Are Term Limits Good Or Bad??????

Would mandatory term limits on United States' representatives, senators, and our Executive Branch  be good or bad? (1 term president?) That is a major dilemma in a political nation and world gone awry. 

Does "new blood" constantly refresh a system and prohibit or deter corruption, or simply deny knowledgeable public servants, that already know what is going-on, from using their obtained wisdom to better lead and govern? Fine citizens heartily disagree on this issue. There are pros and cons to each position.

Moderates and "middle-of-the-roaders" often argue that term limits would lessen a politician's ability to manipulate an office for his own personal gain. Common sense dictates that if you serve only one or two terms, you will hardly be of any use to lobbyists or special interests groups, or even have much time to be tainted by them. In essence, the person serving in a limited manner could be doing so strictly for the constituents' good, and then leave.

Most folks who want term limits immediately think of present and past Senators like Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Ted Stevens, or John Kerry. They are the "poster children" for professional politicians. They have been thought to have a hold on their jobs, whether they perform in a good, bad, or ugly manner. To some extent this is true.

Longer terms dictate more influence and "war chest" money, and greater influence bides well for an incumbent, despite his current ideology. That's bad. The framers of our constitution probably didn't want the nation to be led by career politicians, right? Nor should elections "be bought." (Actually, the Founding Fathers were almost ALL "career politicians" once they entered politics.)

On the other side of the coin, what if a genuinely smart, honest, tried and proven human being is in office? His or her leaving then opens the door for corruption, and perhaps a less-desirable replacement. What then? 

Should we force a wonderful representative and leader out, and settle for something worse? Would you have barred Reagan from re-election to any office, large or small? Should a public servant be tossed-out just because of the potential abuse in office of others, elsewhere?

Along those same lines, don't "we the people" already have the right to fire those that do a bad job by not re-electing them? Likewise, can't we elect new blood anytime we want? Don't term limits simply restrict the voters' options, and take away power from them? Of course they do. The question is; does the potential gain outweigh the loss? This varies.

There is also the argument that it takes years to properly learn how to effectively do any job, especially that of a public servant. Do we want to get rid of someone at just about the time they learn what they are doing, and become acquainted with the issues ? Wouldn't quality regress?

Then, ultra-conservatives who oppose term limits bring-up other relevant points. If Jesus was in public office, would you restrict and ban Him from re-election? Should we so haphazardly ignore the Biblical principles and precedents of leaders serving unlimited terms? Isn't the Word Of God meant to provide the basics forever? Doesn't He know much more than we?

Another argument; would quality people still leave more lucrative-paying private positions to run for an office with a limited term? Many would NOT. Why risk your family's financial future in such an endeavor? (Even Congressional members generally make far more money per year in private life than in Congress. At higher levels it costs Senators, Vice Presidents, and  Presidents enormous sums in firegon earnings to serve, in opportunity costs of foregone earnings.)

There are points to be made on each side of the fight for and against term limits. If implemented, politicians would, no doubt, simply go from position to position and election to election for various different posts. .. Representative, County Commissioner, Senator, Governor, Vice President, Judge, President, and so on. 

If someone wants to be a career politician, and has the resources, they will be, folks. The question boils down to: Do you want them in the same posts, or moving around? Are most good or bad?

I'd have to say that with my right to vote for the person of my choice each election, I'd just as soon let a person in office remain there, and allow he or she to have to constantly prove to me each term that they deserve their position. 

Furthermore, quality people need the potential stability of keeping offices a while, in order to be drawn into public service to begin with. Otherwise, why not be selfish and just think about yourself and your own family by making money outside politics? (Foreign nations also need to see some stability in our leadership; otherwise, why make deals with people who will soon be gone?)

What we fail to realize is that the long-term politicians are re-elected again and again because they mirror their constituency, whether liberal or conservative. Even bad districts and states deserve their choice of leadership too, don't they? We can limit their terms at the ballot box, already.... Then again...

Jimmy is owner of JIMMY HALL WRITING SERVICES (404-580-1501). He provides excellent writing services such as seo web content, resumes, business plans, letters, etc... Call soon!