Undoubtedly, as we look upon the national scene, there are politicians who have long since worn out their welcome. It's easy to look on term limits as the method of removing those politicians and getting fresh blood and new ideas into the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Unfortunately, all you have to do to see the folly of term limits is to look at what has happened in the state of Missouri and in other states that have put them into effect.
We end up with leaders in the General Assembly who barely have any legislative experience. When that happens, it's not those whom we elect who run the government, but a vast army of the unelected...lobbyists and bureaucrats.
Why set up the artificial barriers of term limits and toss out people who are doing the job? Shouldn't the voters have the final say?
A one-time proponent of term limits who changed his mind, Rob Stutzman, former deputy chief of staff for communications for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, shares his thoughts in a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece.
2 comments:
The problem with term limits is you have people in office who are not in control of that position. They are mostly hand-picked puppets of the party who aren't accountable to to anyone other than the party machine and lobbying interests that installed them. It's insanity to believe that the best person for the job cannot hold a seat because he or she has been there for four years or eight years depending on the office. Anyone who believes term limits has worked take a look at how the state is doing compared to when term limits hadn't yet taken effect. Dolts.
We already had term limits, it was called election day. Every election the people could decide if the person was doing the job a majority of them wanted and if not vote someone else in. The real problem is voter apathy and a reluctance or laziness to educate themselves to the persons or issues. Our present term limits do not let the majority vote for who they believe is doing a good job. If people are serving a long time then a majority of the people that vote believe they should be there. Notice I said those that vote. That is the difference, nothing will change until people become involved in the choices of who represents them.
Post a Comment