Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb
they do enjoy an advantage. but i cannot see why it should be found an unfair one. please share with us your rationale for making such a claimIncumbents have a distinct and unfair advantage in getting re-elected.
if you want to get rid of corruption then get rid of legal bribes, campaign funds funneled to candidates by unions, corporations and foreign governments. return the power to the people by only allowing registered voters to make campaign contributions not found illegalIf you want to get rid of corruption and abuse of power - you should be for term limits on all elected offices.
until then, we will continue to have the best government money can buy
it is human nature to pay attention to the expectations of those who fund your activity. return that to the people and the politicians will again address the peoples' concernsIf you want the same old crap that we have now - if you want to keep the status quo and have no issue with the fools we have destroying our country while filling their pockets with cash and exempting themselves from the laws they make, you are against term limits.
True, the election process was meant to serve as those limits. They trusted greatly in the idea of the people’s vote.
Where they sought to limit the terms was in the Senate, which was meant to be elected by the State rather than the people. Jefferson even made a direct proposal of this…
"I proposed the representatives (and not the people) should choose the [State] Senate... To make them independent I had proposed that they should hold their places for nine years and then go out (one third every three years) and be incapable forever of being re-elected to that house. My idea was that if they might be re-elected, they would be casting their eye forward to the period of election (however distant) and be currying favor with the electors and consequently dependent on them. My reason for fixing them in office for a term of years rather than for life was that they might have an idea that they were at a certain period to return into the mass of the people and become the governed instead of the governor, which might still keep alive that regard to the public good that otherwise they might perhaps be induced by their independence to forget." --Thomas Jefferson to E. Pendleton, 1776.
This is where I think the imbalance comes from.
Term limits in the House of Representatives should remain at the will of the people’s vote, elections every two years, for two year terms, reelected as many times as the people vote for them.
Repeal the 17th Amendment placing the Senate election back into control of the States, elections every two years, for six year terms (with one-third being renewed every two years), but be ineligible from being re-elected to the Senate thereafter.
I don't really think that long careers in politics are the problem. Being a politician requires a specific skillset like any other profession, and I would rather that the people who governing the country be practiced and skilled at doing so, rather than, for lack of a better term, noobs. The troubles I find, are the corrupting influence of private money. Both in terms of campaign contributions, and in terms of cushy private sector jobs after leaving public service. The latter is essentially just a quid pro quo bribe that takes a while to kick in. If anything, keeping those politicians in the public position would be better than letting them favor a private entity, and then receiving a payoff later, once they are legally permitted. And most of those private jobs are lobbyists, where we return to the problem of campaign money. The issue isn't a long career. The issue is the money.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
This is a double edged sword. Sure, career politicians with their sense of entitlement, their detachment from reality and the struggles their constituents face are 2 glaring examples (2 out of many, too-many) that can be given as to why term limits should be set. However, in a representative democracy don't we have an obligation to ourselves to allow whomever we like the ability to be elected and to represent us for as long as we see fit?
Would not a decentralization of Federal authority be a more fitting response? This allowing the Pelosi's and the McConnell's, the McCain's and the Hatch's to be limited in their scope and capability to influence policy on a national scale.
They can procure gifts to their constituents that enhance their electability such as job training grants, public works projects and keeping military bases open.
They have the ability to reward local citizens with appointments, grants, scholarships and awards.
They have a staff that helps people having personal problems with government proceses. (i.e problems with obtaining a passport)
They get their name in the newspaper almost everytime they send out a press release (created and distributed by their taxpayer-paid staff) boasting of an accomplishment.
They get their name in the newspaper almost everytime they make a public appearance or meet with a VIP.
They can claim co-sponsorship credit for legislation that they did not do any work on.
They can reward their friends/donors/allies with jobs and appointments to advisory bodies, commissions etc.
They can reward their friends/donors/allies with legislation that provides grants, loans, government contracts and exemptions to regulations etc.
They automatically assume leadership positions in their political party.
Their political party will almost surely support their re-election, even if there is a pretense of having a primary election or other process.
Their name is listed on the ballot as an incumbent, almost guaranteeing a vote from lazy and/or uninformed voters content with the status quo.
They are given awards, ceremonies and have public works projects named after them by local politicians seeking favor.
They can access high paying and/or prestigious speaking engagements, guest editorials and book contracts.
All of these benefits are considered perfectly legal and even ethical, if done with a veneer of legality. (i.e. obscuring the connection between a campaign donation and a legislation benefitting the donar.)