There has been considerable press lately on the repeal of term limits, with rumblings that Harry Reid, the AFL-CIO, PLAN, and RAN all agree that term limits should be repealed.
The argument against term limits is that we already have them. They're called elections. Also, with a new crop of inexperienced leadership every twelve years, the government will rely too heavily on bureaucrats and lobbyists for expertise. Neither of them have term limits, by the way.
The argument for term limits is that the power of incumbency is too great to overcome for most challengers, and term limits are needed to keep our elected officials from parking themselves in their positions forever.
Peanut gallery, feel free to add your opinion.
The sounds of inevitability get ever louder for U.S. Rep. Jon Porter (R-Henderson). The Cook Political Report has moved his race from "Lean ... >
Nevada's junior U.S. senator John Ensign (R-Las Vegas) has been making headlines lately for gumming up passage of the foreclosure aid bill by ... >
I’m off through July 23 for some much needed rest and relaxation. I'll be heading up to Niagara Falls and Buffalo, and then down to wine ... >
"with a new crop of
"with a new crop of inexperienced leadership every twelve years, the government will rely too heavily on bureaucrats and lobbyists for expertise."
Where to begin? OK, first - they won't all be tossed every twelve years. At all, repeat, ALL times there will be the current Raggio or Buckley or Titus in place. If they succeed in getting the Supremes to toss this, then let's start the process again - with a FOUR YEAR limit.
Second, anyone who thinks that the lobbyists don't control the current pack needs to take a good look at the C&E reports. New blood will bring new ideas and maybe some folks who think for themselves and do what their constituents want. Or not. But at least you won't need the "Jaws of Life" to pry someone out of their seat.
Post new comment