News-Record.com

I disagree with limiting elected officials to one or two terms in all cases. Case in point is Howard Coble. He is a great representative for our state. The people love him, he does a good job, and it would be completely arbitrary to say he can't serve again in his capacity as a representative.

Also, when one leader leaves and another comes in, there is a lot of transition time involved and also a learning curve. This makes for an inefficient use of government resources. If you've ever been involved in a company that has a top management change, you'll know what I mean.

Checks and balances should limit power. People's ability to vote out a problem person should limit power. Mandatory term limits are too arbitrary.

I agree with the first comment. What an incumbent always gets reelected because the people really do like him or her?

How about this as an alternative. Pay our public servants about $100 a year. Currently, General Assembly members earn about $20,000 a year. That's not a living, but it's a pretty sweet supplement to their other income. Our U.S. Congressmen make $150,000 a year.

My question is this. If they only made $100 a year and had to have regular jobs like the rest of us, do you think they would be in Raleigh and Washington constantly passing more and more laws, making us less free, and screwing up more and more things, or do you think they'd go to work their real jobs and provide for themselves and their families like the rest of us have to do and only meet in Raleigh and Washington when there is a real need to do so?

Of course, THEY'll never pass this law. But We the People can if we get our collective butts together and demand it.

Funny, I think our elected officials are grossly underpaid, by and large. I see many, many talented people who have no interest in taking the enormous pay cut that comes with elected positions.

I would rather provide some more incentive for our best and brightest to become public policy makers.

You mean best and brightest at taking away our money and our rights? No thanks.

Patrick, while I enjoy your blog and respect your opinions, I'll have to differ with you on this one.

I think our elected officials enjoy ample salaries AND PERKS. And while I think that a one-year term limit is a little short because of the learning curve, I would endorse a two or three year limit. (But having said that, I will have to admit that I like Howard Coble.)

Speaking of term limits I do not know if I would change the term limit for state officials. There are some politicians who are outstanding in the public sector and others who become complacent. There are those officials who are concerned only with policies that will get them re-elected. We the citizens should come up with a way to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government. I think instead of allowing a president a short 4 year term we should allow them one eight year term. Because the administrative process often takes so long this would give each president the opportunity to concentrate on the job instead of giving two years of dedicated service and two years running to get re-elected.

Wilbert,

Thanks for your insight. That actually is very thought out and I also feel that too much time is spent running for election. I mean, when did President Bush stop making campaign speeches. It seemed like his first term was nothing but that. Same holds true for President Clinton.

I guess the only problem is that if you got somebody really lousy in a job for 8 years, they could do even MORE damange. I guess we'd have to have a better system in place to get rid of the losers. Kind of like California did to their governor.

mr.t is correct about the perception of bush's first term seeming as if it was nothing but a campaign to get re-elected. karl rove has admitted as much, and paul o'neil's book "price of loyalty" talks about it, also.