It's Time For A Change

When in doubt, kick 'em out. - Coach Birdy, CMU

Every school has at least one athletic coach who is also an unheralded philosopher of life. The wisdom of these sophists is often unrecognized until years after their pontifications. At Carnegie Mellon, that man was the swim team coach, Mr. Birdy. Like all of his breed, his first name was lost to history and was know simply as “Coach.”

Coach Birdy also happened to be the resident Lifeguard Instructor, and in that capacity was I exposed to his wisdom (thanks to the benevolent intercession of the EE Department Secretary - “Take PE. It counts as a humanities class!”). One of the lecture classes was dedicated to safety issues, and one of the sub-topics was weather. It was during this discussion that the sage of the swimming pool enlightened us with his unique solution to weather safety - “When in doubt, kick 'em out!”

Over the intervening years, I have found that advice applicable to so many other areas beyond weather related safety. The reprehensible behavior of Congress of late has led me to the conclusion that it is time for them all to go. When in doubt, kick 'em out!

According to official records, the 109^th Congress has the oldest Senate (at 60 years) and likely the oldest House (at 55 years – record keeping in the House did not begin until 1907). Fifty-six members are over the age of 70 and 214 are over the age of 60. Certainly, in and of itself, age is not a bad thing. However, as we dig deeper into the details, it is clear that age is only one factor in a Congress increasingly distancing itself from John Q. Voter.

Currently, the average tenure of a Representative is just over 9 years. The average tenure in the Senate is just over 12 years. The “official” publication, The Biographical Directory of the US Congress, disingenuously reports this data as 4.5 terms (true, but misleading) and 2 terms (an out-right lie) respectively. In actuality, it means that the average Representative is currently in his 5^th term and the average Senator is currently in his 3^rd term. It also means that the average Senator was first elected when he was 48 and the average Representative when he was 44 .

Over half of the current Senate (53 members) have served longer than 10 years, and nearly 1/4^th (23) have served over 20 years. In the House, the numbers are 202 (46%) and 58 (13%) respectively. There are 7 Senators have served for more than 30 years, and 3 for more than 40 years (the numbers in the House are 13 and 2). There are also numerous instances of family members running for another family member's seat when one retires or dies (a hard number is difficult to determine due to the choice of criteria, but it is clearly a non-trivial number).

For their occupations, 218 are lawyers and another 195 self-identify as career politicians. This means that a staggering 77% are careerists in occupations which are not trusted by the average American. Only 139 current members have ever served in the military, yet Congress considers themselves to be experts on what is best for the Armed Forces.

In 1995, Congress (briefly) considered a term-limits bill, which was of course defeated (fox in the hen-house, anyone?). During the debates, Congress applied some poor logic to defeat a bill with the obvious side effect of (ultimately) forcing then-current Congress Critters to find alternative employment. Henry Hyde, who at the time was Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said “If somebody came up to me and said you have to vote for this person, I would be offended. I would say you don't understand democracy. Now, I fail to see the difference between someone coming up and saying you cannot vote for this person. I would say you don't understand democracy, either.”

Well, Representative Hyde, let me explain democracy to you, since you don't seem to understand either. When Washington stepped down after his second term, one of his stated reasons for doing so was that he believed he would die in office which could potentially be interpreted as the President being a de facto ruler-for-life. This un-legislated two-term limit was precedent for nearly 150 years until FDR decided he was better than everyone else and sought a third and then fourth term.

Appalled at his hubris, Congress responded by passing the 22^nd Amendment prohibiting anyone from being elected President for more than 2 terms (a person could serve at most 2 years unelected as the result of death or permanent incapacitation of the elected President in addition to the 2 elected terms). Of important note is that the two term limit was codified for the express purpose of not wanting the Presidency to appear imperial, exactly the problem Washington had foreseen.

Thanks to the 22^nd Amendment, every President is barred from seeking a 3^rd term, and by direct result, I am told every eight years or so who I can and can't vote for. No one – no Congressman, no ex-President, no voter – ever claims that this is not democratic (unfortunate, maybe, but not undemocratic). So if limiting the term of the President is not a violation of democracy, how is it that Congressman Hyde can assert that attempting to limit his term means that I don't understand democracy.

But Congressman Hyde is not done. He goes on to claim that the job of Congressman is so difficult that experience is necessary. “Every other area of professionalism in this nation values experience, tenure, and the wisdom which can come with terms of service. Term limits would destroy this opportunity and make Congress an institution where inexperience is more valued than professionalism and experience...This is not an easy job, and it can't be done overnight. It takes years...You demean the importance of this job by saying anybody can do it.”

Since the job requires experience, and since only Congress Critters have the experience, only current Congress Critters can be elected. Ah, the veil is lifted! Enlightenment of the masses is at hand! Congressman Hyde (and all who voted against term limits) have revealed their true colors. It is indeed I who understands democracy and it is he who understands aristocracy! But then who shall replace a retiring Member since no one has the requisite experience? Shouldn't we value experience of having been President in our President? By Hyde's logic, we should be demanding that the President serve for life (or until he deigns to retire, as Hyde acknowledged that is the primary means by which Members lose office).

