 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| ***Now you can do your Google searches right from ProudConservative.com*** |
| IS IT TIME FOR TERM LIMITS? By: Trent (All rights reserved) |
My mother-in-law always says to me, "It doesn't matter if they are Republican or Democrat, once a politician gets
to Washington, they're all the same." Now, I don't think I will go as far as that. Why would I bother voting if I
thought that was true. However, I am beginning to believe that there may be some truth in what she is saying. We
vote for the candidate that we think best demonstrates our values and beliefs. We send them to Washington to get
things done. It seems like more often than not, as soon as they get there, they forget who sent them there and why.
These days it seems as if the number one objective of most politicians, Republican or Democrat, isn't to do what is
in the best interest of the country and their constituents. It is to get re-elected. When you are constantly thinking
about getting yourself re-elected, I think that your decision making is harmed. You can't make decisions based on
what is best for the country. You have to start making decisions based on what you think will get you re-elected.
Sometimes, this works in our interest. Sometimes, it doesn't. If they are worrying about get re-elected, very few
politicians are going to take on the hard issues. Very few of them will be willing to tackle some of the more
popular, yet extremely wasteful programs. It would be too dangerous...for their career. One of the reasons I
appreciate George W. Bush is that he is willing to take chances. He is willing to talk about better ways of doing
things. He is willing to take a chance on issues that need to be addressed but are "hot potatoes" in the political
world. Newt Gingrich was another conservative willing to look at the issues in a new way and approach the
problems with new ideas. Honestly, that is why he was so successful in returning the House and the Senate to the
Republicans. You would think that the politicians would take a cue from the 1994 elections.
My guess would be that the majority of newly elected Senators and Congressmen/women really want to go to
Washington to make a difference. They are energized and ready to go. However, as soon as they get there, they
are "told" how things get done around Washington by the old-timers. They are "taught" not to make waves. Well,
these old-timers got us into many of the bureaucratic messes we currently find in our government.
Until recently, I never thought term-limits were a good idea. I didn't think they were necessary. If a politician fails
in Washington, the people will vote them out. It doesn't always work that way. Ted Kennedy ring any bells. I
understand that Massachusetts is more liberal than the rest of the country. But, I would not be one bit surprised if
the majority of Democrats there would rather have someone new. Ted is already there though. How many times
have you voted for someone because they were the lesser of two evils? Once a party, Democrat or Republican,
has a politician in office, they tend to fight for that politician to remain in office as long as possible. On the surface,
that makes sense, right? What if that politician is voting on issues differently than they campaigned? What if they
are rolling over and compromising too much? What if a new candidate steps up and points this out and tries to get
the nomination the next time an election rolls around? The majority of the time, the political party is going to back
the incumbent. It is easier to get someone re-elected, than it is to get someone new elected. Therefore, they
continue to stay with incumbent even if they are less than desirable. It is all about retaining power rather than
doing what is in the best interest of the country.
Because the focus is continually on getting politicians re-elected, very few new ideas are ever tried. Oh sure, they
might tinker with a program or two, but no real solutions are ever instituted. Take for instance the tax code. Any
normal person can see that it is a complete and TOTAL mess. There are thousands of pages of nonsense. Each
time it is tinkered with, they heap on a whole new set of pages. The politicians are all afraid to come out strongly
and say what the rest of us are already thinking.... "This is really a mess. Let's scrap this whole plan and start from
scratch." You hear pundits and ex-politicians talking like this, but rarely do you hear current politicians discussing
an issue such as this. Once again, it is too dangerous...for their career.
When maintaining your career as a politician becomes a life long goal, most people are going to choose the safe
route. They don't want to ruffle feathers and they don't want to rock the boat. So they remain silent. Or they try
to "tinker" with what is already there. Nothing will ever get done this way.
Now if there were term limits, politicians, I am beginning to believe, would be free to actually try new ideas. They
wouldn't have to worry about stepping on the toes of the "old-timers" in the Senate or the Congress. There
wouldn't be any. There wouldn't be the same stale ideas year after year. There would be a constant flow of new
bodies and new ideas. There would be much less of a hierarchy.
A politician would know that their foray in to politics would be temporary. Therefore, they would not rely solely
on their public service to support them forever. They wouldn't be so fearful that they would lose the next election
and be out of a job. If there were term limits, it would be a given that they would be out of a job at some point.
It seems simple, but think about it. They would actually be free to discuss the issues and programs that are
deemed too polarizing, without fear of losing their career. Being a politician would no longer be a career.
It works for the Presidency. Why not for the rest of the government? How about two terms for a Senator and
three terms for a Congressman/woman? That would be a maximum of 12 years for either office. Besides bringing
in fresh ideas and energized people, think of the money that could be saved as well. No longer would we have to
pay huge pensions on these life-long politicians. But that is probably a whole other editorial. The more I think
about it, the more I am starting to like the idea of term-limits. Yeah, I think it may be time for term-limits.
to Washington, they're all the same." Now, I don't think I will go as far as that. Why would I bother voting if I
thought that was true. However, I am beginning to believe that there may be some truth in what she is saying. We
vote for the candidate that we think best demonstrates our values and beliefs. We send them to Washington to get
things done. It seems like more often than not, as soon as they get there, they forget who sent them there and why.
