To the Editor:
No one can deny that the financial deficit faced by this country is totally unacceptable. Professional or career politicians take whatever actions are necessary to ensure their re-election. This results in excessive spending to accommodate and satisfy those who contribute to their campaigns.
Henry Clay once said that he would rather be right than be president. Sadly, this is no longer the case with those seeking to attain or hold their elective office. They spend money to get re-elected, and we know who will have to pay for this. Why are term limits appropriate for the president of the United States but not for members of Congress? Why should congressional personnel be free of a similar restriction put on the president? Would you vote for a constitutional amendment limiting senators to two terms and representatives to three terms?
Please don’t trot out the old adage that elections serve as term limits. They simply do not! They are controlled by money from special-interest groups.
Granted, more definition is necessary for any proposed amendment, but are you philosophically in favor of such an amendment? This is a vital issue that must be addressed if we are to return to the intent of our Founding Fathers, that politicians are public servants and not career office-holders.
A public servant simply must practice term limitations.