Archive 2007

ARCHIVE 2007

071014 Are Term Limits the Solution to What Ails Politics?
by BILL TRAMMELL Special to the Independent-Mail

Public opinion of the United States Congress appears to be near an all-time low, with less than 20 percent approval rating.
Voter participation at all levels continues to decline, doubtless caused by failure on the part of legislators to come up with meaningful solutions to long-existing problems.
Our government appears to operate on the philosophy that preparation for possible impending calamities is unnecessary. Examples: Long-standing failure to repair levees before Katrina; virtually ignoring the first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center.
I am in no way inferring that the fault lies entirely with either of the two major parties.

Here is a partial list of unaddressed issues:
1. The ever-increasing national debt. This now amounts to trillions of dollars, the total probably unknown by anyone.
2. The energy crisis dating back to the early ’70s. The current solution is ethanol, which costs about as much in energy to produce as it delivers.
3. The impending bankruptcy of the social security system. So-called trust funds have been virtually stolen, transferred to the general fund and then frittered away.
4. Global warming. What if those who insist that we, the people in no way contribute to this phenomenon are wrong? Then what? The damage will have been done and cannot be rectified.
5. The rising cost of health care and cost of medications completely out of line with the cost of inflation and a Medicare system on the verge of going broke.
6. Congress’s apparent out-of-control spending. Earmarks, for example, now cost $40 billion annually, with no real oversight.
7. The farm subsidy, which dates back to the 1930s and was designed to help struggling farmers. This complicated law now primarily pours more than $40 billion per year into the coffers of largely huge farm combines, not the small farmers whose ranks continue to decrease.
8. The proliferation of registered lobbyists in Washington. There are more than 250 per each legislator. They are putting billions into the hands of our elected officials, from whom they expect preferential treatment.
9. Disintegrating infrastructure. The collapse of a major bridge 40 years ago (the “Silver Bridge” in West Virginia in 1967, killing 46) should have been a warning. Much of the federal gasoline tax is being spent on anything but road and bridge repairs. Proposed solution: More taxes.
10. The United Nations. This organization has proven to be an almost complete failure. We pick up 25 percent of the annual tab to run this travesty, with little to show for it.
11. Immigration. Why not observe the laws already in place? What is there about the definition of the word “illegal” that so many politicians and business owners don’t seem to comprehend?
12. Education. Apparently there seems to be a dumbing down of the system at the expense of the mentally gifted. Other countries encourage these students. We don’t, and the U.S. is falling far behind in an area which we once dominated.
13. Foreign aid. Several billion dollars annually is given to countries, about 80 percent of whom regularly vote against the U.S. on proposed U.N. resolutions and oppose our every move in most every other area.
14. Terrorism. This didn’t start on 9/11. A major attack occurred in 1983, when 241 American servicemen lost their lives to terrorists as a result of the bombing of their barracks in Beirut. Anyone who thinks this problem is going away should do a little research.
15. A legislative body which seems to have lost its moral compass. Little or no attempt is being made to control unethical behavior. Witness convicted felons still drawing sizeable pensions.
16. Absolutely no cap on campaign spending. The average House member must raise $500,000 (about $700 per day) and a senator $5 million (about $2,000 per day). When is there ever time to legislate? A large staff paid by us taxpayers does help.
17. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, there is a gradual but unmistakable elimination of GOD from our Judeo-Christian culture. With 80 percent or more of our citizens expressing a belief in God, why do our lawmakers seem to be at odds with us on this issue?

There is an understandable desire on the part of many congressmen to stay in office as long as possible. The perks, amenities and retirement benefits are numerous, and generally superior to those offered in the private sector. Is there any wonder that they seek re-election time after time?
Seniority, regardless of ability, rules in both houses. As it stands now, a newcomer has little or no chance of getting the funds to send home — which always helps in a re-election bid or drawing a favorable committee assignment — without going along with entrenched leaders’ desires. Committee chairmanships automatically go to those who have been in office the longest.
And where do the bulk of campaign funds come from? Not from your average $100 contributor.
Enter the lobbyists with their unlimited PAC funds, which somehow manage to end up in the hands of legislators who just might pass legislation favorable to their wishes.
So, what can be done to change things for the better?

I offer one overriding solution: TERM LIMITATION.

