Trust in government is under real strain. Across New Mexico, from Silver City to Albuquerque to Las Cruces, I hear from families, small business owners, and working parents who want a system that feels more responsive, transparent, and accountable. Many feel that Washington can seem distant from the day-to-day realities they face.

It’s important to recognize that this concern is not about any one party or any one group of leaders. In fact, New Mexico is fortunate to have a congressional delegation that is deeply engaged with their constituents and committed to public service. Still, many residents across the political spectrum share a broader concern about how Congress functions as an institution and whether it consistently reflects the evolving needs of the people.

One reform that continues to draw attention across party lines is congressional term limits.

Term limits are rooted in the simple principle that public service is strongest when it creates space for both experience and renewal. The idea is not to diminish the contributions of those who serve, but to ensure that opportunities exist for new voices, perspectives, and ideas to enter the process over time. We already apply this concept in other areas of government, including the presidency through the 22nd Amendment.

Here in New Mexico, we have a long tradition of civic-minded leadership. Many people step forward to serve their communities and then pass the torch. Term limits reflect that same spirit. They are about maintaining a healthy balance between continuity and change, helping institutions stay dynamic and closely connected to the people they represent.

Some raise thoughtful concerns about preserving institutional knowledge in Congress, and that perspective deserves consideration. Experience matters. At the same time, many believe that structured turnover can complement experience by encouraging fresh thinking and reinforcing accountability. Term limits aim to strike that balance.

Another reason term limits continue to resonate is their potential to strengthen public confidence. When people see a system that regularly opens doors to new leaders, it can reinforce the sense that government remains accessible and representative to not just to a few, but to many.

This is why the idea enjoys broad, bipartisan support nationwide. At a time when consensus can be difficult to find, term limits stand out as an area where Americans often agree on the value of exploring reform.

That brings us to the role states can play.

Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, states have the authority to participate in proposing constitutional amendments. This process was designed to ensure that states have a meaningful voice in shaping the structure of our federal government, particularly when there is a widespread desire to consider change.

New Mexico has an opportunity to be part of that conversation. By considering a resolution related to a term limits convention, our state can join others in examining whether this reform is the right step forward. It is a way to engage constructively in a national dialogue about how to strengthen trust and improve how government works.

This effort is not about criticism of any individual officeholder. It is about looking ahead at how to reinforce accountability, encourage participation, and ensure that our institutions continue to serve the public effectively for generations to come.

New Mexicans value independence, fairness, and practical solutions. Exploring congressional term limits is consistent with those values.

It is worth having the conversation.

Siah Correa Hemphill is New Mexico State Chair, U.S. Term Limits.

People of a certain age will recall a lyric from the Tennessee Ernie Ford song “Sixteen Tons”: “Another day older and deeper in debt.”

I thought of that song as Secretary of War Pete Hegseth asked Congress to approve a $1.5 trillion budget for fiscal year 2027 to put the military on what he called a “wartime footing.” Hegseth says the Pentagon needs the money for more drones, munitions and modernized systems. Though President Trump has denied it, bragging that we have the strongest military in the world, it would appear that the Iran conflict has significantly depleted U.S military resources.

Whatever Congress decides to do in response to Hegseth’s request will be done with borrowed money, because we don’t have enough resources – and haven’t for some time – to pay for the unrestrained spending Congress loves to do. Notice there were no pledges of cost reductions in Hegseth’s request. There never are when it comes to government

If you want to be shocked, assuming we are shocked about much these days, visit usdebtclock.org and watch the numbers rise faster than a space rocket. It’s $39 trillion and counting with the average cost to each American family of $114,130, according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. No nation in history has ever been able to shoulder such debt and survive. The politicians don’t seem to care as long as they can dole out money to keep themselves in office.

I have written about the debt before, but it bears repeating until Congress takes action. What frustrates those who are paying attention to the debt is that it is not an unsolvable problem. It’s been fixed before, even within recent memory for many people.

In the mid-1990s, an unlikely partnership was forged between President Bill Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich to address the debt, which had increased from $4.8 trillion to $5.6 trillion. Chump change compared to today. From fiscal years 1998 to 2001, thanks to the 1997 Balanced Budget Amendment, the federal government achieved four consecutive budget surpluses. There was still debt but surpluses were reducing it. What created the surpluses?

Clinton and Gingrich addressed the biggest drivers of the debt – Medicare and Medicaid, the so-called “third rail.” They managed to cut $115 billion in Medicare spending, $14 billion in Medicaid, along with significant reductions in discretionary spending to eliminate the deficit by 2002. Much of this was done by removing fraudsters and the unentitled from the rolls. Sound familiar? While Vice President JD Vance has been tasked with rooting out fraud as in the child care centers in Minnesota, no one wants to re-visit Medicare and Medicaid, especially with elections just five months away.

Somebody has to do it. According to the Kiplinger Retirement Report and numerous other projections, the “Medicare Hospital Insurance (Part A) trust fund is projected to be exhausted by 2033-2040, requiring automatic benefit cuts of 11-13% if not addressed. While Medicare itself won’t totally ‘run out,’ it will only cover roughly 89-90% of costs. Medicaid is funded differently via federal/state taxes, so it does not face the same ‘trust fund’ insolvency, but is facing severe funding pressure, with 2025 legislation implementing significant cuts.”

These would not be tough choices if the public was properly prepared. The reduction in benefits and/or an increase in taxes is inevitable. Means testing, allowing people to choose a hybrid retirement fund combining reduced Social Security payments with investments in the stock market and other reforms would save the programs for those who need it and allow more individuals to care for themselves instead of burdening the government.

Simple, right? If only the politicians would do what they know must be done.

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (HumanixBooks).