I seriously dislike election years. And every year seems to be an election year in one sense or another. It is our civic duty to participate in the election process, and yet it is difficult to even want to be a part of a process that has strayed so far from what our founding fathers envisioned. So you think that those ideas of old are outdated and don't have any merit today? Okay...that's your opinion. And I beg to differ.

"Serving" your country (or state, or county or city) is supposed to be just that....serving. Our representation was supposed to be something that we, as citizens, did/do for a limited time. New voices and new ideas, bring new blood and new life to our government. It also thwarts the formation of "the good ol' boys" network. That is not what we have now. We have people...lots and lots of people....who are not "serving" their country, but who have found a job....a career for most...and they spend their time trying to keep their job every time they are up for re-election. Since these career-politicians cannot bring themselves to see their role as anything other than a lifetime job, in other words since they do not possess the ability to govern themselves, then it is now time to implement term limits. The people of the United States recognized the need to not let anyone become a career president clear back on March 21, 1947, when the 22nd amendment to Constitution was passed. It was ratified on February 26, 1951. But the president is just one person, in the midst of many people of power. In reality, the power of the president is limited. We have three branches of our government....Executive, Legislative & Judicial.....for a reason. So, we had the forethought to limit the executive branch to 2 terms. And yet, the legislative and judicial branches are "career" positions. Something is wrong with this picture. Before anyone gets any ideas, I am NOT in favor of striking down the 22nd Amendment. THAT was a step in the right direction. We just need to follow up with limits in the other branches of our government.

This is not written with a political slant....I'm not speaking of Democrats or Republicans. I'm speaking of the entire system. We need to clean house. The waters are so dirty that it is time to throw the baby out with the bath water. Everyone serving a term beyond their second term, needs to be out. Let's get new voices and new ideas in play.
While I'm on my rant.....there's another thing that just irks me.......our legislative process. Now, as some of you read this, you'll probably be thinking "but we can't do that. We wouldn't have enough time to get all the bills reviewed, let alone voted on and either passed or denied." Well if we did this, the legislators would learn to keep things succinct. We would be able to trim BIG government. Seriously, do we really need most of these bills, or more accurately, all the shit that is attached to them? I say "No more "riders" on proposed legislation. If members of the house and senate had to vote straight up on bills, we would eliminate most of this ludicrous game of political mudslinging....."he voted against defense spending"...."she voted for such and such"..."he/she flipflopped on this topic"....etc. If you dig deeply enough, you'll find that most all members of Congress have, at one time or another, voted both Yes and No on the same topic....because the topics are added on as riders to other bills. Their yes or no vote is not typically about the riders, they are about the central topic of the bill. Those riders that get voted in or out become ammunition for dirty politics. In my opinion, if there is something that needs to be brought before Congress, then it needs to be a stand-alone item. If it can't stand on its own merits, then it has no business being given a thumbs up or thumbs down because of what it was attached to. The only exception should be related items. Say there is a bill regarding education. If there are other elements, also related to education, then they could possibly all be rolled into one. But sometimes not. What would this change do? It would force the legislative branch to really look at what is proposed and it would force them to bring to the table only the items that really deserve legislative action. No more bridges to nowhere....no more pork barrel spending. If the process was streamlined, and bills were brought to the floor strictly on their own merit, we would see a large decrease in the number of bills presented, ie: less government interference in things they have no business being involved in..... This would in turn allow legislators to actually review the bills before they vote. Imagine that....no one telling us "we have to pass this bill so we can see what's in it."
Okay.....I'm done!
Oh, wait....one more thing....I'm not one who likes to debate issues regarding religion or politics. So don't expect a debate with me on any of this. This is just my point of view....love it or hate it....that's your point of view, of which you are absolutely entitled!