The one thing about 912ers that bothers me.

[jrich4rpaul]

It seems every time I read comments from the 912 Project, everyone involved demands term limits in government. I am very against this and I don't believe they realize that they are going against their own message of smaller government.

I would like to say that I am STRONGLY against term limits. Their movement is to limit the strength and size of government, but term limits does just the opposite. Limits suggest that We The People do not have the ability to kick officials out of office ourselves and that the government must do it for us. I think they need think twice about this one.

[qh4dotcom]

It seems every time I read comments from the 912 Project, everyone involved demands term limits in government. I am very against this and I don't believe they realize that they are going against their own message of smaller government.

I would like to say that I am STRONGLY against term limits. Their movement is to limit the strength and size of government, but term limits does just the opposite. Limits suggest that We The People do not have the ability to kick officials out of office ourselves and that the government must do it for us. I think they need think twice about this one.

Ron Paul is STRONGLY for term limits.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always expect to get the vote of Paul....the only way to prevent all the Pauls from reelecting whoever is nannying them is term limits.

[Golding]

Term limits are better achieved by cutting the inordinate benefits that politicians receive. Democrats have pitched universal healthcare for years on the premise that they get it for being elected, and so everyone else should too. It makes more sense to me that they don't get free healthcare just for being a Senator to begin with.

Making the lifestyle of a Senator less cushy would be like a de facto term limit. Less people would be willing to be career politicians.

[Mahkato]

I would rather that for every year that a politician has been in office, they should have to beat their opponents by half that number of percentage points in order to be reelected. Been in office for 20 years? You have to win by 10%. Kind of a compromise on term limits. The problem is that once a politician is in office, (s)he has considerable advantages - name recognition, more media coverage, a large supporter database, redistricting rights (after census, etc.) and so on. I think this might even the playing field.

[jrich4rpaul]

Term limits are better achieved by cutting the inordinate benefits that politicians receive. Democrats have pitched universal healthcare for years on the premise that they get it for being elected, and so everyone else should too. It makes more sense to me that they don't get free healthcare just for being a Senator to begin with.

Making the lifestyle of a Senator less cushy would be like a de facto term limit. Less people would be willing to be career politicians.

+1

[He Who Pawns]

This is the least of our worries. Aren't most of these Beck followers a bunch of religious loonies and warmongers??

[tangent4ronpaul]

I would rather that for every year that a politician has been in office, they should have to beat their opponents by half that number of percentage points in order to be reelected. Been in office for 20 years? You have to win by 10%. Kind of a compromise on term limits. The problem is that once a politician is in office, (s)he has considerable advantages - name recognition, more media coverage, a large supporter database, redistricting rights (after census, etc.) and so on. I think this might even the playing field.

great idea!

-t

[SWATH]

To me, term limits is peripheral to the problem. I think a mechanism could be implemented that would make it very difficult to pass a law, while at the same time making it much easier to repeal laws. This would always put the heaviest burden on those who want to pass new laws, forcing them to come up with a damn good case.

[angelatc]

Term limits aren't as good of an answer as repealing the 17th amendment.

[DamianTV]

Term Limits also dont replace actually having a choice of someone to replace them with that is worth their salt. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is always the idea, but when Peter gets kicked out of office because of a term limit and is replaced, not with Paul, but another Peter, we are no better off than we were before.

[KCIndy]

I would like to say that I am STRONGLY against term limits. Their movement is to limit the strength and size of government, but term limits does just the opposite. Limits suggest that We The People do not have the ability to kick officials out of office ourselves and that the government must do it for us. I think they need think twice about this one.

I agree.

I would much rather argue in favor of having a more well-informed electorate.

How in the world would term limits benefit the cause of liberty if it means forcing out someone like Ron Paul and replacing him with a pro big-government politician with authoritarian or socialist views?

I'll agree to cutting politicians benefits, pay, perks, etc, and the more the better.... but term limits? Completely unnecessary - all we need is a better informed electorate.

[Zuras]

I agree.

I would much rather argue in favor of having a more well-informed electorate.

How in the world would term limits benefit the cause of liberty if it means forcing out someone like Ron Paul and replacing him with a pro big-government politician with authoritarian or socialist views?

I'll agree to cutting politicians benefits, pay, perks, etc, and the more the better.... but term limits? Completely unnecessary - all we need is a better informed electorate.

Why don't you ask RP himself, eh?

I deifinitely support term limits, personally. It's easy to say "we just need a better informed electorate", just like it's easy to say "can't we all just get along?". Sure we can, but it will never happen.

[KCIndy]

Why don't you ask RP himself, eh?



...... ??? ask him what?

[Zuras]

...... ??? ask him what?

Good God, man. You are the one that even asked the question.

How in the world would term limits benefit the cause of liberty if it means forcing out someone like Ron Paul and replacing him with a pro big-government politician with authoritarian or socialist views?

[KCIndy]

Good God, man. You are the one that even asked the question.

How in the world would term limits benefit the cause of liberty if it means forcing out someone like Ron Paul and replacing him with a pro big-government politician with authoritarian or socialist views?

First, it was a rhetorical question.

Second, Dr. Paul himself has made the point that congressional perks, pay and privileges are what need to be cut, just as I stated earlier. If such cuts are made, his argument goes, the "freeloaders" who want to make a career out of serving in Congress will leave on their own.

