Grumpy Old Men
Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) lies in repose in the Senate chamber. His death this past week brings to an end a 57 year career as the longest serving member in the history of the country. The Senate is holding hearings debating the fitness of Elena Kagan as Supreme Court justice. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is the chair and arrived in the Senate in 1972. Hearings confirming General David Petraeus as field commander in Afghanistan was chaired by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) who arrived in the Senate in 1978.
We're seeing a trend, and the trend seems eerily connected to a major problem in DC. The problem is usually classified as partisanship or gridlock. The actual problem is the development of a ruling class in America. Our ruling class consists of career politicians using their seats to accumulate seniority and power, and then using that seat as a personal fiefdom. Our legislative branch of government has morphed into a disfigured British system. The Brits have a House of Commons and a House of Lords. We seem to have gotten two Houses of Lords.
45 Senators are in their 3rd term or more. 25 have served for more than 20 years. 15 have served for 25 years or more. There are similar trends in the House of Representatives. This is far from the Founder's concept of the citizen legislator who comes to DC to represent the interests of their state / district, and then go back to their real life in the private sector. To be fair, this is not a new problem. The Senate and House structure from the beginning crafted rules that would reward seniority. From the earliest days, some, including many of the Founders spent a large portion of their lives in government. They did manage to get things done.
The system worked well for a long time - the role of the federal government was confined to Constitutional strictures until the early 1900s. There was little power to be gained other than for a Congressperson to seek higher office. Senators were appointed by state government. Popular election of them began in 1913 with the ratification of the 17th Amendment to to the Constitution. Even then, their role in the lives of everyday Americans was limited to national issues.
The sea change came about with the emergence of the political philosophy of progressivism. Progressivism grew out of the social science movement in Europe during the late 1800s. It's tenets held that by studying a society, one could observe it's flaws and fix them, creating a better and more equitable outcome for it's citizens.
Framed in that manner, social science is hard to argue against. Who would not want to improve society? Still progresssivism implied that there were experts who needed to be deferred to en masse for that improvement to occur. It is a top down manner of change. America has traditionally been the model for bottom up change.
Progressisvism had its adherents in the United States. Experts were brought on by the Wilson and Roosevelt (TR and FDR) administrations. These were the first of what we now call Czars - unelected members of the Executive branch who formed policy which was then implemented. The Czars gave birth to what was called at the time the "alphabet soup" of agencies designed to solve problems identified by the experts. Agencies created regulations which the citizenry was then required to comply with.
How this affected the Congress was in dollars and cents. These agencies all needed funding. Funding originates in the House of Representatives, which controls the purse strings. Long term policy traditionally was the sphere of the Senate, which lent it's advice and consent to the President. The agencies became conduits of federal cash (our tax dollars) to implement their regulations. The conduits directed the cash to individual states and congressional districts. Members of Congress were encouraged to "bring home the bacon", and so the fight for pork began.
Plum committee assignments were the ones that controlled the most cash. These posts went to the most senior members. Those senior members would then direct the cash as they saw fit. Challenging them would cause your own funding to shrink. Every congressman cut out his own little empire.
So here we are now. 535 elected representatives fighting over an ever bigger share of our tax dollars, with the most senior getting the biggest share. All of the emphasis is on getting their share and getting re-elected to get more. It is a vicious cycle that feeds on itself. With an ever growing mix of agencies, there is all the more to fight over. Nothing gets done without calculating how much the policy / law / issue will bring in dollars and votes. This is no way to run a government.
Common Sense Dictates
TPP has come a long way it it's evolution on this idea, but we must come out in favor of term limits for all federal elected representatives. We had for years opposed this idea, but the entrenchment of so many career politicians is a more potent force in the government gridlock than partisanship is. We suggest 12 years (2 Senate terms or 6 House terms). 12 years allows for necessary expertise to develop among our legislators, but sends them home to resume private life at some point.
We would also link legislation to prohibit termed out members from accepting lobbying positions or being paid for advocating before the federal government for 10 years upon leaving office. The golden parachute currently used by ex members of government needs to be cut.
This is best served by a Constitutional amendment, which will be a hard fight. We suggest that to win the support of current legislators the clock would start ticking for sitting members at the next election following passage. That would allow the Robert Byrds of the Senate and House 12 more years of trying. It s a trade off to the current system of corruption, but if senior legislators feel that they are losing little if anything, they are more likely to act in favor of this proposal.
Barring a Constitutional amendment states may act individually, as some have. The incentive in the current system is against states acting individually. Less senior members receive less federal dollars.
This proposal will not solve all that is ill in DC. It will help, though. Knowing that time is limited in Congress will again put the emphasis on service rather than empire building. We believe that this will improve both the attitude and quality of those seeking to serve. It will move the legislature more into the direction that the Founders envisioned. It dismantles the ivory tower that career politicians find themselves in - having lost touch with what ordinary Americans face and care about. It turns them back into ordinary Americans again. It is a step in the right direction. That appeals to our Common Sense.
RLB
Categories: Constitutional Issues, Historical perspective, Partisan Politics
Tags: government gridlock Framers intent civic responsibility
Nice to see you leave the dark side. I wouldn't give them 12 years though. I go for 6 - 3 House or 1 in the Senate. With seniority comes power, and with power comes corruption. Let's turn the government back into our representatives, not our masters.
