[wacor]

There are many who think that term limits would help to straighten out politics. Would you still agree if during the same year the 4 top elected officials in your state were term limited? Would you say the same if 29 out of state senators were term limited in that same year?? Would you say the same if 36 out of 110 state representatives were term limited in that same year?

Well would you still feel the same if you knew this was going to occur in 2010 in one of the most if not the most depressed state ... Michigan??

What has happened is a system where these officials are not in office very long to know the ropes. As they rise thru the ranks in a systematic method that is repeated over and over their pockets are greased by lobbyists. If you have a PAC or are a lobbyist you are not just giving to the current office holder. You are cozying up to the next in line along with those in the on deck circle as you postion yourself future.

Term limits is no answer. All it does is give more power to the lobbyists and the staffers. Even our own lobbyist openly states this.

[Sins]

Originally Posted by wacor

There are many who think that term limits would help to straighten out politics. .... Term limits is no answer. All it does is give more power to the lobbyists and the staffers. Even our own lobbyist openly states this.

I read a study (the source having become a dim memory) that suggested similar findings. In essence, the new candidate would find himself utterly beholden to the party machine that put him in office as only a candidate vetted and supported by the party would have a chance to succeed in the election. I'm not sure that such a scenario would be any better than what we have today as it would then be the "invisible" person behind the throne with the real power. No easy answers to yet another sticky problem.

[Knotbored]

It makes as much sence as replacing the CEO and other administrators in sucessful businesses every few years.-none at all.
The problem is all the meaningful jobs done by congress and state officials is always directed to politicians with years practicing delay tactics. New folks on the block are relegated to meaningless activities until the party bosses are secure in their feelings they won't rock the boat or sway from the party line.

[Wino]

Term limits can and do work. The average American is too lazy to use the real term limit tool - the election booth. The incumbents have too much money in their campaign cofers and start off way ahead of any challengers. There is no doubt in my mind that all that have posted before this would have voted for GWB had he not been term limited and are happier than a pig in slop that should Obama win in 2012 that he can't run again. So don't give me the crap term limits don't work.

Reasonable term limits will work and will help clean up the polical dirt from local to national. I cite Sen Byrd - he needs to be gone as does any senator that has served more than 2-3 terms. During their last term they also need to be forced to turn over all their campaign funds to their respective parties, be forced into Social Security and Medicare just like the rest of us.

We just modified our local city council term limits from 2- two year terms and out to 3- 4 year terms, which is more reasonable (although I voted against the change as the stern one was working well IMHO).

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by Wino

Term limits can and do work. The average American is too lazy to use the real term limit tool - the election booth. The incumbents have too much money in their campaign cofers and start off way ahead of any challengers. There is no doubt in my mind that all that have posted before this would have voted for GWB had he not been term limited and are happier than a pig in slop that should Obama win in 2012 that he can't run again. So don't give me the crap term limits don't work.

Reasonable term limits will work and will help clean up the polical dirt from local to national. I cite Sen Byrd - he needs to be gone as does any senator that has served more than 2-3 terms. During their last term they also need to be forced to turn over all their campaign funds to their respective parties, be forced into Social Security and Medicare just like the rest of us.

We just modified our local city council term limits from 2- two year terms and out to 3- 4 year terms, which is more reasonable (although I voted against the change as the stern one was working well IMHO).

I do agree with term limits at the presidential level. I'm not so convinced at the Legislative/State level. Primarily, because the concept is not evenly applied across all states. So even if 40 out of 50 states have term limits, the 10 states can (and probably would) allow senators/reps to build seniority, and power. We're still back to where we were: those ranking members will control Capital Hill.

You would have to have term limits everywhere for it to work, IMHO.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Drabdr

I do agree with term limits at the presidential level. I'm not so convinced at the Legislative/State level. Primarily, because the concept is not evenly applied across all states. So even if 40 out of 50 states have term limits, the 10 states can (and probably would) allow senators/reps to build seniority, and power. We're still back to where we were: those ranking members will control Capital Hill.

You would have to have term limits everywhere for it to work, IMHO.

i agree.....but wacor's point about lobbists is another critical point: they already have tremendous influence, and it's hard to say if that's BECAUSE they get to deal with the ususal suspects year after year.

would they lose that influence with a constant influx of new blood?

target stores don't allow solicitation on it's property......congress would be wise to follow suit, imo.

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by iltos

i agree.....but wacor's point about lobbists is another critical point: they already have tremendous influence, and it's hard to say if that's BECAUSE they get to deal with the usual suspects year after year.

would they lose that influence with a constant influx of new blood?

target stores don't allow solicitation on it's property......congress would be wise to follow suit, imo.

That would be ideal, but would not happen. They would just change tactics. When the UFC went to timed bouts, the fighters just had to learn to get in and end it quicker.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by iltos

i agree.....but wacor's point about lobbists is another critical point: they already have tremendous influence, and it's hard to say if that's BECAUSE they get to deal with the ususal suspects year after year.

would they lose that influence with a constant influx of new blood?

target stores don't allow solicitation on it's property......congress would be wise to follow suit, imo.

