Letter: No limits

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    Dec. 7, 2013 11:20 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 10:44 p.m.

    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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 6:53 p.m.

    And I thank God every day for the 22nd Amendment because of Presidents like Reagan, Nixon, Bush I, Dick Cheney and his little friend.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 2:33 p.m.

    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.

  • Steve Cottrell Centerville, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 2:13 p.m.

    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.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 6, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    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.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    Irony Guy
    And I thank God every day for the 22nd Amendment because of Presidents like Clinton and Obama.

    one old man
    Don'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.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    Hatch spouted off at Sen. Moss for being a 2 term Senator. And now look at Hatch.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    What will career politicians do with all the funds they raise?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 6, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    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.

  • Pat Salt Lake , UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    "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?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    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.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Dec. 6, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Strider303 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    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.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 7:19 a.m.

    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.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 6:32 a.m.

    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.

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    Dec. 6, 2013 3:19 a.m.

    Precisely. Well put. We have term limits in this country; they're called 'elections.'