Limiting the president to two terms when House and Senate members are not so limited increases the political power of the legislative over the executive, contrary to the founders' vision of separated and balanced powers. The executive is automatically lame on reelection as a consequence, and the Congress knows it and exploits it.
The growth of the so-called "imperial presidency" in the post-war has been simply a response to this infringement on the executive. To be sure the individual responses of the executive often become offenses in and of themselves, but nothing has been more offensive in the history of the Republic than Congress' sorry record of unimpeded theft of the American people's money and its headlong leap into the spending abyss.
Like guilty dogs caught peeing on the carpet of the Constitution, the Congress occasionally bows its head and cedes a little power back to the executive in one form or another, the latest example on display being the National Emergencies Act of 1976. With that the Congress is quite content to let the executive take all the political heat for making the difficult decisions in extremis while posturing as defenders of the Constitution. They win both ways, and the president loses. Congress' incumbents know they'll be back for the long run, but the president won't.
Repealing the 22nd Amendment would actually put more of the onus on Congress these poseurs to do their damn job for a change instead of dumping it all on one person while crying "Tyranny!" after he acts to clean up their puddle. And that's why it won't happen.
But it still should.