Or to quote the good doctor himself:

The problem with the presidency, the Congress, and everyone in between has not been a lack of pay and perks, but an overabundance. Let's face it: serving in Congress, and living in the White House, can be pretty good deals. In fact, for many people, these deals are so good they do not want to leave -- ever. There is tremendous incentive to stay: the power is the bait, the pay, perks and control are the hook.
The most effective term limits would be not a number of years, but a reduction in pay and benefits. I refuse the congressional pension because it is immoral that I could stay in office for only a few years, yet qualify for a lucrative pension the taxpayers must fund for the remainder of my days.

source:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=106

[carlangaslangas]

I would rather that for every year that a politician has been in office, they should have to beat their opponents by half that number of percentage points in order to be reelected. Been in office for 20 years? You have to win by 10%. Kind of a compromise on term limits. The problem is that once a politician is in office, (s)he has considerable advantages - name recognition, more media coverage, a large supporter database, redistricting rights (after census, etc.) and so on. I think this might even the playing field.

This is a great concept

[cindy25]

the most successful state legislature is NH, and it is by far the largest in size.

[EndTheFed]

This is the least of our worries. Aren't most of these Beck followers a bunch of religious loonies and warmongers??

When people are supporting most our issues (you will NEVER get anyone to support completely) You better get over you religious prejudice and accept help from where ever it comes from...

Get over you petty childish issues.

[slothman]

Limits suggest that We The People do not have
the ability to kick officials out of office
ourselves and that the government must do
it for us.
I personally think people are "stupid".
They often re-elect people over again even though
Congress has like a 20%, or less, approval rating.




not with Paul, but another Peter

If Congress people are new every 2/6 years then it is
likely many "Pauls" will be made.
The law of large numbers.

[Zuras]

First, it was a rhetorical question.

Second, Dr. Paul himself has made the point that congressional perks, pay and privileges are what need to be cut, just as I stated earlier. If such cuts are made, his argument goes, the "freeloaders" who want to make a career out of serving in Congress will leave on their own.

No. He changed his talking points and general focus to those "perks", as he thinks he can achieve the same ends as a pure term liimit approach. I can go look through the voting record and find you votes of him voting for actual term limits, not "perk limits".

[GunnyFreedom]

I would rather that for every year that a politician has been in office, they should have to beat their opponents by half that number of percentage points in order to be reelected. Been in office for 20 years? You have to win by 10%. Kind of a compromise on term limits. The problem is that once a politician is in office, (s)he has considerable advantages - name recognition, more media coverage, a large supporter database, redistricting rights (after census, etc.) and so on. I think this might even the playing field.

this raises all kinds of ideas.

1% at a Congressional election, 2% on a Senate election, 5% on an Executive election.

Reform the 15th Amendment: split the Senate electorate into 1/3 State's Assemblies, 1/3 State Governors 1/3 popular; to be determined by caucus and vote. Senators serving 6 year terms. This way, the Senators have a natural growth to doing what's best for their State, first. Holding the States sovereign over the Fed.

District communities together when drawing Congressional Districts.



Redistricting will take place after the 2010 Census.

make a "Communities First" redistricting plan, caucus whole communities together in counties and regions to draw their own representatives together. Invite all parties, wholly non-partisan (Campaign For Liberty????) and let the people draw their own districts. Make a ballot question in the 2010 election "Yea or Nay on the Communities First Redistricting Plan" if the Assemblies refuse to cede.

[tremendoustie]

It seems every time I read comments from the 912 Project, everyone involved demands term limits in government. I am very against this and I don't believe they realize that they are going against their own message of smaller government.

I would like to say that I am STRONGLY against term limits. Their movement is to limit the strength and size of government, but term limits does just the opposite. Limits suggest that We The People do not have the ability to kick officials out of office ourselves and that the government must do it for us. I think they need think twice about this one.

Cutting government power would be better, but I think term limits are better than nothing.

[KCIndy]

No. He changed his talking points and general focus to those "perks", as he thinks he can achieve the same ends as a pure term liimit approach. I can go look through the voting record and find you votes of him voting for actual term limits, not "perk limits".

You're right - a bit more investigation shows Dr. Paul *is* apparently still on the record in favor of term limits:

http://pblumel.blogspot.com/2008/11/ron-paul-i-support-term-limits.html

But as much as I admire Ron Paul, I'll have to disagree with him on this one. I think term limits would make it much harder, in general, for liberty/freedom minded individuals to get elected.

My reasoning?

1 - It's pretty clear that neither the Republican nor Democratic parties support liberty/freedom minded candidates. (look at how much ridicule Dr. Paul took from the Republicans last year) Anyone running in the primaries of either party would have the deck stacked against them by the "establishment" Republicans and Democrats.

2 - Anyone running as a third party candidate is going to be completely ignored by the media, or worse, made to look like some sort of "crazy weirdo." With no name recognition comes defeat.

3. - Anyone with enough cash to fund a personal campaign would have to pour untold millions into a media blitz to have even a slim chance of winning a congressional seat, let alone a Senate race. How many multi-millionaires are going to be: a) interested in running for office, b) liberty/freedom minded and *not* of a mind to use their new power, if elected, to help enrich themselves, their business, etc. and c) willing to sacrifice most, if not all, of their personal fortune to run for an office that they know they'll have to vacate in just a few years due to term limits?

4. - The alternative to pouring tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign would be to run someone with huge name recognition. Unfortunately, in these days of "park-my-ass-on-the-couch-and-watch-American Idol" the only people that would have big name recognition with the vast majority of the American Public would be celebrities. How many celebs know *anything* about the Constitution? How many, by contrast, always seem to be on a crusade or supporting a cause that, in their minds, requires Congress to "fix things" by passing a flurry of costly and unnecessary laws? 'nuff said.


Yes, term limits would get us lots of new faces in Washington. But I don't believe that we would get very many (if any) pro-Constitution, pro-freedom, anti-big government politicians out of the deal. In fact, I think we would get *fewer* of these candidates for the reasons I outlined above.

I'll still argue that our only chance to change things is to have a well informed and thoughtful electorate. Keep in mind, I never said I believed that's going to happen - - I simply said I think it's our last chance.