The Founders' view of serving in government was a concept of individuals who would leave private life and temporarily serve in government, and then return to private life after their service.
Nowadays, being a politician has become its own lucrative profession. In the past, when this was less the case, term limits were rather unnecessary. But in this modern era which affords opportunity for people in government to enrich themselves at the public's expense, and to use the power of incumbency to perpetuate that state, I have come around to the belief that term limits may, on balance, be a net positive as far as reducing corruption, self-aggrandizement, and careerism in government.
To me, the negative aspect of preventing a "good person" from serving indefinitely in government is probably outweighed by the positive benefit of preventing entrenchment of power.
After all, if term limits are imposed, a person who truly wants to serve in government for a long time could always seek a different elected office, for example.
I'm still somewhat torn on the issue, but I think that the modern situation of a large and powerful central government is possibly better controlled by imposing Congressional term limits.
Having said that, I believe the 12-year limits sought by the authors of this particular bill are indeed too brief, and I would support something closer to, say, 18 years (9 House terms or 3 Senate terms).
All things considered, I think it would be most healthy to return to the notion of private individuals serving in government non-permanently, and then ultimately returning to private life.
Also, since the Presidency has term limits, I don't see any reason that Congress doesn't deserve them as well. Conversely, if there are no Congressional term limits, maybe there should be no Presidential term limit either.
In any event, I also believe that the 17th Amendment should be repealed, and a national debate conducted on the topic of US Senators returning to being appointed by state legislatures.
Unfortunately, the People are probably so addicted to the word "democracy" that they place hysterical significance on it without considering the negative factors which, for thousands of years, have accrued to its excessive practice.
“Common man’ must have a different meaning when jumping from then to now.”
Believe the founders never looked to the future when they failed to state in our Constitution anything pertaining to term limitations. Just as they didn’t foresee congress critters pulling up stakes and living in DC ‘permanently’ they failed to see that man loves to take the easy way out and STILL be paid, still drawing pensions and fund money. I’ll not fault them for the omission, as they did a bang up job elsewhere.
Term Limits have been needed for many years. Roosevelt and Presidential term limits show the need explicitly. Congress saw the need and Congress amended our Constitution.
Thank GOD - otherwise we’d be saddled with BO’B for who knows how long?