-=> Quoting Earnest Padgette to John Perz on 05 Aug 96  21:37 <=-
 Re: Government Reform 
 JP>With respect, Ernie, I don't think it's that simple.  The Constitution,
 JP>says **NOTHING** about term limits.  Yet I don't believe that the
 JP>founders ever envisioned a permanent political class.  I think they
 JP>figured a man would spend a few years in politics out of civic
 JP>responsibility, then go back to his private life.  In that sense, term
 JP>limits is an attempt to restore the founders concepts.
 EP> I hate the *idea* of term limits. It's like saying we need to
 EP> be saved from our bad voting record.
And honestly, we do know they envisioned term limits as unnecessary. Yes, 
they did discuss it. They (naively) thought people would vote on the 
record when it came to incumbents, not on reputation or whatever.
 
 JP>One of the things that REALLY drives me up a wall is the idea of
 JP>pensions for elected officials.  If we did away with those, people
 JP>wouldn't spend their whole life running over and over again for one
 JP>office after another.  Again, nothing in the Constitution for or against
 JP>pensions.
 
 EP> Maybe that would be a good idea. Some say that would just
 EP> ensure only rich people could afford to hold office; but I'm
 EP> not so sure. Certainly, most of us couldn't afford to take a
 EP> two of six year leave of absense from our jobs, without
 EP> sacrificing a lot. I'm very lukewarm about term limits, but I
 EP> don't have any better ideas.
Simple really - why take two full years off? They never envisioned 
Congress doing all the stuff it does today. I can guess they probably 
thought that except in times of emergency (war), Congress would only need 
to meet for less than 3 months a year. Here in Texas, that's written into 
our state constitution - other than a special session, they meet for 6 
months every two years. No need to give up your "day job", just take a 
sabbatical!
Steve
... We're from Washington.  We're here to help ourselves.
--- GEcho 1.00
---------------