Friday, May 18, 2007

Why We Need Term Limits

Sitting on the chair of an appropriations subcommittee is not very different from sitting on a throne. And the longer you sit, the more throne-like that chair becomes as you gain more influence and become more bulletproof. Murtha's behavior is far from outrageous and far from unique. Sadly, it is quite commonplace. How could it not be? Politicians are paid for their influence and as it grows so does their income and self-importance. There is no trap more human. These entrenched tumors of power are not democracy in action, they are democracy thwarted as their districts yield a disproportionate amount of influence over the nation. Their constituents are as likely to vote against them as union workers are to reject a pay raise. Even ineffective incumbents are almost impossible to beat. The solution is to remove the corruption that results from a career spent at the controls of the sluice. We don't allow the drunk to continue to be liquored by the barkeep, let's apply common sense to politics as well.

2 comments:

Muscles for Justice said...

Push for limits to a seat on a chair (term on, term off on another committee, eligible again for a term on), not your right to represent yourself, Samwise Gamgee.

The Unknown Blogger said...

Muscles' idea is fantastic. Only I would limit terms to one specific time amount, no comebacks. I think you would see more turnover in office as once you've peaked as chairman, its all down hill. Most people would leave to take advantage of their resume knowing that they can't get back to the top. The ones that stayed are most probably in it because they like it (some would stay due to incompetence, but even then, greener pastures would most likely lead them away).

Never surrender your right to vote for who you think is best. The short cut always backfires. When someone is playing off your frustration, you can bet they have a goal.