From: dlb@sunloaf.dazixco.ingr.com (Dave Buehmann)
Subject: Re: Term limits
Reply-To: dlb@dazixco.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix-Intergraph
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:51:51 GMT

In article <4387.29E267A6@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Rex.Beard@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Rex Beard) writes:
|> How do you expect term limits to help?  Do you think it will get rid of 
|> corruption?  If it does it will be the first time in recorded history 
|> that there has been a government without corruption.

While I disagree with term limits conceptually and as a long-term fix,
they are a necessary short-term fix needed to get representatives
elected who are not motivated primarily by the need to get re-elected.

We need to get some more responsible representatives in office to fix
the corrupt campaign finance laws.  The political reality of the 1990's
is that you CAN buy public office.  If you have huge monetary resources
to flood the airwaves with your message and cut down your opponent,
you can win.  Bill Clinton has proven that so far.

By and large, incumbents have many times more money than challengers.
This money comes from at least two sources, including: 1) people
they've done favors for during their current term, and 2) their
political party, which gives money to the "safe bet".  Incumbents
also have the advantage of free (government sponsored) mailings
to frequently tell their constituents what a wonderful job they're
doing.

|>  
|> Do you think it will make representatives reflect their constituents 
|> views better?  I disagree. Unfortunately They represent the majority 
|> only too well.  What is it that our Our local politicians are doing that 
|> we don't want them to do. Or what is it that we want them to do?

Many voters realize the importance of having their representative be
a senior member of Congress so that he/she has the power to throw
more pork back to the district.  The district benefits while the
deficit increases.

|> The problem is the voters. Term limits would only mean different people 
|> would be doing the same stupid things.

Not true.  The system is flawed.  Voters would be foolish to throw out
a senior representative who can get them more pork, even if he is
fiscally irresponsible on a broader scale.

Many representatives' primary agenda now is furthering their own
personal agenda - moving up in the ranks of congress so they can
get more power (and more money).  This agenda would not be fulfillable 
if their allotted time was restricted.

|> Until The voters change and realize that government control is immoral, 
|> dangerous, corrupt and detrimental to our social fabric and the economy, 
|> we will remain mediocre.

Corruption is bred from power.  The current structure of Congress and
campaign laws empower representatives through seniority and campaign
money.  Change the equation and the corruption will decrease.  Eliminate
it - no, reduce it - yes.

Note that this is not just my opinion.  Look at how many representatives
have recently announced they will not seek re-election because the system
is in a stalemate.  Our own (Colorado Senator) Tim Wirth, a 1 term 
Senator who was doing a reasonable job in many people's opinion, has
just announced he won't run again for the same reasons.  The system
is broken.  We need to throw out the entrenched power base that made
it that way.

|> --  
|>  * Rex.Beard@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic

-- 

Dave Buehmann               Voice:    (303) 581-1469
Dazix - Intergraph          Fax:      (303) 581-1461 or (303) 581-0106
6285 Lookout Road           Internet: dlb@dazixco.ingr.com
Boulder, CO  80301          UUCP:     ...uunet!ingr!dazixco!dlb

Newsgroups: hsv.general