Congressional Term Limits

Thomas Sowell has a wonderful, as always, column on Town Hall today called Cheap Politicians. In his column, he makes the case for limits on Congressional terms, citing, primarily, the fact that all these professional politicians care about is getting re-elected and that they do so by doling out federal dollars to their constituents. He also proposes that we pay each member of Congress a million dollar salary. Why? To attract those who otherwise do not consider the job: " ... the most highly skilled or intelligent people in the country, people with real-world experience ... " While Dr. Sowell makes a number of excellent points, I don't agree with his conclusion - putting limits on congressional terms. I would offer a few solutions of my own:

1. Return Congressional Representation to a Part-time Job
It was never the intention of the founding fathers to have a permanent class of professional politicians. Being a Senator or a Congressman was supposed to be a part-time job. Because of this, only those who were sufficiently wealth and successful were able to take time away from their regular jobs. After all, initial pay was on a per-diem basis. Once being a member of Congress came with a full-time pay check, it could become a full-time job. My solution, cut back the time that Congress is allowed to be in session. All of the States, with a couple of exceptions - California being one, have part-time legislatures. In Virginia, where I live, the House of Delegates and Senate are only in session for 2 months of the year. I see no reason why our national representatives need to be in Washington for more than three months of the year. This limited time at the seat of power would restrict their activities to only those things that are essential.

2. Repeal McCain-Feingold (MF) & All Other Limits on Political Contributions
The hideous MF bill, and all other restrictions on political free speech, need to be repealed. Allowing any individual or group to spend as much as they like on political campaigns would, I believe, make things much clearer to the American public. The only requirement I would place on this is that each candidate must disclose ALL sources of their funds and post this on a public website for all to view. This would allow each voter to determine where the interests of the candidates in their district truly lie.

3. Eliminate Congressional Pensions
Congressmen and Senators have a VERY nice pension plan ... one that gives them more money the longer they serve. Eliminating this pension plan would not only save money but also minimize the incentive to serve long terms.

4. Repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution
When this amendment was passed in 1913, it was done, I believe, in the spirit of democracy. Why shouldn't the people decide who their Senator's should be? Well, there's actually a very good reason why Senators were originally selected by the State legislatures ... they were suppose to represent the interests of their States, not the "people" (that was the purpose of the House of Representatives). This was to ensure that the States' had their own representatives at the federal level, ensuring that the rights of the States were not violated or subsumed by the federal authority.

5. Repeal House & Senate Rules on Outside Employment
Currently, members of Congress are prohibited from having another job ... even if it doesn't pay anything or it just covers expenses. Obviously, if Congress becomes a part-time job, these rules would have to go.

I believe that enacting these five items would:

(1) Limit the power and influence (e.g., ability to buy votes) of Congress.
(2) Encourage the Best and Brightest Individuals to Serve.
(3) Enable the voters to be better informed.
(4) Reduce the size and scope of government by giving the States more influence.
(5) Result in Congressmen serving shorter terms.

Plus, why should the people be restrained from electing whomever they feel is best fit for Congress? If someone's doing a great job, why should they be prevented from serving? If someone's doing a poor job, and the people continue to elect them, hey, that's their problem. If they want lousy representation, who are we to deny it to them?