In response to:

United We Term-Limit

Ed52 Wrote: Oct 07, 2012 4:16 PM
Prior to (a) paying politicians a higher than living wage and (b) air conditioning we didn't need term limits because no one wanted to stay in office all that much. The original design fro Congress was to leave the farm/business for 2 or 3 months, go to a government city built on swamp, pass whatever laws were deemed necessary for the National Interest per the Constitution (paying attention to Amendments 8 & 10) then go home & forget about it until next year. Congress has two year terms so members didn't have to suffer absence from farm/business/family unduly.
Sorceress Wrote: Oct 08, 2012 7:27 PM
You got it! That Constitution thing. Boy, does that ever annoy liberals in particular, but all politicians in general. We truly need to clear out all the garbage in government that does not conform to the specific actions called for in the Constitution. Send all the programs to the states that don't conform to the Constitution. I wonder how long they would last? You are right about congressional pay. Wow, who wouldn't like a job that you could vote yourselves raises every time you felt like it? I say, pay a stipend only. Let Congress meet only if there is something urgent to deal with and only for as long as it takes to solve the issue. If it takes too long, they are doing it wrong.

October 7, 2012

Americans are obviously divided on the current presidential race. We disagree, too, on a whole range of social and economic issues. But we remain firmly united when it comes to one straightforward political reform: term limits.

Since 1990, when voters in California, Colorado and Oklahoma passed the first statewide ballot initiatives to limit the number of terms their state legislators could serve, the issue has enjoyed sustained support from whopping majorities in every region of the country, in rural states like Wyoming and in the urban behemoths of New York...