Sad, but absolutely 100% correct.

I'm convinced the only solution is term limits.

2 terms in the House
1 term in the Senate
2 as President

That's it, you're done. Now go live under the laws to which you have subjected the rest of the country. This fixes so many of the problems we face today.

I'm also convinced the career politicians we have today will never subject themselves to such a shortened career. After all, they'll tell us, they are "too valuable" to be lost. Of course that's BS. They only care about what's good for themselves, and their party, and eventually (maybe) about what's good for the country. Not all of them at first, but eventually most all come around to this self preservation way of thinking.

I am therefore willing to grandfather in the current crop of politicians to be exempt from these term limits. Only newly elected members are subject to the limits. That sucks, but it's the only hope of getting it through. Because, after all, the current politicians are way "too valuable" to lose.

__________________

2012 XT1200Z Blue, 2012 XT1200Z Black

.
+1, DirtDad.

I don't know what post-job payments these people get . . . but it might be wise to have generous (but taxable) pensions that come to them after they step down [even after one term].

That may sound unfair ~ but it would reduce the incentive towards corruption (you know the sort of thing : political actions for which corporations reward ex-politicians by feather-bedding with directorships, lobbying jobs, "advisory" positions, and so on).
.

.
Or at least a 5 year ban initially, on such slush money.
.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who is worth having elected is going to be willing to give up whatever career they have for a couple of two year terms or one four year term, knowing they would have to go back and pick up again. Could you do that? I know I could not leave my job for that time period during peak earning years, then try to go back.
Personally i think term limits are the fantasy of people who think that anyone can walk in and begin writing laws that would be comprehensible and useful.

__________________
Joe S.
'12 Concours
'11 DL650
'10 Tiger1050
'01 HD FXD
'09 HD XR1200
'79 BMW R100

But they risk exactly the same fate now if they get defeated after a first term in office by an electorate that doesn't like what they've done.

IMHO term limits deter political career seekers, but do not necessarily deter worthwhile political office seekers.

Risk is a far different thing than a certainty.
Yes term limits may well detern political career seekers but I do not necessarily consider someone having a career in politics the worst thing. In our state some of our best representatives have been those who made a career in the field, Mark Hatfield, Ron Wyden, Peter DeFazio to name 3. Naturally not everyone agrees with this but as far as I'm concerned each served honorably and does (or did in the case of Senator Hatfield) a lot for our state.
The idea of term limits seems rooted in the belief that anyone who enters politics is automatically a crook or soon will be. I don't agree with this and believe that the only people who would be attracted to serving in a political office with term limits would be those who could afford to leave their work or business for the term (rich) or those with nothing to lose. Neither seems very appealing to me.

__________________
Joe S.
'12 Concours
'11 DL650
'10 Tiger1050
'01 HD FXD
'09 HD XR1200
'79 BMW R100

.
Personally, I would prefer fewer but longer terms of incumbency all round ~ but there are arguments on both sides.

No point getting too exercised about which is better, because nothing much is going to change : for the foreseeable future, the system is in gridlock.

Still, it is an interesting mental exercise to consider how things could be changed for the better.
You never know . . . things might eventually change if enough people give thought to the issues, and also abandon an unthinking set-in-concrete worship of the Sacred Past.

Much higher up the priority list, should be the [anti-corruption] reduction of the candidates' need for wealth in order to be elected.
And that means getting them off the Corporate Teat and Donations Teat . . . and onto a much smaller Public Teat.
That would require severe restrictions of advertising [ah, heavenly thought !!].
And probably having compulsory voting would be a sensible cost-lowering & democracy-enhancing move, too.

But just imagine the knee-jerk reactions and mouth-frothing that would meet such common sense suggestions !!



The Twinkies seem in Total Eclipse . . . yet they could re-emerge.
.

Politicians have worked diligently to UN educate the populace and encourage the most Naive to vote.

Remember that originally ONLY tax paying land owners were supposed to vote.

Whenever it was that money could be confiscated from some and given to others, the country's fate was sealed.

__________________
Link Click Here >>> 2013 Northeast V-Strom Rally!

FILL OUT NEVA MEAL POLL If your attending
Also in events

8/2/2013

Now that's some funny $h_t.

Surprised this thread hasn't been closed down by The Watchmakers.

__________________
2009 DL650 'Prime Mover'

"It is better to live alone in the desert than with a nagging wife" - Proverbs 21:19

Looking out the door I see the rain fall upon the funeral mourners.
Parading in a wake of sad relations as their shoes fill up with water. - Jeff Buckley, 1994

http://photobucket.com/mid-life-crisis-tour