The framers of our Constitution envisioned the American Congress being comprised of a cadre of citizen legislators, men (and later women) who would temporarily interrupt their business and personal careers for a few years to contribute to and participate in the governing of their nation, subsequently returning to their communities and resuming their former lives. The concept of career politicians was an anathema to their political beliefs.
Regretfully, however, today’s Congress has evolved into a ruling class of professional politicians! Its members have systematically insulated themselves from many rules and regulations they have so sanctimoniously mandated for the public they purport to serve, conveniently legislated away even a reasonable measure of personal accountability for their statements and actions, and skillfully crafted a portfolio of publicly-funded perks unattainable to all but a very few top executives of the country’s largest, private corporations.
The members of the House and Senate have also been willing participants in creating an enormous and often inefficient bureaucracy, whose well-paid managers also seem immune from accountability and all too frequently forget that their agency’s sole raison d’être is to serve the American public. Meanwhile, with the deftness of a well-practiced magician, these politicians has discovered how to exempt themselves (and often their staffs) from participation in any number of national programs including making contributions to the Social Security system and having to comply with OSHA and Equal Employment statues.
When pressed for answers to substantive issues, a great many members of Congress seem to operate on the premise that for every complex problem there’s a simple answer. Unfortunately those answers are all too often wrong!
Communicating hard and honest truths about the mounting federal budget and trade deficits, realistic costs for the rapidly increasing number of federal bailout programs, or the reasons Congress has no qualms about encouraging the export of products which have banned from domestic distribution for health and safety reasons seem beyond the grasp of many members of the House and Senate. And, as individuals, few of them are willing to go out on a limb and vote for unpopular programs, program cuts, or even increased taxes unless its just after an election or quietly piggy-backed on a bill with little controversy or opposition. Election year expediency seems to co-opt personal courage.
Despite their endless moaning and dire warnings that people would not stay in, or run for Congress without last fall’s proposed pay raise, not a single member resigned when the raise (which they tried to sneak through without a vote) was soundly defeated in response to tremendous public pressure . . . other than those individuals forced out for improper/illegal personal conduct. And, each of the special elections held after the pay raise defeat were hotly contested by both Republicans and Democrats. Nevertheless, those persistent little devils finally managed to squeeze a whopping pay raise through by graciously agreeing to give up their outrageous fees they’ve been gouging the public for outside speaking. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln must roll in their graves when they hear about elected member of our government charging to talk to the public! Then again, a cynic could easily make a case for such fees being little more than legalized pay-offs and potentially creating serious conflicts-of-interest.
Over the years, the House and Senate have quietly honed campaign-finance laws and a host of other incumbency-related perks a point where an average of 95% of those who members who chose to run for reelection win . . . up from only 40% to 50% a century ago.
Meantime, the men and women of these august bodies have learned well the skills of how to make the folks back home feel warm and affectionate toward them with an array of carefully staged video clips and sound bites, an endless series of in-office photographs taken standing beside their constituents who are visiting Washington, phone calls to voters, periodic mailings, and other actions designed to convey an impression of special caring. Regular increases in the funds available for such activities are always forthcoming. Their return on this investment in time and taxpayer money arrives at the ballot box when they run for reelection . . . when the apparent personal attention and self-styled image of the candidate frequently overshadows the member’s attendance and voting records.
But, there is a possible solution . . . Congressional Term Reform. It can return participation in Congress to a short-term opportunity for one to serve his/her country, not a career path. It guarantees members of the House and Senate will return to the private sector where they will have to live within the regulations and pay the taxes they helped pass while serving in Washington.
Calls for term limitation are not new to the American political agenda. They date back to the pre-Constitutional period when the Union operated under the Articles of Confederation. Delegates serving in the Continental Congress years between 1776 and 1788 were limited to a maximum of three years in any six year period.
Since then nearly 70 constitutional amendments have been offered to limit the terms of members of the House and Senate. Not surprisingly, those individuals most directly threatened with the ultimate loss of their seat should such amendments become law have reacted overwhelmingly against supporting any type of Congressional Term Reform.
Yet, while nearly every president since Andrew Jackson having vocally supported presidential term reform, only a handful have had the medal to suggest limits should be put on members of the Legislative Branch. Eisenhower was one of these courageous individuals. He wrote that individuals serving under an environment of limited terms:
“would tend to think of his/her congressional career as an important and exciting interlude in his/her life, a period dedicated to the entire public rather than as a way of making a living or making a career of exercising continuous political power. A more rapid turnover of the membership in both Houses with its constant infusion of new blood would largely eliminate the ‘career’ politician in Congress, but I can see little damage that would result from such a change except possible to the personal ambitions of particular individuals.”
A simple formula would limit House members to six to eight years and Senators to ten years. A more aggressive proposal would:
- Increase the terms of House members from two to four years with a two term limit and
- Leave Senate terms at six years with a two term limit.
To further enhance the effectiveness of such change, and to provide an annual input into our national legislature, and to guard against monied, single-issue pressure groups do not disproportionately impact the Congress in the heat of a single election:
- Elect one-fourth of the House every year,
- Elect one-sixth of the Senate each year, and
- Minimize/eliminate the overlap where Congressmen and Senators representing the same constituencies run in the same year.
Certainly, a few hard working and decent men serving in Congress will have to step down if Term Reform were to become a reality. But, in a nation of more than 250,000,000 people, finding 535 qualified and willing to serve will not be a difficult problem.
In spite of the alarmist cries from current and past members of Congress to the contrary, newcomers to Washington will be able to function, and perhaps even revitalize and reorganize the entrenched bureaucracy, forcing it to honestly meet the challenges and new realities of the 1990’s and twentieth-first century.
Congressional Term Reform will strengthen our representative government by:
- Encouraging greater participation in the electoral rocess,
- Lessening the potential influence of lobbyists and special interest groups,
- Eroding remnants of the seniority system which has inherently denied the constituencies of junior members an equal voice,
- Permitting an annual turnover of 25% of the House and 20% of the Senate, helping to ensure the makeup of Congress is more reflective of the current attitudes of American society,
- Ensuring a larger percentage of Congress is “fresh” from the districts each member represents . . . reducing the “beltway” mentality, and
- Allowing members of Congress to spend more time representing their constituency and less time raising money and campaigning.
The Constitution has served the nation well, and done so with just twenty-six Amendments in more than two centuries. Yet, in its wisdom, the Twentieth Amendment was enacted limiting the term of the president.
It is, therefore, not surprising that better than 60% of the American public has consistently supported the concept of Congressional Term Reform. It is time members of Congress remember that ours is a government “of, by, and for the people.” They owe it to the American people the represent to begin a open, national debate on this issue.
In the absence of such a process, perhaps the public will return to the first lines from a document written over two hundred years ago . . . “When in the course of human events . . . “
