For the commenters, one and all: First the posting format is terrible as one cannot determne who is talking to who. and as to who said what about which issue(s). Also, all too many commenters use indefinite pronouns which further obscures the continuity. Also, a two-year term does not even give a person time to sort out the "in-house" procedures, and who is who, and much legislation requires more than 2-years to get "massaged" and passed. I stick with my 2-four year terms for the house, and retaining the present (single) six and 4 year terms for the Senate and the Oval Office. Members of both houses, if otherwise qualified, could run for the presidency but first must resign their present office (we don't want any elected or appointed officials, running for another office at government expense (other than the house, which would have a 2-term eligibility). Also, a house member should be eligible to run for a senate seat, but not vice-versa (but must resign their present seat). Also, a pension plan for all is a necessity, as not only to set the example for private industry but to compensate those who give so much time out of their working years. The pension should be a fully portable, contributory, defined contribution plan, with one's pensions being that which the individual's total accumulation would support at their normal retirement age. I also believe congresspersons should be paid by the state they represent, with a cap of 3-times the annual median salary of the citizens in the state they represent---when their citizens make more, they can make more. Also, we must compensate our elected representatives with wages that match the responsibilities, and rewords them for the time away from their home state.

And who Sir, are you? It that your name above, on the left margin, outside and removed from of the "boxed" comment block? You can see by reading all of the posts, that many others are confused by the format---editorially or just communication wise) it makes little or no sense. I have probably 3-4 thousand posts on the internet, and. this is the most confusing setup I have encountered. I also find it very distracting in some cases where the "newer" comment blocks are at the very bottom of a list of dozens other comments, instead of on top---'tis hard to teach an 82-year old dog new tricks. Ciao

For the commenters, one and all: First the posting format is terrible as one cannot determne who is talking to who. and as to who said what about which issue(s). Also, all too many commenters use indefinite pronouns which further obscures the continuity. Also, a two-year term does not even give a person time to sort out the "in-house" procedures, and who is who, and much legislation requires more than 2-years to get "massaged" and passed. I stick with my 2-four year terms for the house, and retaining the present (single) six and 4 year terms for the Senate and the Oval Office. Members of both houses, if otherwise qualified, could run for the presidency but first must resign their present office (we don't want any elected or appointed officials, running for another office at government expense (other than the house, which would have a 2-term eligibility). Also, a house member should be eligible to run for a senate seat, but not vice-versa (but must resign their present seat). Also, a pension plan for all is a necessity, as not only to set the example for private industry but to compensate those who give so much time out of their working years. The pension should be a fully portable, contributory, defined contribution plan, with one's pensions being that which the individual's total accumulation would support at their normal retirement age. I also believe congresspersons should be paid by the state they represent, with a cap of 3-times the annual median salary of the citizens in the state they represent---when their citizens make more, they can make more. Also, we must compensate our elected representatives with wages that match the responsibilities, and rewords them for the time away from their home state.