Term Limits Render Special Interests Impotent
The Unions are reeling from the votes in a number of state legislatures over the past few months. The AFL/CIO president has said the this is "War". The Wisconsin votes have been the best publicized of all but it is not the only vote to accomplish the limiting of Union power in the decisions state governments have recently made. See the chart below.
Not backing down to the union strong arm, with all its money, and ability to reek havoc for a periond of time, will in the long run take power away from this particular special interest and away from the politicians who are aligned through money and purchased votes. It is unconscionable to support a system that allows for the direct purchase of votes, political contributions, (1.8 million too Wisconsin Democrats, 97% of all political giving in Wisconsin), on one hand and to prosecute Blogovich for thinking about selling an appointment. The only way to limit this systems’ continued cheating of “we the people” is to limit terms.
Term limiting of politicians can be done in two ways. Elections, and Legislatively. The election term limiting is what we are seeing in the recent election of 85 new congressman and women to the federal house and the change of power in a number of state legislators this past election cycle. The unions are betting the “we the people” will find the error of their ways and return to politics that are controlled by the unions, in the next election cycle. More power to them. That is how it is suppose to work. Politicians govern and make the tough decisions, which are not always the politicall correct or polled decisions but they are the best for the county, city, state or nation at the time. Then after a short period of time go home and stay. The system as it is currently constructed would have power bought with political money and thereby the vote. That system is practiced by both major parties as of now. That system has to stop if we are to return to a system that represents “we the people” and not special interests.
The only leverage that a special interest has on a politician is the Special interests ability to get them money and to turn out the vote in the politicians’ reelection campaign. Turning out the vote is only done for the candidates that have promised to vote a specific way in an election that would benefit the special interest and not “we the people”. The special interest has only its ability to raise money and maintain power by using that money to keep them in power through vote purchasing. The longevity of a politician should never be a consideration as to how he/she will vote. But with the system as is, it is always the first consideration. The very basis of a legislator’s decision making has been how his vote will help him raise more money and to stay in power, not how will his vote effect the common good based on the principles of democracy.
Lately we have seen a few politicians be elected who have given their pledge to term limit themselves and to push in congress for term limits. This push would effectively bring down the special interest ability to own a large portion of the elected officials. With out the longevity of legislators the special interests influence could not have the leverage of reelection. The ability of the special interests to own legislators through contributions and votes is at the heart of the corruption of power by the individual legislator. To want to hold on to power and to accumulate his own assets wealth is as human as can be. Jefferson and the founding fathers new it and so do we. This human characteristic leaves the legislator at the mercy of special interest that can, in effect, guarantee his continued access to his own riches. This all stops if there are reasonable term limits. If the legislator cannot be reelected, at a point, then he is free to vote his conscience not his pocket book. He is free to vote for “we the people” not special interest. He is free to deal with reality and not to spin according to special interests needs. He is free to vote across party lines because the party line becomes blurred when the influence of special interest has waned.
Term limits have been placed on 15 state legislatures, eight of the ten largest cities in America adopted term limits for their city councils and/or mayor, and 37 states place term limits on their constitutional officers.
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment