I wrote this letter to the local paper after reading all of these letters/editorials in favor of congressional term-limits.

Dear Chronicle,

I read with interest the multiple letters/editorials
on Thursday (Jan. 26th) regarding term limits.
Everyone was in favor of them to limit corruption.
This is a laudable goal, however the flip side of this
issue has not yet been examined. I think enforcing
term limits will succeed in 'dumbing down' Congress
(if that is not an oxymoron!), because no experienced
congressmen will be left to serve. An analogous body
to congress is that of a university faculty. To get
in, a PhD is required, which can take 10-15 years post
high school education. Then, postdoctoral research is
required, anywhere from 1 to 10 years. Finally, a
dilligent and productive scientist could get a junior
faculty position. Once appointed, almost no one is
fired from their position. If faculty positions had
term limits, what would be the effect of research in
America if, after all this effort, a scientist could
only spend 10 years in a faculty position before their
'term-limit' expires? I do not know if term-limits as
a whole are beneficial to the country or not, but we
should at least examine the consequences.

Robert Dejournett, PhD