This morning over coffee an interesting discussion ensued over term limits for U.S. Congressional seat winners. The point was that we have term limits for the presidency but often not for other positions in the government; is the public’s best interest followed by not having term limits? At my core I’m not against term limits, but I wonder if they will result in the kinds of results we really want. i.e. It is suggested that if representatives and senators were limited then they would be more inclined to think critically about the laws impacting their areas of representation rather than who is going to fund their re-election. In theory I understand this line of reasoning. However, if we do propose term limits how does mentoring and long range national policy planning take place? Does this mean then that the outside consultant becomes more influential? And is that a secondary risk because the people with real power to influence are moved to outside the elected system?