These days it seems as if the number one objective of most politicians, Republican or Democrat, isn't to do what is
in the best interest of the country and their constituents. It is to get re-elected. When you are constantly thinking
about getting yourself re-elected, I think that your decision making is harmed. You can't make decisions based on
what is best for the country. You have to start making decisions based on what you think will get you re-elected.
Sometimes, this works in our interest. Sometimes, it doesn't. If they are worrying about get re-elected, very few
politicians are going to take on the hard issues. Very few of them will be willing to tackle some of the more
popular, yet extremely wasteful programs. It would be too dangerous...for their career. One of the reasons I
appreciate George W. Bush is that he is willing to take chances. He is willing to talk about better ways of doing
things. He is willing to take a chance on issues that need to be addressed but are "hot potatoes" in the political
world. Newt Gingrich was another conservative willing to look at the issues in a new way and approach the
problems with new ideas. Honestly, that is why he was so successful in returning the House and the Senate to the
Republicans. You would think that the politicians would take a cue from the 1994 elections.
My guess would be that the majority of newly elected Senators and Congressmen/women really want to go to
Washington to make a difference. They are energized and ready to go. However, as soon as they get there, they
are "told" how things get done around Washington by the old-timers. They are "taught" not to make waves. Well,
these old-timers got us into many of the bureaucratic messes we currently find in our government.
Until recently, I never thought term-limits were a good idea. I didn't think they were necessary. If a politician fails
in Washington, the people will vote them out. It doesn't always work that way. Ted Kennedy ring any bells. I
understand that Massachusetts is more liberal than the rest of the country. But, I would not be one bit surprised if
the majority of Democrats there would rather have someone new. Ted is already there though. How many times
have you voted for someone because they were the lesser of two evils? Once a party, Democrat or Republican,
has a politician in office, they tend to fight for that politician to remain in office as long as possible. On the surface,
that makes sense, right? What if that politician is voting on issues differently than they campaigned? What if they
are rolling over and compromising too much? What if a new candidate steps up and points this out and tries to get
the nomination the next time an election rolls around? The majority of the time, the political party is going to back
the incumbent. It is easier to get someone re-elected, than it is to get someone new elected. Therefore, they
continue to stay with incumbent even if they are less than desirable. It is all about retaining power rather than
doing what is in the best interest of the country.
Because the focus is continually on getting politicians re-elected, very few new ideas are ever tried. Oh sure, they
might tinker with a program or two, but no real solutions are ever instituted. Take for instance the tax code. Any
normal person can see that it is a complete and TOTAL mess. There are thousands of pages of nonsense. Each
time it is tinkered with, they heap on a whole new set of pages. The politicians are all afraid to come out strongly
and say what the rest of us are already thinking.... "This is really a mess. Let's scrap this whole plan and start from
scratch." You hear pundits and ex-politicians talking like this, but rarely do you hear current politicians discussing
an issue such as this. Once again, it is too dangerous...for their career.
When maintaining your career as a politician becomes a life long goal, most people are going to choose the safe
route. They don't want to ruffle feathers and they don't want to rock the boat. So they remain silent. Or they try
to "tinker" with what is already there. Nothing will ever get done this way.
Now if there were term limits, politicians, I am beginning to believe, would be free to actually try new ideas. They
wouldn't have to worry about stepping on the toes of the "old-timers" in the Senate or the Congress. There
wouldn't be any. There wouldn't be the same stale ideas year after year. There would be a constant flow of new
bodies and new ideas. There would be much less of a hierarchy.
A politician would know that their foray in to politics would be temporary. Therefore, they would not rely solely
on their public service to support them forever. They wouldn't be so fearful that they would lose the next election
and be out of a job. If there were term limits, it would be a given that they would be out of a job at some point.
It seems simple, but think about it. They would actually be free to discuss the issues and programs that are
deemed too polarizing, without fear of losing their career. Being a politician would no longer be a career.
It works for the Presidency. Why not for the rest of the government? How about two terms for a Senator and
three terms for a Congressman/woman? That would be a maximum of 12 years for either office. Besides bringing
in fresh ideas and energized people, think of the money that could be saved as well. No longer would we have to
pay huge pensions on these life-long politicians. But that is probably a whole other editorial. The more I think
about it, the more I am starting to like the idea of term-limits. Yeah, I think it may be time for term-limits.
| Copyright © 2005 - 2008 ProudConservative.com™ All rights reserved |
TM
| A WEBSITE BY A PROUD CONSERVATIVE FOR PROUD CONSERVATIVES |
| ALL OF THE ABOVE PRODUCTS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE STORE PAGE...CLICK THE LINK ON THE LEFT |