Congressionl Terms...More Than A Thought

Before Franklin Delano Roosevelt ran for a third term in 1940 and then a fourth term in 1944, no president had ever gone beyond "the Washington standard." That "standard" being that after two terms of office, you as the president step aside and let a new man govern the nation. Shortly after, the 22nd amendment was passed and limited any individual from being elected to no more than two full terms. In 2008, George W. Bush was latest president to step aside after serving out his two elected terms.

Every once in a while, there are voices talking about this topic. Supreme Court justices are appointed to life terms and that is fine and serves a purpose. However members of Congress are not given similar guidelines or guidelines in general as the President has. There are terms like "life-time Senator" or references to the age of a member or how long they have sat in their seat. In late August, "the Lion of the Senate", Ted Kennedy, passed away ending a 46 year tenure serving Massachusetts. Recently, Senator Robert Byrd became the longest serving member of Congress ever. He has been in the Senate 50 years and spent a few years in the House. The length of service is longer than a lot of people's lives. Over the last few election cycles we have seen some new faces elected; some old faces step down or get kicked out of office. Through it all, mummers continue.

The latest individual to voice some concern regarding the terms that some members of Congress serve is South Carolina Senator, Jim DeMint. He will soon bring to the Senate a constitutional amendment that will limit members of Congress to three terms (six years) in the House and two terms (12 years) in the Senate. After spending a decade or more in the nation's capital, DeMint believes that even the best politicians could become corrupt and these "career politicians" start to pander to special interests, lobbyists, and big government policies. A big reason for his legislation is the fact that members of Congress end up spending more time running reelection campaigns than governing and legislating; the thing they were elected to do.

Thomas Jefferson is quoted with saying back in 1776, that "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office"; term limits would be necessary. Some who see things differently than DeMint bring up elections as the term limits. If people should no longer be in office, then people will vote them out. However, it is tough for challengers to dethrone an incumbent especially if they serve a far left or far right district or a state that generally goes one way or another making it tough for the other party to win if the incumbent decides to run again. Money also comes into play as incumbents usually have more at their disposal as well as whatever the special interests and lobbyists give them. Money is very important in politics and can overcome a lesser popularity rating.

In a recent poll, 82% want congressional limits and agree with DeMint. I find myself leaning towards that 82% when I look at politics and members of Congress. There are some who have been in office for decades and continue to find ways to serve their constituents while there are some that seem to sway. Some might argue that having men and women in Congress with several years of Congressional experience should help enable the best decisions to be made. That sounds great on paper, but that doesn't happen enough. The reelection distraction brought up by DeMint is very valid.

So in my opinion there are two realistic and necessary options to give the American what they deserve: legislators for the people, by the people. The first would be to impose these term limits mentioned by DeMint. Maybe add a term to each, but something around the 6 years for House members and years for Senate members seem fair as to avoid them falling into corrupt patterns or not doing their job to their best ability. The second option, which is also worth exploring and could be applied to the presidential level is limit campaigning. I am very much aware especially in today's overhyped and overexposed media of the need for campaigning to occur. But do candidates truly need to spend half of their term running for office. In the Senate it is a little easier to wait, but House members have two year terms and spend half of their term campaigning.

One of the things I dislike about campaigns is the overuse of ads. That money can be rationed and some of it spent on ads and the rest spent on the people through programs and reforms if elected. A debate or two is fair and the handful of ads and appearances is also needed. But things are taken too far and thus members of Congress can't legislate as they need to be on the campaign trail almost 24/7. This might be slightly unrealistic, but why can't it happen. Members of Congress should be spend 4/5 of their time legislating. However it is closer to 3/5 or even 1/2 of their time. That doesn't seem fair to me.

I look forward to see where Senator DeMint's legislation and constitutional amendment goes because there certainly are flaws with current system. Just as President's needed a limit; it just might be time to give our members of Congress the same guidelines and restrictions. Otherwise, we might see a continued decline in the way that the public views them.