Term Limits - Would They Work?

First, I'm an advocate of term limits re elected offices. I believe term limits should apply across the board, local to federal. I don't buy the argument that term limits make a good politician leave office cutting short their contribution to the country. The President serves on a limited term and the people holding the Office perform well, mediocre or badly, sometimes all 3 in one term.

I believe career politicians have morphed into something never intended for their offices and that its time to remake both major parties. If a viable 3rd party can develop, all the better. Two news stories today that show the arrogance involved with long-term office holders.

link [www.washingtonpost.com]

link [bostonherald.com]

There are wonderful public servants across the country in all levels of government that have served their people very well and effectively for many years.

What problem do you hope to solve by implementing across-the-board term limits? Sounds like a solution looking for a problem, honestly.

Furthermore, what potential negative ramifications will this have?

Please use specifics. Talk about actual people and communities harmed by politicians who have held office too long, and talk about which (if any) good public servants would be forced to leave office and who will be taking their places.

This is your proposal. Flesh it out.

As for the Kerry article, I see no problem at all. Kerry bought the yacht in Rhode Island from a shipyard in Rhode Island that built the yacht in Rhode Island and actually moors it at a dock in Rhode Island and maintains it in Rhode Island. Why would he pay Massachusetts sales tax on that?

In any case, said yacht has nothing whatsoever to do with how long he's been in office, and it wasn't paid for with public funds.

I agree. We need term limits it's the only way to reduce the influence of lobbyists and money on elections. There was a time when people served not because they wanted to but because they felt they had to and they left voluntarily, now they go into government to enrich themselves. Remember the office of the president didn't have term limits until FDR broke with tradition and served 4 terms rather than the customary 2. If term limits are good enough for the president, they're good enough for everyone!

Actually term limits were put down on the president by George Washington as he didn't want the president's office to be similar to a kingdom. Unless I was lied to about that in history class as well. NVM, I googled it was unwritten law *sigh* This is why I hate having to go through history class all those years. We were lied to about so much. What was the point?

Yes Washington's term limit was self imposed. Actually he didn't even want the job! The 22nd amendment to the constitution was passed right after FDR's fourth term. FDR was almost America's first dictator, with many in the press pushing for him to assume dictatorial powers.

I took a religion/philosophy class once and this was one of thing we spent a good week mulling over.

We studied history...everything from countries like that U.S that have 4 year terms, other that have 12 year terms, countries that never change presidents...it just gets passed down once the person dies.

And we all came to the conclusion that a 6 year term is essentially the best. Obviously, we don't want the same person as leader/president for always. 4 year terms were found too short. A president can come in and change policies, but usually we don't see those polices take effect until years down the road; also if the president makes a policy and then once his term is over and new person steps in (who didn't like the policy) and over turns it, then it would be hard to tell if the policy in the first place was good or bad...it never had a chance.

There were more points...I gotta wrack my brain for them.

Oh..if this is applying to those outside of the main leaders of our country...eh, I don't think term limits are feesable, effective or efficient.

Regardless of what you think about politics in general...it is a distinct area of work that requires a distinct set of specialized skills...to have someone constantly change...it would bad, very very bad because you are taking away years of knowledge, experience and replace them with essentially someone that is fresh out of college...someone that is book smart but hasn't honed the skills of being street smart.

Two points on your two posts.

1) Presidents already have term limits. I think we're talking specifically about the thousands of other political offices in the country that don't.

2) Term limits limit how long a politician can spend in one particular office - not how long they can spend in politics in general.

No. The Forum Site is about ideas from all sides. Mine is the question and I stated my position. Your position is stated, but you make a generalization that its a solution looking for a problem. OK, how? Then we can have others participate, if they choose, to comment on your position, as well. One thing, public servants are not necessarily all in elected positions. Fact is most public servants have to compete for their jobs, show some level of experience or competence, join a union, perhaps, and hope not to be laid off due to incompetence among the elected group. Case in point is this link where local elected officials are laying off firefighters due to the budget, but vote to spend almost $1MM on a work of art at the same time. link [www.michigancapitolconfidential.com] This is why I include local officials, also.

I posed a question. You demand an answer from me, but provide only generalizations. Not getting into that trap with you. If there's no interest, the thread will die.

If I were to pass a term limits law, I'd make sure it would mean you can serve only once in any government office.

Perception, perhaps, of the constituents who keep him employed. He's voting on issues that will impact their families and budgets. He's a wealthy man, a federal official, a US state senator representing Massachusetts, the state he claims as his residence. He supports raising taxes on a myriad of issues, but keeps his boat in a location that the local media claim is done to avoid paying higher Massachusetts taxes re fees or whatever. Bad choice from the voters' aspect. He should be a boy scout in these kinds of issues.

Yes, you stated your position. I'm just asking you to actually defend that position.

You're advocating a major, major public policy and government change. I'm asking you to think about what the real ramifications are going to be - both positive and negative.

It's easy to say "oh I think there should be term limits because politicians are bad" but it's another entirely to actually go deeper and ask "which politicians will be affected by this, and how will throwing them out actually affect their constituents and voters? What will be gained, for example, by tossing Ron Paul out of office?"

It's easy to have an opinion on a topic. Everyone has opinions. What matters, in my opinion, is having informed and rational opinions on a topic. Opinions are worthless - fully-formed, defensible opinions backed by thorough analysis and logical thought are priceless.

So if you just have an idea and a vague opinion, then fine, so be it. But if you have more to offer, please, let us hear it. Your idea has some legs. Let it run.

Why? What's gained from that, exactly? Be specific.

This was Washington's opinion and suggestion to others intending to hold office, not a regulation, requirement or law until after FDR's death.