An excellent argument for congressional term limits
From “Fix Congress, Not the Lobbyists,”
by Fred Barnes in the Weekly Standard, January 20, 06
“Then there’s the nuclear option. No, not the one to bar Senate filibusters of judicial nominations. I’m referring to term limits: three terms for House members, two for senators. This is an extreme measure, but there’s a strong rationale for it if one really desires to reduce the influence of lobbyists.
“The conventional wisdom in Washington—self-serving as usual—is that term limits would lead to a Congress dominated by lobbyists with extraordinary influence over callow legislators. Not true. Members freshly elected and not firmly entrenched in their seats tend to be the most attuned to their states or districts and thus the most impervious to the blandishments of lobbyists. After years in office, they often become ‘Washingtonized’ and pals with lobbyists. Term limits would short-circuit this.”
While we applaud Fred Barnes for his perceptiveness, we would disagree in one respect.
We believe six years in enough in either house of Congress. If six years is enough in the House of Representatives, Why should the Senate be any different?
We used to be six-and-twelvers too, and there is the (partial) justification that it is in the reelection campaigns that the damage is done. But the very human reaction from House members was “Why not twelve years for us too?”
At which point we realized that six was a better common denominator for both houses. And lawmaking is not as difficult as the life-timers would have us believe.
Twelve years can be a career in itself. It also gives members time to forget where they came from and who sent them to Washington in the first place.
A Congress populated with public servants who go to Washington to serve — serve their neighbors and their country — would likely be able to conduct the nation’s business in twenty-five percent of the time, with twenty-five percent of the committees and subcommittees, and perhaps five percent as many ego-driven television virtuosos as we have now.
Six and six is a good number. An adequate number to keep members from becoming, as Mr. Barnes would say “Washingtonized.”
