Small moments from a long life

Advocating single six-year terms for politicians

Apr 19—2011

Written by

So, it’s a “belated” tax day this year. Hope everyone was able to get their tax finished and submitted. Our government needs everyone’s money!

This is a good opportunity to discuss the US government’s deficit and all the issues surrounding it. Throughout this blog, I advocate optimism and living a positive life. However, such an outlook on life needs to be in the context of reality as well. There’s a clear line between productive optimism and delusional thinking.

All that to say that our nation’s current deficit problem cannot be fixed under the current political system. As long as we have a two-party system where extreme special interest groups from each side can hold the majority hostage, our politicians will not be able to adequately address the fiscal issues.

Our current politicians cannot make compromises and create a “win-win” situation as they are beholden to the extremists in both parties. They are constantly having to position themselves for re-election that keeps them from doing the difficult, pragmatic things to fix our nation’s debt problems. One compromise can doom a politician from re-election because of the potential attacks from special interest groups within his/her party.

The solution is somewhere between (or a combination) of the Republican and Democrat budget proposals. But politicians are so worried about the impact of the extremists of their constituents on their re-election that common sense never wins out.

It’s not so much the politicians’ fault as it is a broken system. If we had all politician serve a six-year single terms, then I believe the politicians would be bolder and make better decisions that would leave a more favorable legacy of their work in office… but that won’t ever happen.

5 responses

Dan Larkin

April 19, 2011

There are real benefits that come from experience in governing. Unfortunately you’re right. Those benefits are far more than offset by the trappings of staying in power.

I agree with you on term limits but they won’t be enough. We need campaign finance reform. It is difficult with first amendment issues but financial interests drive the politics, not the politicians. With term limits, the politicians will have less influence, and the money more…unless we address how campaigns are funded.

Reply
meetjohnsong

April 19, 2011

Dan, you are absolutely right on campaign finance reform. My frustration with the lopsided influence of special interest groups is related to finacial interests.
Thanks for articulating this perspective… and happy tax day ;).

Reply
Kendall

April 19, 2011

I’m all for it, where do I sign up! How about throwing in an earmark that forces the government to balance the budget by the end of every 6 year term?

Reply
Richard A. Gould

July 20, 2011

I agree with the six-year term limits and would also promote a unicameral form of government such as what the State of Nebraska has been running since the 1930’s. This would cut the amount of politicians in half as well as promoting transparency (no hidden committee meetings etc.). I do believe that these changes can be implemented but it will take millions of people, citizens, backing and along with perhaps millions or billions of dollars to get it done. What about a grass-roots thrid party movement to change the federal government to do what we stated? I am also for a smaller Federal Government and bigger State, County, and local governments where are politicians are held accountable because they live there!

Reply
diann ingram

October 26, 2011

I have been believing this for a long time. Get them in and get them out before corruption occurs. Ha I really do want to know how to get a bill introducing this idea I think no more than 8 yrs.

Reply