I'm torn on this.
While I respect the voter's right to re-elect a good candidate, I fail to see evidence that career politicians do any good. Politics corrupts even the best of them, and erodes ethics over time. The longer they remain in the game the more likely they are to compromise in order to achieve.
I also like the fact that this would force politicians to engage the private sector with far more vigor, knowing that they must return to a position of production some day. It would also diminish the power of the public sector by making those positions less valuable as "career choices". In the long run this would diminish frivolous funding of pet projects for political gain and reduce the power of most lobbies and unions.
I'm about 70% yes on this, though it does contradict my libertarian nature by reducing individual choice.
I seems to eventually get them all. I met Lance Cargill in 2002 when I was doing some volunteer work with a non-profit. I was really impressed with how much integrity he seemed to have and how he really cared about Oklahoma and the issues concerning Oklahomans every day. I honestly thought: "Now here's a guy who could be a great Governor or U.S. Senator someday.
By the time he'd become Speaker Of The House, he'd gotten caught up in soft money, was lax on paying property taxes and I think had lost focus on why he was a Representative. Didn't sound at all like the same guy I'd met and worked with.
I'm for term limits. I don't think public service should be a lifetime occupation. There's got to be room for fresh ideas and a shorter shelf life so we don't keep politicians long enough for them to get indebted to special interests.
