Letter: Informed electorate better than term limits
At first blush, it would seem that requiring term limits is a good idea. There are a number of Congressmen and women that survived the last election that I would greatly love to see be retired.
But on further thought, there are flaws in term limits that need to be considered.
Exhibit A is the current lame duck Congress. Those in office that have already lost their job, the lame ducks, have little to no incentive to bow to the will of their constituents and have voted for legislation that wouldn’t have gotten passed before the election.
Even President Obama’s rhetoric has changed considerably since the election. He is facing his own reelection in two years and is moderating his stand as a result. But if he were to be reelected, then it would be Katy-Bar-The-Door. As a lame duck president, nothing would get in his way of pushing his disastrous agenda on us.
Another consideration is the electorate. The constituents in Pelosi’s district are predominantly left-wingers. If she were to be retired by way of required term limits, she would just be replaced by another left-winger. Much as I would be happy not to be seeing her face on TV, I would just be looking at her replacement doing what she did.
The solution is an informed electorate. When people understand the importance of adhering to our Constitution, they will vote for people that are willing to do just that. And they will eliminate the terms of those who don’t.
So, actually we do have term limits. It’s called an election. And, with an informed electorate, we will put the rascals out to pasture.