three rules for u.s. presidents

I like reading articles by LZ Granderson. I don't always agree with his viewpoints, and I think he is too extreme at times, but every one of his articles makes me stop and think. This article is just the latest example and I think it's interesting enough that I will dedicate this post to it.

If you didn't read that article here are the 3 presidential changes proposed to help fix our government.

1. Eliminate second terms for presidents and change term limit to 6 years.
2. Make prior military experience a requirement for presidents.
3. Raise the minimum age for presidents from 35 to 45 and cap it at 70.
Here are my thoughts on each.

Eliminating second terms and change term limit to 6 years

I think there is good and bad to this suggestion. It seems like it is nearly impossible for a president to fully implement his plans for our country in 4 years. Obama is at the end of his term and his health care plans are not in place yet, and might never be. A president is elected (hopefully) based on his blueprint for improving our country. If a president is elected and not able to implement his/her plan, then why are they elected in the first place. A 6 year term would help a lot with this. I am torn on the idea of eliminating a second term. You don't have to look far to see that our country is having a hard time finding legitimate candidates. The candidates of the past few elections have been mostly a joke and electing the president of the united states has become more of a reality tv show than an important political decision.

Making prior military experience a requirement for presidents.

My first thoughts on this were completely against it. I understand Granderson's idea behind it (preventing warmongers from spouting off unrealistic suggestions when they have no clue what they are talking about) but I don't think simply having military experience accomplishes that. A career in the military would probably ensure a fundamental understanding of how the military works, but I think that is an unrealistic expectation, and would further impact the shrinking pool of legitimate presidential hopefuls. Then again, that might be a good thing. I think it is basically up to the voters to ensure that the person they are voting for has a good understanding of foreign affairs and military operations whether it is through military experience, other political experiences, family members knowledgeable in those areas, or other means. This knowledge has been lacking in many recent presidential hopefuls minus McCain and Paul, and needs to be emphasized more in my opinion.

Raise the minimum age for presidents from 35 to 45 and cap it at 70.

I disagree with this one because most all presidential hopefuls are 45 or older anyways. I do agree with capping it at 70, but only because the thought of having some of our recent vp's or potential vp's (biden, cheney, edwards, palin, gore) become president due to the president dying while in office scares the hell out of me. I also think that thought probably cost McCain some votes a few years ago. Raising the minimum age to 45 is an attempt to solve the problem of lack of experience. Once again I think it is really up to the voters to take into consideration the experience of the candidate they are voting for. Realistically Obama should not have beaten out Clinton for the democratic nomination purely based on experience. Charisma is great but it does not trump knowledge, experience, and the ability to make the right decisions without relying on others.

If I could change 3 things here is what they would be.

1. Change term limits to 6 years.
Unless Congress is getting an Extreme Makeover, I think this is the easiest way to allow the president, who was elected for their ideas, to actually implement their ideas. Congress can argue and draw things out easily for 3 or 4 years, but I don't think they could do it for 5 or 6.

2. Put a cap on the total amount of money a political party can spend on elections, including PAC money.
Everyone says money buys elections. I don't think that is necessarily true but I think it is a requirement to be competetive, just ask Ron Paul. It is estimated that Obama spent nearly 750 million on his 2008 campaign. That amount of money is ridiculous, but was probably necessary. Most European countries speak in the tens of millions when talking about campaign money, not hundreds of millions and I think it will just get worse this next election.

3. Make a balanced budget a requirement.
Other than war there is no good reason not to have a balanced budget. Wars are expensive but I would rather see taxes increase in times of war instead of printing more money and sending it off to China or whatever it is they do. Wars do not seem to have the impact that they did in the past and unless directly involved it is easy to forget they are going on. Every American should be affected in times of war, not just the people fighting and their relatives. I think sharing the burden of war with all people through taxes or other means would help emphasize that war really is a big deal and maybe would cause the government to think a little more before invading other countries in the name of democracy.