Whoa, Rick Santelli, on Term Limits!
I don't agree with the author of the article because I fully agree in term limits for everyone in government. The President has term limits, so why shouldn't Congress and the Courts have term limits? The fact that the liberals would never vote for it is no reason to not support them. Of course there is always some long time Congressman that is used as an example against term limits because they were so wonderful for all those decades, which is a false narrative because we don't know if those same people would have pick an even better person or two had they needed to do so. Sure you can keep picking the same dumbasses over and over, while expecting a different outcome. But being force to pick new ones every half decade or so, might just change how Washington is run and might just help. It is hard to believe that swapping out career criminals for novices with fresh ideas is a bad plan.
I also say that we need to apply the same rigor that the military has on up or out to all government jobs. Why does Joe Schmoe get to work at the blank government department for 30 plus years and earn a huge pension, while barely progressing past the job he entered in, while a military member has to perform to serve and it they are past over for rank then they are kicked out based on high year tenure. This system should also apply to all government posts, so if you are a bump on a log that barely meets requirements you are forced out and if you don't progress then you are shown the door. There are safeguards in the military to ensure that key roles are filled and that mid-grade people nearing retirement are not unfairly dismissed, so the same could hold true for other government positions. Do you ever think this will happen? No, and why not is because they are unionized and would never stand for such harsh measures. Funny how we can screw the men and women that defend this country with their lives, but heaven forbid that the piss poor employee at the IRS should ever be shown the door.
Why aren't all government jobs hard to get and harder to keep and why aren't there any winnowing processes in the government system. Hell in the military there are thousands of E-3s, but only a handful of E-9s, but it is the opposite in the government there are a handful of G-3s and millions of G-9s. There is job inflation and not way to get rid of any dead weight along the way, so you end up with a top heavy non-functioning organization. And the solution is always hiring freezes that stop in the input of G-3s, while maintaining the G-9s. This is stupid, plus if you are a G-9 then you can work to retirement with no worries of ever being shown the door. This is crazy, if you are not good enough to keep moving up taking on additional responsibilities then you need to be sent out to pasture with high year tenure just like the military. An O-4 is shown the door at 20 with 50% pay. Is there productive work that they could do? Sure, but their time has past and it is someone else's turn, so out they go. E-6 has the same done to them at 20, so this is a fair plan.
The fact that this sounds harsh is because it is and the military wants only the best and the brightest to hang around and contribute. Why is this not the cast with the government? Would we not want the most capable people running the show? Do we really need a bunch of G-9s and above hanging around doing what a bunch of G-8s and below can easily do? The answer for the union is higher pay for less work and you can never force anyone out. This doesn't work for me and I am pretty sure everyone agree that it isn't working for America either. Plus you should be able to hang around for 30 years just to get 75% pay, the military doesn't allow it and neither should we. We should demand more of our government than workfare.