Term Limits

"Term limits" sounds like a great idea given the constant corruption in our government. But as with most process changes people don't really think about the implications. Just this year in PA after the pay raise issue and then the legislators attempt to increase their pensions and the lack of property tax reform the electorate showed several incumbants just where the door was, which was a big suprise to many long-term incumbants. But what didn't happen was that several district legislators weren't ousted because they had no contender or they had a poor contender.

So what would happen if we should instill some term limit? My guess would be that more often than not we would replace a tolerable legislator with a "newbie" just because we had no other choice and in many instances it would more than likely be an unopposed election. Is that really what we want to do?

As long as money remains the primary control over the election process the electorate will rarely have a chance of electing someone that will truely represent them regardless of term limits. Let's face facts, the parties control the elections by controlling the primaries. Just look at the PA Federal Senate race. Our primary choices were: Rick Santorum, Bob Casey Jr, Adam Sandels and Chuck Pinacchio and even though Chuck Pinacchio obviously resonated with voters the most during the debates and Bob Casey Jr the least, Bob still managed to pull off winning the primary even though he failed to assert his position on any particular subject. And once again we will be stuck voting for the lessor of two evils during the November elections.

We already have term limits, it's called voting, because as we could tell by the changes that have already occured as a result of the primaries here in PA several long time legislators will soon become lobbyists.