Term limits nix career politicians

Before the 2008 election, the favorable rating of Congress was in the low teens. But yet over 90 percent of incumbents won re-election. Even factoring in the contests where there were no challengers to incumbents, the percentage of incumbents that won is still astounding.

How can the low favorable rating of Congress be reconciled with the results that show that voters, despite having a low approval of Congress, returned over 90 percent of incumbents back to Washington? Are the polls that show a low favorable rating for Congress wrong, or are a majority of voters just dumb? We know that the polls are generally accurate, so unless there is another explanation for the high percentage of incumbents winning re-election, it can only mean that a majority of voters are dumb.

The problem with Congress it that there are just too many members of Congress that frankly have been in Congress far too long. Some are too old and have lost touch with what it means to be an average citizen. In the Senate there are 10 members with more that 30 years seniority and 16 with over 20 years. In the House there are 20 members with over 30 years seniority and 46 members with more than 20 years seniority. There are simply too many career politicians who appropriate our tax dollars as if it were Monopoly money.

What is needed in Washington and in Illinois are term limits. For members of Congress there should be six 2-year terms for representatives and two 6-year terms for Senators. Not only would this produce a Congress more responsive to the people, it would greatly reduce the amount paid to members when they retire.

Will term limits ever happen? Probably not. But it is something to dream about.

Victor Darst

West Dundee