🚀 go-pugleaf

lynch@unt.edu (Claudia Lynch) writes:

>In article <41d5mq$qda@digdug.pencom.com>, robin@pencom.com wrote:


>> The _truth_ is, _each-and-every_ Congressperson _will_ support subsidies in 
>> their state/district.  It would be political suicide _not_ to support such 
>> pork.  On the other hand, "Republicans" have vowed to support a "Balanced 
>> Budget Ammendment" and "Line-Item Veto" -- both of which will alleviate 
>> portions of the problem.  Further, through support of the Term Limits, the 
>> entire nation can gain control over the entrenched congressional seats from 
>> other states/districts.  When they haven't had time to build these 
>> impermiable "buddies", they don't support other people's pork as much...

>What people who support term limits don't seem to realize is that by
>limiting ELECTED officials terms (although it is probably a moot point
>anyway, since it seems to be really unconstitutional), you are allowing
>far more power to be in the hands of UNELECTED officials. All the
>congressional aides, etc. who are hired to keep the place running, for
>example.

It is not a requirement to keep the same unelected staff.  In fact one
would assume that a short time Congresscritter would want to get all
of his/her home state cronies on the payroll to increase the opportunities
at the end of the term.  A term limit proposal could make this more obvious
be terminating all staff automatically at the election and require all
staffers to re-apply for jobs.

--

Alan Bomberger     | (408)-992-2748  | alan@oes.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. -  David Hume