PEOPLE

The Southeast Missourian asked people what they thought about establishing term limits for federal legislators.

Mary Stucker: "I believe they should have limits to their terms. Once you know how long you can be somewhere, you can set your goals, plan ahead and accomplish what you can in that time. If your term is indefinite, you can get lazy."

Jim Tarrence: "I believe they should have just one term without re-election right after that term. Perhaps congressmen could serve a four-year term. It's easy to get comfortable after a while and lose the intensity and the focus of their campaign platforms."

Nadine Chamberlain: "I don't think the voters have enough knowledge about the people who are in office to vote them out, and not enough get out to vote. After a while, I don't think they listen to the voters anymore. They should be limited just like the president is."

Rick Crow: "They should serve a maximum of eight years. That way you will get eight years worth of work out of them instead of them fattening their own pockets. Even doing a good job, after eight years they have to be under a lot of pressure, and that has to affect their job."

Joan Dambach: "There should be limited terms for them just like the president has. If someone is not effective in office, then you have hope that someone else will be able to get in there and do it. You would only have a certain amount of time to put up with them."

Ken Seabaugh: "We limit the president's term, so why not the terms for congressmen and senators? I would like to see both serve terms of four years with only one re-election allowed. This would take away some of their power to vote themselves raises."