In a recent letter to the editor, P. Jacobs asked, "Why not term limits? Can anyone (especially a politician) provide me with good reasoning of why term limits should not become law?"
Term Limits: Euphemism for "we can't trust ourselves with the vote."
There's a good reason for that.
We want controlled rather than self-control. The elected will keep pillaging with less time in which to get their share.
New senators and representatives already go into Washington dependent on permanently based special interests to help them navigate legislation and procedure. Who do you think actually writes laws? Washington lawyers and industry or activist experts, that's who.
Rather than disciplining our leaders by making sure they'll never gain the experience necessary to run government effectively, we should demand disciplined and accomplished voters.
We let people who aren't qualified in hiring someone to run a McDonalds pick who will run the country.
In the early days, the Founders recognized that and set voter requirements. We've wisely rejected the idea women and minorities are unqualified ... but unwisely rejected the idea voters should prove ability and accomplishment.
We should return to he higher standard our republic was designed to operate on.
All people would still have a right to aspire to the vote, but the vote itself would require proof of basic competency. They then need to prove they are the eligible voter.
With a more competent voting pool, it will be less likely that the incompetent and the con men keep getting paid for it because of lazy, greedy or incompetent voters.
Randolph S. Stewart