Politics

Term Limits for the U. S. House of Representatives

The framers of the United States Constitution split the legislature into two distinct branches.  Members of the House of Representatives were elected to two-year terms for several reasons. First, this would provide a continual turnover of membership in order to bring in fresh ideas from newly-elected members. The Senate members, on the other hand, were elected to six-year terms to provide a more stable, senior upper body.  Second, the House would provide a forum for people from every walk of life to go to Washington and serve their country for a couple of years. The House was intended to consist of common people who already had careers and professions in their home states. They would leave those professions for two years to serve, with the intention of returning to their home states when their terms had expired.

What a difference a couple of hundred years makes. The House is now chock full of professional politicians who rarely leave office once they are elected.  The reelection rate for incumbents consistently exceeds 90% which means that having fresh blood every two years is a now a distant fantasy.  What we have instead is a group of career politicians who spend every other year raising money and campaigning for reelection, instead of attending to the peoples' business in Washington.  They are all blessed with extremely generous medical and retirement plans which provide no motivation whatsoever for them to leave office when their terms expire and return to their former careers.

While there certainly are some exceptions, many elected officials go to Washington for reasons other than to do what's best for this country. They exhibit a never-ending quest for more power and clout in a system that caters and rewards that ambition.  It's not about the country; it's all about "them."  This was never the intent of the founding fathers.

Some have suggested term limits as a way to correct this situation.  Another way would be to completely eliminate the retirement packages which represent a huge incentive to stay in office. They could be given credit for their time served should they decide to join the federal government in a civil service position or other position which provides a government pension. I'm not concerned that we would see a lack of qualified people running for election; in fact we would see just the opposite.  Instead of career politicians whose primary concern and goal is reelection every two years, we would have ordinary citizens in Washington whose only objective is to make our country the best that it can be.

Some argue that we need people with political experience in Washington.  If experience in politics is what really counts, a prerequisite for elected office should be little or no political experience whatsoever. After all, what has all this "experience" gotten us? The largest federal debt in history, a nearly bankrupt social security system, a huge negative balance of trade, a bloated federal government bureaucracy, involvement in a quagmire in Iraq, illegal aliens streaming across the border, a bottomless pit of expensive entitlement programs, a sinking dollar, collapsing infrastructure, deteriorating environment, and an energy policy that can only be classified as a joke.

Reelecting politicians with years and years of experience in Washington has only resulted in epic levels of pork barrel spending, insatiable quests for more power, and a whole bunch of people with personal agendas that do not coincide with what is best for the citizens of our nation.  This is what our "experienced" politicians have given us. The time to change that is WAY overdue!

We have sent countless numbers of people to Congress over the years that have never succeeded at a "real" job. Many of them entered politics after failing at some other endeavor, which is hardly a ringing endorsement of their capabilities. While I realize that there are exceptions to this, we all know in our hearts that we would be far better off if the primary motivation of our elected officials was service to country rather than getting reelected.

What kind of people do we need representing us in Washington?  Ordinary people with good educations, lots of street smarts, and an extra-large dose of common sense.  This is the kind of people we had in the House of Representatives before it became a life-long endeavor.  It is what was intended in the beginning by the framers of our Constitution for the junior governing body. They envisioned ordinary citizens from every walk of life who would leave their normal lives behind for two years and serve their country, never with the intent of doing it forever.

I have always held the view that those in Washington who "manage" our money should possess sound business judgment and analytical abilities.  The future poses significant challenges, and we need decisive leaders in Congress to take them on -- leaders who have the best interests of the entire country at heart, not their personal interests or those of their particular state.  Service to country should not be about seeing who can bring back the most pork to their constituents.

On November 19, 1863 at the Gettysburg battlefield, Abraham Lincoln declared that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth."  It seems to me that many in our elected government on both sides of the aisle have forgotten the meaning behind Lincoln's historic words, and offer little respect to the voices of the everyday citizens who built this nation. It's about time that we heeded Lincoln's words and made congressional service a privilege rather than a power trip.

Freelance Writing by Michael Sanibel ^SM —  Freelance Writer