This morning I read Daily Chronicle Editor Jason Schaumburg’s weekend column. He supports term limits to fix what ails our governments.
The line of reasoning goes like this:
Term limits would curtail the influence of money and lobbyists in government. They would attract the right kind of candidate to seek office. If money and greed are out of the equation, political lifers make way for public servants.
If we don’t allow candidates to stay in Washington or Springfield too long, then they can’t become puppets of the lobbyists pouring money into their coffers.
The President has a term limit, yet he’s raised more money than anyone in history, and it easily could be argued he’s somewhat beholden to the big donors.
The only way to take money out of the equation is to take money out of the equation.
But how about term limits for the unelected? Appointed administrators wield real power locally and consolidate that power over time with favors borne of generous spending limits. In DeKalb, there’s not even an expiration date on the city manager’s contract to prompt a performance evaluation and open council vote on retention.
Lastly, there’s this at the end of the column:
Road to the White House can be found at Daily-Chronicle.com/whitehouse. On it, you’ll find stories about the presidential race, bios for the Republican candidates, Twitter feeds for the candidates, polling data and more.
If you are a political junkie, you’ll want to bookmark this website.
It bothers me — in general only, no particular reflection on Mr. Schaumburg — that if you’re interested in campaigns, politics and/or policy, you get labeled a “junkie” like there’s something deviant about you. It’s another symptom of what ails us, methinks.