PAST AND PRESENT : Sometimes, limits make sense Legislators should not remain in office for decades
Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2008
Afew years ago I wrote a column on the possibility of changing the Constitution so that we could have term limits for congressmen. It was met by an avalanche of indifference.
Now, with Congress reaching an all-time low in the confidence of the American people, more people might be willing to listen. With a confidence rating of 14 percent, this Congress has become a disgrace to the nation.
The ridiculous situation in the present Congress is the fault of both parties. Good sense and the fine art of compromise have both been abandoned; hypocrisy and dishonesty have taken their place. Those two sins would seem to be enough, but they are quickly followed by outright dishonesty. When weak men in places of power are tempted to steal, they often will. And in recent years, on both sides of the aisle, this has happened. The stealing is often done by using the write-in method in larger bills. In short, when a bill is long and complicated (some of them run hundreds of pages ) legislators will write into the bill some pet scheme they have and it will pass without being noticed.
If terms were limited, and power and influence thus diminished for any particular legislator, we might be able to get a handle on the worst of this sleazy practice. It seems the longer a congressman stays in office, the more they decide that the government belongs to them - not the people.
Politicians in general do not like term limits. And they have been able to convince a lot of voters that it is the wrong thing to do. To the contrary, it is exactly the right thing to do. To be sure, we lose some good people in the process. But conversely, we get rid of a lot of people who should never have been there in the first place.
Currently more than a dozen states have term limits. Arkansas amended its state constitution in 1992, but splinter groups have been fighting it ever since. As I said before, politicians don't like term limits, and their handlers like them even less. In the "old days" (when I was regularly in Little Rock and knew all of the right people ) legislators served interminably, many of them living in the old apartment building next to the capitol, paying little or no rent, taking expensive trips several times a year, and were backed financially by various companies in the state. It was a comfortable position for some, and a drag on the state's ability to move forward economically. I knew many of them, and in the main they were nice guys; I just did not approve the system.
Although term limits get lost in history, the most important one for the United States was made possible by the 22 nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limited the president to two terms in office. Franklin Roosevelt, beginning in 1932, won four terms consecutively, in spite of opposition within his own party. Since the nation had been in a serious situation, first with the Great Depression and then World War II, Roosevelt ran on the motto," Don't change horses in the middle of the stream. "And the people voted him into office four times.
When he died shortly after his fourth term began, many people began to wonder if, had he lived, would he have run for a fifth term, or even a sixth ? There was an almost immediate discussion, mostly private at first, whether the country wanted an emperor or a president. So, in a short time the move was on to amend the Constitution to limit the president to two terms. In 1951 the amendment was ratified. It was the right thing to do. At the time this was not considered a slap at FDR, but instead a recognition that a government could be lost while the people slept.
On a smaller scale, the same kind of damage can be done to a nation by people who stay in office too long. Congress is a disgraceful example. Look at a current example of this. We have the "Rome burning while Nero fiddles"situation, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refuse to let vital legislation come to the floor which could solve some of our worst problems, such as energy, with proper congressional action. This misuse of power ties the hands of Congress when the nation faces years of difficult times.
We have two men in Congress who have made a mockery of representative democracy. I am speaking of Ted Stevens of Alaska, a Republican, and Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a Democrat. Both are old, which in itself would not prevent them from being good Congressmen.
However, much of their adult lives have been spent in Congress, and they now raid the national treasury as though it belongs to them. It is alleged that Byrd has sent enough "road money"to West Virginia to pave the whole state. And Stevens, now under indictment for other matters, once wished to "build a bridge to nowhere "in Alaska which, it is reported, might help as many as 50 people.
These are just two examples of the advantage people will take of Congress, and the nation's money, when they have been in Congress long enough to get away with it.
While recognizing that it is probably an exercise in futility, I still believe term limits for Congress would re-energize our nation and put a new face on that body. Frankly, I am tired of the same old faces who have long since forgotten why they were sent to Congress in the first place.
I would suggest amending the Constitution in two ways. Change House members to four-year terms, and limit them to three terms. Maintain Senators at the sixyear term and limit them to two terms. If we do not have enough capable people in the nation to keep these seats filled, we are worse off than I thought.
John Terry of Siloam Springs is an economist, minister and veteran.
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online