Monday, December 7, 2009
Changes
Kay Bailey Hutchinson has finally made it official that she will run against Rick Perry in the Republican primary for the office of Governor. She's going to get my vote. I think Perry has served as governor long enough. There is currently no limit to the number of consecutive four year terms a governor may hold the office. I do not agree with this. What's the point? Why would we want the same governor forever, especially if they are just causing more of a problem? It should be set up the same way as the office of the United States President, only being able to serve two consecutive terms. This state needs some change just as much as the country does. President Obama's whole campaign was based on change, and he was right, we do need change. Do not get me wrong, I am no fan of his and am not in agreement with all the "changes" he has in mind. Texas needs a new face, even if it's not Hutchinson. Perry made a promise that he wasn't going to run again anyway, which he obviously broke. He also seems to think that the state's budget is in balance, with extra money to spare. I'm sure it is on paper (simple accounting 101), but I highly doubt that's the case. I won't go on and on about Perry's misfortunes, I don't want this to sound like a campaign against him. I don't have much faith in any of the politicians and feel that they all make empty promises and not keep them. I personally think most all them lie to get into office anyway. I just think maybe it's time we have someone else lie to us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
My colleague Heather has posted on her blog about changes that are needed in the governor's office. Heather welcomes Kay Bailey Hutchison to the governor's race, and expresses her intent to support KBH for governor. Mostly, Heather wants Rick Perry out of the office, and suggests that term limits are needed for the position. I could not agree with you more Heather! Not only do we need term limits for statewide offices such as governor, but we need term limits on every elected position in government, whether it's local, state or federal.
Does anyone out there still believe we have a representative government that serves the will of the people? I sure don't. We have a government made up of elected officials who are power-hungry, self-serving and out to make a career out of "public service." A lack of term limits encourages this. Candidates for elected office run on a platform of promises: If you elect me, I will be the true representative of your interests! What choice do we have but to vote for them and hope for the best. So we elect them, and once they take their seat, whether it's the state legislature or the US Congress, they become part of the problem. Their decisions are based on what will get them elected the next time around. Once they have some power, they seem willing to do whatever it takes to hold onto it, all the while feathering their nests with the perks that come with the job. Some corporate-sponsored private jet travel here, some campaign contributions from lobbyists there, while becoming further out of touch with their constituency. They can't be there for important votes that affect our lives, but they never fail to show up to vote themselves a pay raise.
Our government exists to serve the people. The framers of our system of government never envisioned the career politician of today. Public servants were meant to go to Washington, or to the state capitol, serve their families, neighbors and communities, then return home and go about their business, while some other citizen took on the temporary role, and so on. I am convinced that the framers of our Constitution never saw a need for term limits, but if they had known we would end up with the system we have today, they would have written them in. The problem we face today is that the elected officials and legislators we need to impose term limits on are the very people who would need to vote the limits into law in the form of a constitutional amendment. Widespread support for such a measure is unlikely, as current seat holders are unlikely to vote in favor of something that puts them out of a job.
Post a Comment