Reply to this
I would argue that the people of the state in question should be able to send whomever thay want to represent them. Disqualifying someone for office on the basis of terms served flies in the face of citizens who would prefer to keep a currently serving member. A Constitutional amendment restricting states rights on matters affecting state representation would be struck down by the Supreme Court. There is no basis to argue for it. End of argument.
Reply to this
My understanding is that the Constitution can be amended on any matter so long as it passes the ratification procedure laid out in it. There is precedent in term limits with the Presidency. There is still plenty of argument left.
Reply to this
I would consider the presidential term limits unconstitutional as well. If you are going to argue in favor, there can be a justification that the presidency serves all Americans, and represents all Americans. Senators and Congressmen represent their state and district. What applies to the President does not apply to state representation.
Reply to this
I think a law that enforces term limits would be a great idea in any form. Even if these guys think that they are serving the public, the system itself is so corrupt that nothing constructive gets done. It's turned into whatever side is on top shoving through it's most radical agenda and punishing the other side. There's no actual governing goingon, just revenge and power grabbing.
Reply to this
Term limits is cutting butter with a chainsaw. There is effective representation even among the "grumpy old men". Limiting terms will toss experts out arbitrarily, just to replace them with someone new. The problem is not in the number of terms served. The problem is in the Senate and house rules which permit the current corrupt system to operate. The Constitution does not speak to Senate or House rules. They are self imposed. That is where the answer needs to be.
Reply to this
I've got to agree with you on this, which is pretty unusual. Even more so that crackerjack is on this side too. The system is set up to reward length of service with too much power. With the power comes the corruption, even if it is unintentional. I don't think that everyone serving 20 years is taking bribes, but I do think that when they vote, they take into account getting re-elected over what they think is a good idea. You just have to look at Stupak or Specter. Neither took any money, but they caved on matters of principle. We deserve better than that.
Reply to this
I'm going with the idea of term limits too. I don't know what the right number of years would be, but even in the private sector it is 20 or 25 years and out. If we had more people with an actual life in the private sector, it would do a lot to improve government response. There's a lot of common sense out here that just never gets past the beltway mentality in Washington.
Reply to this
I don't see any real benefit in term limits. The problem is the system itself. We have two parties calcified in their platforms. Those platforms stand in oppostion to each other, but neither side takes them seriously. The standard issue politician has to go way right or way left to appease the extremes during the primaries,and then when elected to office try to get along in the club. For all we know they are just playing to the camera and all of them go out after hours for cigars and laugh at us for being so gullible. I'm afraid that the system itself is beyond repair. The Dems and Republicans are just a bowl of crap looking at itself in the mirror. Clean em all out.
Reply to this
Don't forget Pelosi - it should be Grumpy Old Broads too. I'vegone both ways on this issues. Term limits would help make sure that we get new people in government BUT, most of them will come up from some other elected office. You know, mayors or state assembly. We have term limits in our state and it doesn't stop career politicians, it just shuffles them around between political offices or appointments once they term out. It's rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Being a politician is a mindset. Most of us wouldn't want to do it. The ones who do live for it. You might get fresh faces, but it will be the same species of individual whoseeks office. Mr Smith is not going to Washington. Just look at Scott Brown.
Reply to this
Pelosi is a womman??? I thought she was a harpy. I don't see any harm in shuffling the deck chairs. It will limit building a power base that will turn into 30 years of empire. Just following the logic it will take a couple of years to get a handle on the job, and if chairmanships still go to the senior members then they wield that power for 2 to maybe 4 years in their second term (or for the House their last couple of terms. No Robert Byrds, no Charlie Rangels. You're right, it doesn't solve the problementirely, but it's a step in the right direction.
Reply to this
Term limits will at least provide some turnover. I agree that the Founding Fsthers didn't intend for a person to occupy a seat in Congress for 30+ years. The power that comes with seniority has allowed, in Byrd's case, to shove an enormous amount of tax dollars into West Virginia, which pays proportionaely very little into Washington. It's essentially tking tax dollars paid by California or NY and just handing it over to W VA because Senator Byrd wanted it. That needs to stop.
Reply to this
I think that twleve years is too much for the House of Representatives. I think two terms in either the House or Senate would be best. The Senate is supposed to be where coller heads prevail, so the turnover is not as important as the House. The House is supposed to represent our current interests, and should be immediately responsive to the voters. The only way to keep a politician's attention is to make it clear that he's only in a position for a temporary period.
Reply to this
I don't have a particular problem with unlimited House terms. It is their job to represent the district, and yes, to bring home the bacon. Senators should be limited though. They manage to hold up a lot of important stuff, and a lot of the holdup is due to horse trading and dealmaking. The whole health care debacle is a shining example - Cornhusker Kickbacks and Louisiana Purchases. No way is that what the Founders had in mind. That needs fixing.
Reply to this
I'd have to go the exact opposite. Senators need to develop expertise to provide proper advice and consent. I don't see a problem with a senator serving for life. The House is where the problems lie - each congressman trying to lay his hands on more money. They do control the cash supply. It's the money that is the corrupting influence.
Reply to this
VOTE EVERYONE OUT and start fresh - in city - county - state and national government - hard to tell the sharks from the bottom feeders
Reply to this
Two terms , one in congress and one in prison.
Reply to this