The lobbyist deal with the staffers a lot. Many times the staffers stay with the office.

I am not making this stuff up.

I should add that not all lobbying is the same. Our lobbyist actually is despised by the regulators. He does not have much sway with them as a result. The only way you get that power is to be one of the big lobbying firms with a huge budget. Those are the ones that are the problem. Lobbyist like ours are just a conduit to keep discussion open and to forewarn us of upcoming legislation.

We have one issue I found out at saturdays board meeting that is going to be coming that will severely cripple my industry and those who we service. Their rights will be totally removed and the state will dictate if this passes. The advocates are what I would call enviro terroists. They have the money to get the initiative put on the ballot and it will pass handily so that is their threat if the legislature does not move on it.

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by wacor

The lobbyist deal with the staffers a lot. Many times the staffers stay with the office.

I am not making this stuff up.

I should add that not all lobbying is the same. Our lobbyist actually is despised by the regulators. He does not have much sway with them as a result. The only way you get that power is to be one of the big lobbying firms with a huge budget. Those are the ones that are the problem. Lobbyist like ours are just a conduit to keep discussion open and to forewarn us of upcoming legislation.

We have one issue I found out at saturdays board meeting that is going to be coming that will severely cripple my industry and those who we service. Their rights will be totally removed and the state will dictate if this passes. The advocates are what I would call enviro terroists. They have the money to get the initiative put on the ballot and it will pass handily so that is their threat if the legislature does not move on it.

Which entity is represented by this lobbyist? NOTE: I am not against lobbyists. It is the elected officials job to remember who sent them there. Like Wino suggested, it is the voters job to kick them out, which of course, they won't.

I keep remembering the scene from Distinguished Gentlemen, where the couple went to the polling booth. They asked each other something like "who do we vote for every time?", look at the ballot, and remember the last name. Of course in the movie, it's not the same person as before.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Drabdr

NOTE: I am not against lobbyists. It is the elected officials job to remember who sent them there.

so....maybe new blood in the political arena would help?

the problem i'm seeing is that at every turn, it's money that's doing the talking.....captialists might argue that is the way it should be (free markets and all)....but our government is supposed to govern/maintain/regulate economic forces, not be governed by them.

[wacor]

only way to get new blood is to have public financing. Otherwise the incumbent always has the party backing and funding resources that put the opponent at a huge disadvantage.

[LANMaster]

I used to oppose term limits, but I have changed my mind for a few good reasons;

1. I don't want my Congresscreep campaigning when he needs to be working

2. The influence peddlers would be out of a job buying votes with re-election contributions

3. The President is limited to 2 terms, and nobody denies that is a good thing. So why not Congresscreeps?

4. Our Houses of Congress stink SOOOO BAAAD at the monent, from both sides of the aisle, that firing their butts is a great idea.

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I used to oppose term limits, but I have changed my mind for a few good reasons;

1. I don't want my Congresscreep campaigning when he needs to be working

2. The influence peddlers would be out of a job buying votes with re-election contributions

3. The President is limited to 2 terms, and nobody denies that is a good thing. So why not Congresscreeps?

4. Our Houses of Congress stink SOOOO BAAAD at the monent, from both sides of the aisle, that firing their butts is a great idea.

Well... no disagreement, Lan. But all have to play by the rules. Too.. not to play too tired of a song, but the voters can fire people at will. But they are too lazy or uninformed to do that.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Drabdr

Well... no disagreement, Lan. But all have to play by the rules. Too.. not to play too tired of a song, but the voters can fire people at will. But they are too lazy or uninformed to do that.

.... and misinformed.


My country used to have statesmen that were respectable and honorable. Now we have this load of human waste ....

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by wacor

There are many who think that term limits would help to straighten out politics. Would you still agree if during the same year the 4 top elected officials in your state were term limited? Would you say the same if 29 out of state senators were term limited in that same year?? Would you say the same if 36 out of 110 state representatives were term limited in that same year?

Well would you still feel the same if you knew this was going to occur in 2010 in one of the most if not the most depressed state ... Michigan??

What has happened is a system where these officials are not in office very long to know the ropes. As they rise thru the ranks in a systematic method that is repeated over and over their pockets are greased by lobbyists. If you have a PAC or are a lobbyist you are not just giving to the current office holder. You are cozying up to the next in line along with those in the on deck circle as you postion yourself future.

Term limits is no answer. All it does is give more power to the lobbyists and the staffers. Even our own lobbyist openly states this.

Hi Bill,

You got a lobbyist? Man, I'm thinking of a new nickname for you - Daddy Warbucks!

Didn't you ever listen to the great Mick - If you try sometime, you might just find you get what you need? I believe the song was "You can't always get what you want".

-- Tom