Something to really think about.

[Holcombe]

Well said on term limits.
The problem with spending cuts, is the imediate back lash against any specific cut. Not my benefits!
Just about everyone is on the take somewhere.
Even "Big Government" pain in the ass that it is, is a drop in the bucket. It is not the federal payrole that is the problem, it is the entitlement spending. Healthcare and retirement, and other "good" social services.
If you get your health care from an insurance company, you have to pay for the insurance. Get it from the Government, you have to increase taxes to cover it. Same for pension plans.
Want higher taxes to cover these things? No? Neither does anyone else.

All the money for health care goes to saleries for people. Want to lower the cost of healthcare? Fine, so do I. That means stop paying people who don't provide needed services. Insurance adjusters for a start, and lawyers. Throw them out of work and have a no fault, single payer system. One big, eficient HMO for everyone. Cool.

Of course that would put so many people out of work the recession would come back and deepen.

We aren't going to see recovery until we get real cost cutting reform, and agree to pay higher taxes. Not holding my breath, but change will come. We hope.

[2I2]

I've had two problems with term limits:

1, We do have have a democratic voting process so people should be able to vote for whoever can make the ballot.

2. With the above in mind, voters can fire anyone in office at any election. We have the power, now, to end any political career.

I think we need some more competition, and need to trash the idea that voting for one who is not "D" or R" is throwing away your vote..

[Holcombe]

I learned everything I need to know about politics in drivers ed. Put the car in D to go forward, R to go backward.
Trouble is today both parties are protecting the privileges of the special interests who finance campaigns, and those privileges are bankrupting us. If consumers (us) can't or won't buy things, why would anyone create a job to make something they can't sell?
We need fundimental change in two areas. Removing the subsidies and immunities of the well connected, and redistributing some of the wealth of this great country back to working and middle class folks so they can buy stuff again.
The rich will get their money back, they always do, but we will get a shot at it also and everyone will be happy again.

[Jerry Eichenberger]

Joe -

Again, I'll disagree. The founding fathers may have had an idea of a "farmer statesman. But that was in the late 1700s. Todays' gov't is much different, and the idea of Davy Crockett riding out of Tennessee, coming to Washington for a few weeks every year, then going home is about the same today as fighting a war with his musket.

Remember the practical realities - most of of the "founding fathers" were very wealthy merchants or plantation owners. They may have had a job to return to.

The modern legislator needs to make it a career - and if he's lousy at it, the people can impose their own term limits by simply voting him out of office.

Regardless of which party you call your own, would you really want to lose those statesmen who made most of a life's work by ably serving, such as Ted Kennedy, Everett Dirkson, John McCain, John Kerry, John Glenn, Harry Truman, and many, many more?

Term limits are akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water.

[Holcombe]

Agreed on term limits.
It is not government that is bad, it is that our government has given us everything we have asked for, and now we don't want to raise taxes to pay for it all. So we have a problem, duh!

[MikeB]

I promised myself I'd stay out of the political stuff on this site but can't remain silent. First of all on term limits, I've written to my 'Representative' (Ron Kind) on issues several times. I have yet to recieve a response. To me this guy does not deserve to be reelected and I used to vote for him. On the other hand if you have a strong enough political machine (think Chicago), can raise enough money and do enough political favors it's pretty hard for anyone else to win an election once you're 'entrenched' in the system. Look at some of the members of congress that have been censured by the body (think Charlie Rangel) and they're still 'serving' and, by the way, how do some of these members come in poor as church mice and in a few years are millionaires on a $175,000 yearly salary.

Secondly, I could care less how much an independant business owner makes as long as he earned it honestly. I have a cousin who owned a small business and employed a fair number of employees. He worked probably 60-70 hours a week, stuck his neck out, invested his time and money, met a payroll and eventually sold the business for a million or two (so I've been told). As far as i'm concerned he deserves every cent and shouldn't have to 'share the wealth' with anyone else unless he wants to.

On a teacher's salary (you can figure it's probably wasn't that much) my wife and I managed to live fairly simply, helped put two kids through college, made a few good investments over the years and lived within our means. I would expect congress to do the same. By the way, at age 72 I just renewed my school bus driver's license for the next year. Meanwhile, the Director of Transportation says he can't find anyone to fill my spot so I can retire. They'd be rather be playing cards at the tavern, I guess and complain about not having any money.

Mikeb