After the State of the Union address on Jan. 28 by President Barack Obama and the ensuing national discussions, many of us are also turning our eyes to the chief executive of our very own Iowa. Gov. Terry Branstad is by all accounts a familiar face in Iowa, currently serving a record fifth four-year term, making him the most experienced state executive currently in office.

On top of that already impressive achievement, Branstad recently announced that he will seek a sixth term, which would surpass George Clinton of New York as the longest-serving governor in United States history. While the coming election is far from decided, incumbent governors have a higher than 90 percent victory rate and Branstad looks to be as energized as ever for his coming campaign.

With this potentially historic election coming up, an ages-old issue has resurfaced yet again: term limits.

Term limits on our government offices have been proposed intermittently for decades, yet in Iowa we have maintained the ability of our public officials to run in and win elections as long as they wish.

The arguments for term limits seem to make sense. They would help prevent the type of out of touch, insider politics that we hear so much about. To be sure, time spent as an elected official is time not spent as an average citizen. The view from the capitol building is surely different than from anywhere else in the state, and our officials could very well find themselves changed by their time in office

That change worries some, as it may signify that someone elected to buck the system has become a part of it, whatever it may be.

In addition, legislators and other officials who continually campaign are giving less time to their actual duties. By returning to the campaign trail year after year, an incumbent takes time off from what they were elected to do in the first place.

Even with these problems in mind, term limits are unnecessary.

As the old adage goes ‘we have term limits; they are called elections.’ This sums up why we in Iowa, and those in other areas of the nation do not need to implement constitutional constraints on how long our officials can serve.

Any representative, senator or governor that is shirking their duties should be seen for what they are: not the best candidate for their position. Those that fail to follow through with campaign promises of implementing reform and bringing a fresh mindset to government can likewise be seen as no longer fit for duty.

Term limits could rob states like Iowa of wonderful politicians, whose only crime was serving diligently for too long. Likewise, the experience that incumbents bring can be seen as a positive quality, since they will have a better feel for their office and the issues to be dealt with.

It can be tempting to assume that imperfect government needs quick and continuous turnovers, but in reality our elected officials will never be perfect. Keeping this in mind, it only makes sense to open our elections to any and all candidates, be they new faces or old hands.