|
Real0ne -> RE: Should Re-elections be abolished? (3/25/2013 9:13:55 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
we have a situation that our government trustees (elected officials) are more concerned about their own asses than us.
So why not have one election one term done? Would it help keep them a bit more honest?
No. I do support term limits, but one term isn't enough for a Representative to really get into things.
And, if we did that, we'd eventually have more and more people getting salary and benefits for life, unless that was also changed (which I support with or without term limits changes)
I think I could support a one term for Prez at 8 years, 1 term for Congress of 10.
For Prez, 3+ years to figure out the job and 5 to get it done.
Congress....3+ years and 7.
That Amendment would be a much harder sell than to simply limit terms to no more than 6 years for Congress (Senators get one shot, and their chusing [intended] should be given back to the State legislatures). Getting passage of an Amendment to end lifetime pension and benefits for Congress would be much harder, than setting term limits, too.
It seems to me it might be in the best interest of all of us if the pension was cut out completely. There is no constitutional mandate for it.
If the job was not an attractive one from a perk, monetary and beneficial standpoint I would think we would get a whole different approach to government and huge reduction in mission creep? Today imo they go in for all the wrong reasons. (themselves)
I know some communities that had to force (by constant persuasion) certain community members to run for the office and the whole community is frankly quite happy with the results of these people.
I was thinking 3 years any job one shot, one year to get acclamated, one to propose one to run it through if the system is to remain so lucrative to personal gain of the officeholders as it is today
|
|
|
|
