Have you ever noticed how newer politicians are very gung-ho and want to get things accomplished while those who have been in power for years don't want to rock the boat?
Have you ever noticed how newer politicians tend not to be corrupt while those who have been in power for years are rife with it?
Have you ever noticed how newer politicians have great ideas and want to innovate while those who have been in power for years want to keep the status-quo?
After yesterday's post I began to rethink these questions and the idea of term limits for government. It is very, very rarely that I advocate for something that is not in the Constitution (either state or federal), yet, I think that this would be a ground-breaking idea. I would love to see officials at the state and federal level to bring forth an Amendment limiting the time a person can be a Representative or Senator. I feel that this alone could solve several problems with corruption and could get the juices of innovation and ideas flowing once again.
After FDR the United States of America stated that it did not trust a person as the PRESIDENT to serve more than two terms. So why do we trust others in these positions to serve a lifetime? It gets to a point when a Senator has been in office for three decades that he is no longer serving the public, but, simply himself. Corruption tends to be more rampant with those who have been in power longer. Bad decisions which affect the state and country tend to be made by these same politicians. Its just mind-boggling!
Now, I have no issue with a person being a Representative then becoming a Senator and then going to the federal level and doing the same. This gives a person experience while still holding him accountable. As for specifics I think (but I'm open to discussion for this) that Representatives could serve 4 to 5 two-year terms while Senators should only serve 2 six-year terms. Its that simple!
A few months ago I heard a laughable argument from a local Representative now Senator by the name of Jennifer Flanagan (surprise, surprise a Democrat) . She was being interviewed on local television by some unknown who was lobbing her softball questions. However, she did ask one good question; that of term limits. What was Flanagan's response? That term limits were a bad idea cause nothing would get done. NOTHING WOULD GET DONE? Yes, you heard that right! She argued that it took soooo long to settle in and that the legislation calendar was toooo short. That nothing could possibly get done in time if their were term limits BECAUSE people would be worried about running for a new office and spending time on their campaigns. Something I might add that they already do. So, what are we paying these people to do if they say that they have too little time to actually ummmm work? I have no clue and I ask all of you voters to seriously consider term limits and vote hacks like this out of office.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment