From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:20:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

The following article is copyright 1992 HC Syndications; it is reproduced
here with permission.

I think that the author has a valid point to make about term limits as
a way to eliminate the professional political class.  Since this
particular aspect of the debate hasn't been discussed in this thread,
I thought people might be interested in seeing this article.
Personally, I find this particular argument to be the most compelling
one in favor of term limits.


                The Case for Congressional Term Limits
                          by Cameron Scott

   Voters in several states will soon have the chance to impose term limits on 
their representatives in Congress.  The proposals vary from state to state, but
they all prevent politicians from seeing Congress as a permanent career choice.
   When we start discussing Congressional term limits, most Washington insiders
get very uncomfortable.  What would we do, they ask, without the leadership of 
this experienced Senator or that distinguished Representative?
   These insiders are ignoring the real harm that is done by the very existence
of a permanent ruling class in Washington.
   When legislators spend decades sequestered in the unreal atmosphere of 
Washington, they lose touch with the concerns of their constituents.  After 
a few terms, they can no longer relate to the real people in the real world 
beyond the Beltway.
   The problem is that members of Congress are insulated from the problems 
that affect their constituents.  And, more than that, they are insulated from 
contact with the vast majority of the people they represent.
   Members of Congress spend most of their time rubbing shoulders with the big
shots who walk Washington's corridors of power.  Because our representatives
seldom have contact with other people, they soon forget about the concerns of
of the little guy who lives outside the fantasy world inside the Beltway.
   Contact with sycophantic lobbyists is no substitute for contact with real
people from the home district.  
   Even the trips back to the home district do not bring members of Congress 
in touch with most of their constituents.
   It costs a lot to win reelection, so a member of Congress must spend every
spare minute looking for contributions.
   In 1990, it took an average of $370,000 to win a seat in the House of 
Representatives and $4 million to win a seat in the Senate, according to Common
Cause.  In other words, Senators who plan to run again need to raise about
$12,000 every week of their six-year term.
   Certainly, $1000 per plate fundraisers are a way to contact one part of a 
legislator's constituency.  It is a safe bet, however, that the vast majority
of people cannot afford to pay $1000 for a meal and a speech.
   Most of the patrons of these fundraisers see them as a way to buy access
to the candidate.  And the simple fact is that most of us cannot afford
to pay enough to gain the ear of our representatives.
   It is no wonder that they are out of touch with most of their constituents.
   An additional problem is the very fact that our representatives look at 
Congress as a permanent career.  Because of this attitude, a Congressional
seat has become a goal in its own right, rather than a means for furthering
one's own ideas.
   Reelection becomes so important that politicians go to great lengths to 
avoid angering anyone--even if it means changing positions on important issues.
   Sometimes, leadership means stepping on peoples' toes.  A career Congress
ensures that almost no one will have the guts to lead.
   Moreover, the system is rigged against people who do not want to spend their
entire careers in Congress.  Because of the current seniority system, it is
virtually impossible for such people to rise to important leadership positions.
   This is one of the ways that the system protects itself.  In order for
an insurgent to upset the status quo, he or she must first become part of
the establishment.
   The destruction of the seniority system would, by itself, be enough reason 
to set Congressional term limits.  But the seniority system is just one of the
reasons why we should set term limits on our representatives.
   One wag has suggested that term limits amount to a cry by the American 
voter to "stop me before I vote again."  But that's really not the point.
   Term limits are just a way for us to say that we do not believe that
Congress should be dominated by permanent ruling class.