Two terms and back to the salt mines like the rest of us.
I’m all for term limits. I’ll bet President Trump will back us up on this one.
This lifetime legislator business has got to end. And we need lawmakers who have Real Jobs and run businesses.
It’s more than just the legislators themselves that stand in the way of term limits it is those that invest money in keeping them in office.
The wealthy and those that make money buying influence (lobbyist).
When these people buy a legislator they want them to stay bought.
See part two of my tagline...
The wealthy and those that make money buying influence (lobbyist).
A simple cure would be to require all political donations to be ANONYMOUS. Can't sell influence if you don't know who is buying. Americans should be allowed to donate to any party or candidate they choose, in any amount they wish; that's FREEDOM. But when it becomes pay-to-play and bribery, that's crime and should be dealt with as such.
One benefit of that policy would be that candidates would have to give their positions on a wide range of issues, to encourage donations from those issue-oriented voters. Fewer policy "surprises" down the road.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.