If we voters took our reswponsibility seriously and informed ourselves on the records of those in office, rather than being lead by the political campaign adds, we would have term limits. When Congress had an apporval rating of 13% before the November 2008 election, about 90 % of legislators up for re-election were left in their position.

The only way to clear up the corruption and non-representative nature of elected officials in for voters to clean house. If, in the next three national elections, every voter voted against the incumbent, we would have a whole new Congress by 2014. The original Congress had no experience but they had the good of the newly formed Nation to guide them. We can have the same in 2014. We the People have the power.

The above points are key to counter the “Voting booth IS term limits” argument, since, unfortunately, the voting booth is broken for most choices below “President”.

Will voters in this “30-Second Attention Span Society” educate themselves? Never. Politicians know this. Look at Obama – his campaign was on “change”. Most of the people that voted for him couldn’t tell you the first thing about his political track record or voting history – but they were unhappy with the status quo (OK, so was I) and picked up on the word Change. The man is brilliant, I give him that. Anyone who thinks that the Democratic Party did so well in the election because the voters wanted those particular individuals simply is ignorant and doesn’t leave the comfort of CNN. The VAST majority of voters went Obama…and followed the Democratic ticket all the way down. You could have had a dead person on the D ticket and I am certain he would have won.

Term limits, as I see them, are an impossible dream by which professional politicians would agree to have some integrity. Change is good. It works for businesses. It can work for government. Have you seen our SC Senate chambers lately? Looks like a retirement village. You telling me these guys are in touch with the lives and needs of the average voter in SC? HA!

I am sure a mathematical formula could be derived showed the inverse productivity levels versus the length in office. There are always statistical anomalies, but by definition they are rare. Real term limits – 8 years in House AND/OR Senate would go a long way to improving things.

Political careers are much like life. When you are young you do bold things, take chances, make changes, are not afraid to try new things. As you get old you are less productive and more focused on self preservation – staying alive – while you literally rot and wait to die. Sure, some of the new blood would make mistakes. The $64,000 question: Could it get much worse?

If our Republican friends want reform, why don’t they start with spending reform and start acting like the leaders they purport to be? This is the biggest bunch of hooey to come out of Cola in some time.

If people dont believe Election Day can limit terms, take a look at the landscape in Washington. The big government Republicans have been given a one way ticket back to Kansas because they have lost the right to govern.

Happy New Year to all

The power of incumbency is a problem, but it is still in our power to fix that. A massive overhaul of our government structure is the only thing that will ever make a difference in our state. That and real transparency would ensure that politicians would be accountable no matter how long they were in power. We need to stop being lazy as a citizenry and demand serious change and stop settling for anything less. A longshot, but not impossible. After all, our country exists because citizens finally had enough of being oppressed by an arrogant king who didn’t care about them.

True, we might lose a few well-regarded politicians in the process, and true, there would be somewhat of a learning curve as newcomers catch up to speed, but not only would term limits help keep our elected officials honest and protect the public trust, they would help rid our state legislature of some serious political dead weight and clear the way for more people who truly cared more about the job at hand than about getting re-elected and/or gaining seniority and power.

One thing is certain – we can’t maintain the status quo here in SC and expect for things to get any better here.

1: Very few legislators actually serve longer than the limits proposed by Sen. Cleary. Sure, there are some high-profile examples that counter my argument, but 12 years in the House and 16 years in the Senate is a long time, and few legislators stay longer.

2: Term limits eliminate experience. The result is even greater influence by legislative staff and lobbyists. California is exhibit A as to why South Carolina shouldn’t go to term limits. After enacting term limits, two things happened: a) the experience left their legislature (they had freshman legislators chairing committees); and b) politicians got creative in jumping from one elected position to another to keep the paycheck coming. The result was even greater influence of money and special interests as politicians moved from office to office.

The best term limits are those imposed by voters.

I agree that our state needs term limits, however it won’t ever happen until and unless we have “intiative, referendum and recall”. It will be a cold day in hell when our General Assembly votes to authorize a constitutional ammendment that would enable we the people to reform government. It’s a known fact that “government will not reform itself”, and “the professional politician” is part of the problem. I wish that i could be more positive but this is an exercise in futility until we have I,R and R and it won’t happen.

Again, Happy New Year to each of you!

Ron Turner
Summerville