The U.S. ought to impose term limits on Congress

The Political system is broken. Once there was a time when just biannual voting was enough for well over 50% turn over, the average length of tenure was around 8.5 years, from the founding of our country up until the second world war. During the first 100 years of congress many Senators didn't even stay for the full 6 years, more than once a full turn over occurred in just 12 months 12. During WWII something fundamentally changed, gone was George Washington's assertion that Politics ought to be a temporary job, gone was the self-imposed term limits. During his second term, Franklin D. Roosevelt did something that no president had previously done successfully, he won a third term, but once the rule was broken he ran again and served part of his fourth term until his death. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a really good President, and of all the ones we've had he is the one I am glad to have run multiple times. But regardless of how good a president he was, this broke a precedent over on hundred years old. With a new precedent in place a president could have run for more that two terms guilt-free, if not for the Hoover Commission, headed by former president Hoover, which made a series of recommendations to change the Federal government, the most prominent being the passage of the 22nd amendment, which made a person ineligible to be President for more than 10 years (two terms plus two years of a previous term if they succeeded to the office) Unfortunately, the precedent continued to stand among congressmen, suddenly being a politician had become a popular thing. Harry S. Truman, and the Hoover Commission, argued that term limits on Congress should be included with the term limits on President, this was ignored. An argument continues to be brought up regarding Senators who have served a good term and represented their constituents well, though it is my opinion that a part of that can include refusing reelection (such as Senator Wayne Allard in 2008), I understand this argument. That is why I earlier stated that I would be willing to concede to have a re-eligibility clause, letting the senator run again after a term out of office or representative after 2 (4 years). What I fear this will do is create what I would call a "leap frog" congress, where two senators might switch a single seat back and forth. But even if the congressmen play political "leap frog" it is better than our current system, as it gives the people time to reconsider a senator's entire tenure before reelecting him as well as it will bring the politician back to citizen life for a period of time. My argument is simple, today congressmen don't view it as a service but as a career, even while this is against what most of the original Founders believed. Proof of this is as follows, Roger Sherman said, "Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of government, they would acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those of their constituents." Senators like Ted Kennedy can be re-elected until death, while his constituents are against the very thing which is his number one campaign promise (see 2010 special election in Massachusetts), this I cannot stand for. Unless we can return to a time where politicians such as then Illinois Representative Abraham Lincoln say "to enter myself as a competitor of another or to authorize anyone so to enter me is what my word and honor forbid" we must enforce a term limit. Due to the tried and proven incumbent advantages (which my opponent dismisses without explanation) elections alone are insufficient. This is why I support Term Limits and urge everyone reading this to do the same.