But let us examine Hyde's logic more fully. “Term limits would remove critical leadership and institutional abilities of Members,” claims Hyde. Perversely, at the time he made this observation (1995), he noted that 52% of all House members had been elected after 1990. This means that more than half of the House lacked the experience Hyde claimed was so important, nay indispensable, to the job. That would certainly imply that a person can learn the job while doing it, the exact opposite of his conclusion.

As noted above, the current average Senator has just begun his 3^rd term, while the current average Representative is in his 5^th. Assuming the numbers were roughly the same in 1995, it necessarily follows that experience is not all that critical. If we assume that the situation was better in 1995, it becomes conclusive proof that long-term experience is not necessary to the job. If we assume the situation was worse, it becomes conclusive proof that decreasing time in office results is no adverse effects on Congress' ability to conduct the business of America. No matter which assumption is true, the inescapable conclusion is that term limits would not harm Congress.

Earlier I wrote that the average Representative was elected when he was 44. Hyde tells us, “I just made a little list of the things you had better be expert in, you had better be knowledgeable about if you are a politician serving in this building: agriculture, environment, weapons systems, international relations, banking, finance, urban affairs, tax policy, budget policy, administration of justice, bankruptcy law, tort, medical malpractice, product liability, immigration policy, criminal law, intellectual property, customs, health care, trade policy, education and labor, and on and on and on and on--a lifetime's work, to know about one of these subjects.” Yes, by the time he was 44, the modest Congressman Hyde had developed a lifetime's worth of expertise in all of these subjects and more.

It ought to be obvious to anyone that if Congressman Hyde's observation were true, the average age of Congress ought to be static. That is, once elected, Congressmen should remain in office until a very advanced age in order to provide the appropriate level of “critical leadership and institutional abilities.” At this point, a large group of them would be replaced by a younger, but presumably “expert,” crowd (the offspring of the current crop no doubt), driving the average age much lower, with a net effect of little change overall. But that is not the case. The average age has been rising steadily, and since it is now higher than at any point in history, his conclusion is insupportable Let's all say it together: term limits would not harm Congress.

It may be perceived that I am unfairly picking on Congressman Hyde (who, by the way, was first elected over 30 years ago). However, in voting down the bill, Congress relied heavily on the Judiciary Committee's report (authored by Hyde) and I can find no credible evidence that Congress has debated the issue since 1995. In an interesting bit of irony, the bill came about as part of the “Republican Contract With America.” A Republican sponsored bill that was part of an agenda that got Republicans elected was not passed in a Republican-majority House (did someone mention the fox and the hen-house earlier?). As long as we elect self-serving Congress Critters who are incapable of fairly debating the merits of a bill that would deprive them of a job for life, we will never have reform.

So how do we go about implementing term limits? The solution was proposed by Coach Birdy – kick 'em out! Vote the current crop of Critters out of office. Replace each of then with a candidate that is willing to sign, not just pay lip service to, a term-limits pledge. Eventually enough members of Congress could be elected such that a Constitutional Amendment could be proposed. And yes, an Amendment is necessary to forestall any recourse to the courts should a disgruntled (former) Congress Critter desire the life time employment he so recently enjoyed.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about term limits. As pointed out above and unwittingly by Hyde, the average Critter has relatively low tenure. For the sake of argument, assume Senators were limited to 2 terms and Representatives to 5. Assume the term limits went into effect today. Also assume that it would apply to those currently in office. That means that in the 2006 elections, roughly half of the Senate and the House would be ineligible for re-election. Any incoming Members would benefit from the wisdom and experience of the remaining half. And again, even though the remaining half would be relatively junior, history proves that this is not problematic for Congress as a whole.

By 2016, all current Members of Congress would be replaced, but the important thing to note is the staggered nature of the replacement. In any Congress, there would be a mix of Members nearing the end of their term limits (i.e., at least as experienced as the average Member today), Members with average tenure (and average experience), and Members freshly entering the ranks. Thus, the “institutional memory” Hyde so jealously guards would always be preserved.

Alexander Hamilton once said, “When a man knows he must quit his station, let his merit be what it may, he will turn his attention chiefly to his own emolument.” Opponents of term limits often invoke this as proof that the Founders were opposed to them. However, this statement is taken out of context. Hamilton was speaking to the idea of forced rotation versus frequent elections. Nearly the identical debate took place over the length of service for the President, and as we saw, the Founders did not place any limits in the final Constitution. This does not mean they were opposed to term limits. It means that they left the matter unsettled.

An important difference between forced rotation and term limits is that until his final term, a Member will not know for sure when “he must quit his station.” Far from using his last term to increase his lot in life, if Presidential history is any guide, he will instead turn his attention to creating his legacy.

It's not rocket science. Term limits will not stop the incessant pork barrel spending, but it should make it possible for worthy citizens who are willing to serve their country instead of themselves to have a chance. And during their final term, at least, maybe they will finally get around to doing their job – provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.