Term down for what?
To the Editor:
There is a discussion about term limits. It seems like the majority of people support putting term limits on practically every public office. I am skeptical.
1. People become experienced at any job, including politics. Nobody knows everything when they start. How are people going to be selected for committees when they've barely been around? Limiting politicians' ability to mature will not improve government.
2. Will recycling more people in and out of government increase the quantity of pensions and be a bigger burden to taxpayers?
3. If they are only going to be around for a few terms, won't they be more likely to make decisions that get them the most money from special interests as opposed to representing their constituents, especially in their last term? Either way they're leaving.
4. Term limits force good and bad people out indiscriminately. Without term limits, if somebody is bad, voters can vote them out. Problem solved.
5. Two terms for the president was a tradition that all presidents respected, except FDR. No such tradition exists for other offices.
6. The president wields tremendous power compared to legislators who, individually, are not powerful.
7. Term limits will not balance our budget or create jobs. People aren't willing to tackle these issues, so they're making a phony populist appeal to seem like good guys. Term limits are a distraction.
If you think this will help, I'm afraid I've got some bad news.