Published: Friday, Dec. 6 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Precisely. Well put. We have term limits in this country; they're called
So, Whitney, you must also be in favor of abolishing term limits for the
president. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.
Same ole thing. Nothing will change unless you change the person. People wont
change unless it's absolutely necessary. It's a matter of life and
death. Time to change the people.
The author presumes an informed electorate, which if it were the case I would
tend to agree with the premise. However we have a demographic called "low
information voter" which to me is double speak for uninterested, naive, or
ignorant who appear easily swayed by glitzy sound bite ads and slick mailings.
This being the case, I disagree and would go with term limits as a
rather draconian but effective solution to our current malaise in Washington.I have seen nothing of "Utah's Time to Lead" lately. It is
more go along to get along, but I digress.No one is indispensable,
that includes politicians.
I'm against term limits for anyone. I like the freedom to choose any
candidate I want. The only term-limited federal office is the President, which
tends to reduce the effectiveness of the office. Personally, I'd like to
see Mr. Obama re-elected for a 3rd term, but he's term-limited.
President Obama told us that HE (the most powerful person in Washington)
can't fix this from the inside. So expecting an arbitrary rule like
term-limits to fix it... is a pipe-dream.I think when he said
"it can't be fixed from the inside"... he meant WE have to fix it
(from the outside) with our votes.One man can't fix it. One
State can't fix it. Until we ALL realize there's a problem and start
fixing it (with our votes)... it won't change.Obama promised to
change "politics as usual" in Washington. But he quickly learned that
it isn't as easy as he thought when campaigning after only one Senate term
in Washington. He now knows it can't be done from Washington OR the White
House. It has to be done from each of OUR houses.Term limits
won't automatically do it for us. We can't keep saying "politics
don't involve me". That is antithetical to our form of government.
We MUST be engaged in politics and know what our leaders are doing, and REMOVE
ineffective ones.. not expect some rule to do it for us.
"If we place a term limit on how long our representatives and senators are
in office, we will likely lose the experience that some of the older politicians
have from serving for so long."Or would we clean out the sludge
of corruption that comes with their being so well acquainted with the lobbyists,
campaign contributors, wealthy special interests, and the rich and powerful who
are now able to buy their votes?
I disagree with the writer of this letter. I support term limits - especially
for Utah's officials. The writer uses the term "politicians". I
don't think we need politicians but rather "statesmen". By the
way, the Utah Legislature did pass a law in the mid-90s setting a 12 year term
limit for its representatives and senators. Then, as the law was to take effect
in mid 2000, they rescinded it during the closing minutes of the legislative
session to preserve their jobs. The "voting out the incumbent" argument
is kind of bogus as the one running for reelection is able to amass a huge war
chest which puts all challengers at a big disadvantage.
I am not in favor of term limits. Instead I am in favor of stripping away most
of the "perks" that make it very attractive for a lawmaker to seek to
stay in office for 30+ years.Power, money, and influence instead of
a sincere desire to "serve their country" are what motivates too many
politicians. All those things are currently driven by seniority in Congress.It should be like mission presidents for the LDS church. Those with a
desire to serve, sacrifice about 3 years of their time. They get no salary and
just a modest living allowance. When their 3 years are up, most are anxious to
get home and do other things, but are still glad they devoted their time.
Somehow, I think this country would be in much better shape if service in
Washington D.C. followed that pattern.
If we did our job as citizens, we would elect new people at every election.
"Serving" in public office should not be a stepping stone to
"royalty". The founders thought that "serving" should be a time
of sacrifice, when the elected official would leave his home, his farm or
business, and "serve".If we had 435 new House members every
two years, there would be very little corruption. Those who try to influence
elected officials could not corrupt 435 people every two years. When you look at the last minute phone calls from the staffs of members of
Congress when various bills are in the process of being voted on, you'll
see a money trail where "contributions" are made to political parties
and to individuals. That would stop if new House and Senate members were
elected at each election.We don't need term limits. We need
the backbone to do our job as citizens to elect new people at each election,
people who are honest, people with integrity.
What will career politicians do with all the funds they raise?
Hatch spouted off at Sen. Moss for being a 2 term Senator. And now look at
Irony GuyAnd I thank God every day for the 22nd Amendment because of
Presidents like Clinton and Obama.one old manDon't often
agree with you, but I'm in total agreement with what you said. Corruption
in politics seems to get worse with time in office.Gerrymandering is
one reason it is so hard to get rid of many House members.
To "Whitney Mabey" with career politicians you end up with a two edged
sword.Yes, experience is good. But with experience you also end up
with a "boys club" mentality where they don't act in the best
interest of their constituants. You can also end up in situations where they
"owe favors" to other politicians that can be used to enact bad
legislation. Also, the longer they remain in office, the more likely they are
to have blackmailable histories that are used against them.The
question isn't what are the benefits of having a representative with
decades of experience behind them in the same office. The question is do the
benefits outweigh the detriments.
For a change I agree with Mike Richards. Let's take this one step further
and add in the 4th Estate. They are currently in cahoots and as a rule they are
complicit with the corruption that we think we are experiencing. No one,
especially Orrin Hatch could master the art of hiding their performance as an
elected official without the support of the media. Who is there to call out the
hypocrisy of a Rob Bishop, who demonstrates an aggressive indignation one day
over military cuts then the next day votes to shutdown the government with all
the other unpatriotic representatives rather than over viable solutions. Who is
there to call out a flunky congressman that does his committee chairman's
bidding rather than do what's right for his constituents and the nation
such as Jason Chaffetz? How many of you realize that in 2006 by a show of hands
your Utah congressmen voted to essentially break the Post Office during the lame
duck sessions. No media called them out on that one.
We do need to limit the terms of many of those currently serving in the Utah
legislature, both House and Senate. Let's do so in the next election.
Republicans laud the capitalist corporate and often point out that government
should be more like a business corporation. In a business
corporation management employees are appointed and authorized for an indefinite
length of time that may be a lifetime or at least until a promotion or dismissal
for cause happens. The notion of dismissing an experienced employee without
cause and hiring a new person from the outside world every few years would
probably be wasteful and inefficient.The only possible advantage of
term limits that I can see would be the equalization of representation between
states by limiting the representative’s knowledge to the lowest level.
And I thank God every day for the 22nd Amendment because of Presidents like
Reagan, Nixon, Bush I, Dick Cheney and his little friend.
I think we should take the risk of losing the experience in order to gain
politicians who are not entrenched in re election mode and who therefore are
less beholden to moneyed interests.
Experience means nothing if the politican who has it is corrupt. The most
experience Republicans and Democrats are only in office to be globalist puppets,
draw a paycheck and a much bigger bribe.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments