Changing the Game

by Frederick Hink on 01/04/12

Two recent reads brought home the absolute stink that comes from the swamps of Washington D.C. If you have a chance, read Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America's Most Notorious Lobbyist, by Jack Abramoff, and Throw Them Out Now, by Peter Schweizer.

 

There are several ideas floating about out there on reforming our Federal government. After reading these two books, it becomes painfully clear that reform is not what is needed.

 

People have the mistaken belief that more democracy is what is needed but all democracy does is deliver mob rule, that fifty-one percent can dictate to the other forty-nine.

Benjamin Franklin stated that the Founders gave us "a republic if we can keep it".

If you want to know where we went wrong, take a look at the Progressive era that gave us the Seventeenth Amendment and ended with the Twenty-Second Amendment.

The Seventeenth Amendment gave us more democracy, providing for the popular election of senators. Before, senators were selected for six-year terms from a vote in the individual state legislatures. What's the big deal? The Seventeenth Amendment diluted the check in power that the states hold over the federal government. Fifty-one percent of the voters in each state give us our senators now. Mob rule.

The Twenty-Second Amendment gave us presidential term limits. Prior to FDR, presidents voluntarily stepped down after two terms however there was always the threat that a president could run for a third term. What's the big deal? A congress can wait out the president, hoping the mob will give them a president that will bend to their power. This too should be repealed.

These two Amendments upset the applecart, the careful balance of powers outlined in our republic's charter, the Constitution.

The result: A permanent congress whose individual members have very little fear of losing elections despite the fact that less than twenty percent of the people believe congress does a good job. It's always the other guy's representative that's the problem. Plus, congressional offices are filled through party rule and seniority. If your representative has been there for twenty years and is a member of the party in power, he or she is going to be much more influential than if you replaced them with a new representative. The stakes are too high to be fooling around with changing your representative or senator. That's the dilemma.

The game cannot be reformed; it must be changed.

The Seventeenth Amendment must be repealed for that was key in the original framework of maintaining balance in the Republic. The Senate was seen as a deliberative body, a place to insure that the federal government won't trample on the rights of the states or the people. It was also designed to protect against mob rule coming from the popularly elected House of Representatives.

Just changing that one thing will insure that the mess that is now Congress will allow it to function in less dysfunction.

The Founders anticipated a citizen Congress for selfless public service and that is the most glaring weakness in our Constitution. They believed in self-regulation but as de Tocqueville pointed out, once mob rule gains traction, the public treasury will be drained. With our national debt passing $14,000,000,000,000 I'd say that we've reached that point. Government, like dirty diapers, must be changed on a regular basis.

Term limits on Senators should be a state issue however for House members, constitutional term limits is essential for returning to constitutional government. Three two-year terms allows a proper amount of time for a well-intentioned congressman; anything beyond greatly invites corruption. However, where I differ with most proponents of term limits is with the current adversarial election process.

Every second year, two or more candidates slug it out. Political incumbents, as I've experienced first hand, have a tremendous, almost insurmountable advantage but still have to stave off an opponent each two years requiring all candidates to solicit a corruptible amount of money. Instead, the representative should stand for a confidence/no-confidence vote every two years. If the electorate fires the representative, or votes no confidence, then an election is held to determine the replacement. This naturally limits the need to continually raise large sums of money to fend off an opponent. There will certainly be aggressive campaigns for votes for or against confidence however victory is not a given for a particular candidate. Governor Perry's suggestion of a part-time Congress should also be considered.

The reform of a system is found in transparency and the modern tool we possess of instant communication is a bright light. Every contribution, no matter the size, must be instantly reported on a well publicized website, as well as each legislative vote, and every contact by a lobbyist so the educated voter can make an educated decision.

What can you do? Go to your party's precinct convention, usually held after a primary. Find out how to propose an amendment to your party's state and national platform to begin to raise awareness of the problem. Ask candidates whether they would voluntarily adhere to a three-term limit. If they don't, vote for the other candidate, regardless of party affiliation. When I say candidates, I mean any and all--dog catcher to U.S. senator. The state legislatures must call for a constitutional convention to change the game. It won't happen in our current congress; they simply have too much to lose and that means we're all losers.