Term Limits for the Federal Government

I use Washington as an example because he did not believe in perpetual reelection. He could have been elected for a third and probably even fourth term (if he was that old) but said no because he didn't believe that one man should hold office for so long.Incumbent Success RateYour argument defending this system is flawed. In a perfect world of ethics your argument would hold water but that is not the case. People will not just "not vote" for corrupt bills when they could just throw their pork into it and then vote for it as well. The infinite probability theorem states that the longer something happens for the greater the probability of something related happening.In this case, the longer a politician is in office the greater the probability is for corruption. Seniority also gives certain members of Congress undue respect. Harry Reid is "greatly respected" by many in Congress but the man is a complete boob. Why is he respected? Because he has survived for so long. PerksThe reason we cannot just vote out these politicans like you suggest is because it becomes part of a cycle that is extremely hard to break. The first part of this cycle is perk addiction yet we do not see this addiction. Many people only see their Congressman at their best, on TV in the paper etc. They don't see the limo's and the fancy dinners and parties etc. So the addiction is not on the forefront of their minds. The second part comes into play with reelection and promises. Why would they vote out a person who promises them whatever they want? Perks encourage people to get reelected not because they want to serve but because they like the station.So here is what you end up with:Politicians tell constituents what they want to hear.Constituents reelect politicians.Promises broken. Addiction fed.Repeat every 2-6 years.Then you say that short term service eliminates accountability which is also false.Here's why:* People will only serve because they feel compelled to due to civic duty. Without the perks and perpetual station there would be no reason for ambition seekers to run for office, only the sincere politicians will run and serve there time.* There would be no reason to money and power grab like you describe. Such actions usually result from people trying to gain favor for reelection. Without the possibility of reelection there would be no reason to act irresponsibly. With so many politicians cycling through office why would one act irresponsibly when they won't be remembered for it? Reelection drives politicians to secure money and power in irresponsible numbers but why would they do that if they don't have to unduely try to? * Term limits would increase the sense of service for politicians. They would put their time in because they want to and not for ill concieved reasons. Corruption and pork would be reduced because there would be no more back door scheming to secure favors in order to gain long term perks or reelection favors.Your whole argument is based aroudn the point that limited time in office increases irresponsibility and destroys accountability when this is not the case. All of the problems you have described are happening NOW without term limits. Term limits and the right to choose:Do you get upset when your favorite president leaves office after two terms? Maybe a little but you are not angry or indignant about it because you accept that they have 2 terms max. Are presidential term limits bad? Are all presidents irresponsible and unaccountable because they know they have a 4 year joy ride? No. People will accept term limits and like I said earlier they WANT them, overwhelmingly. Give the people the right to choose and choose to have term limits. Thank you.