We have many of the same problems today that have been with us for decades, with much being promised and not much being done.
Many legislators were in Congress then and they are still there now, and still assuring us that the solutions are momentary.
With members constantly being replaced, new ideas and new concepts could be introduced. Obviously, what we have now isn’t working. It is past time to try a new approach.
If a member knew that he would only be in office for a set length of time (perhaps eight years), very likely he could spend more time legislating instead of soliciting funds to run another re-election campaign.
Ability rather than longevity could be exercised.
Surely, if the president and many governors are restricted to eight years in office, is there any reason to believe that members of Congress should stay any longer?
Comment

071008 CHICKEN LITTLES - ABOUT THE ARTICLE V CONVENTION
Probably the single biggest outcry against an Article V convention for proposing constitutional amendments comes from those ‘chicken littles’ who simply won’t recognize that such a convention can only propose amendments. It can’t ratify them. It can’t overturn the Constitution.
It can only PROPOSE. It CAN’T CHANGE anything.

Those ‘chicken littles’ even maintain that such a convention can make all its own rules which could actually overturn the Constitution! That just shows what ‘looney tunes’ they are! Since when could any bunch of unelected activists make ANY laws ?

It would make NO difference if an Article 5 convention was dominated by nutcases who really wanted to destroy the Constitution. ANY proposals, wacky or not, which come out of the convention, have to be ratified by 3/4 of all 50 state legislatures (38 of them) to become law. Does any one really believe that the majority of politicians in all the state legislatures of this country are nuts ? Or that a majority of the delegates from all over the country who go to the state ratifying conventions are gonna be nutty enough to approve bad amendments? In any case, would there be enough of them to even be a majority in any convention ?

Back in 1995, when the new Republican Congress was pretending to debate Term Limits for itself, people realized that Congress was NOT serious. An Article V Convention was proposed, as provided for in our Constitution, to get around a reluctant Congress. Suddenly, an army of “chicken littles” arose, hollering that such a convention was going to destroy our Constitution! Chief among them was Phyllis Schlafly, who wrote a long article in her conservative ‘Freedom Forum’, about how dangerous such a convention would be. I studied that article at length, looking for reasons to be concerned. It was all smoke, all scare tactics, no substance. “The sky is gonna fall! The sky is gonna fall!” was figuratively repeated every which way from Sunday. All baloney!

What to do ? Well, real events may force a decision upon us.

Currently, 80% of Americans agree that we should have Congressional Term Limits. Congress won’t vote on it, and refuses to call the Article V convention to let us vote on it. However, when a few of our future elections result in 100% reelection rates in Congress (including all the crooks among them), the growing arrogance and dysfunctionality of our Congress will frustrate us the people to such a degree that we’ll eagerly listen to some opportunistic, demogogic, charismatic future presidential candidate, acting as ‘a man on a white horse’, who will promise us, if elected, to get rid of ‘the permanent dictatorial Congress’, by forcing an Article V Convention out of Congress. It may create a ‘Constitutional crisis’, but he’ll win by a landslide!

That scenario may happen in the not too distant future. The House recently has already had a number of 99% reelection years. The Senate is well into the 90’s. Then what are the ‘chicken littles’ gonna do? Take up arms ? I doubt it, since most of them are too chicken-livered (pun intended) to do anything at all.

I’m Nelson Lee Walker of tenurecorrupts.com Comment

070730 CONGRESS SHOULD BE A SHORT TERM CIVIC DUTY, NOT A CAREER

As a career, a seat in Congress becomes a conflict of interest.

An incumbent who seeks re-election cannot freely vote his conscience, or his principles, for fear that he is going to offend some slice of the electorate, reducing his chances of re-election.

Obviously,one way to correct this problem is to reduce or eliminate eligibility for re-election. In other words, establish either a one or two term limit on all offices in government.

In all the the noise among the pundits, editorialists, and bloggers about the significance of any election, nowhere does anyone address the the most obvious characteristic - that the bulk of the failings of our American electoral system is due to careerism and long tenure in the body politic, particularly in Congress.

No one has stood up and yelled “It’s about re-elections, stupid, not issues!"

No one seems to recognize that, in the desperate struggle to hold on to their extremely ‘cushy’ jobs, career politicians will vote, not on principle or merit, but on their ‘re-election odds’ only.

Those that do it successfully, go on to lifelong tenure (e.g. Byrd, Kennedy,Stevens, Domenici, et al). Those who try to hold to principle invariably serve very short terms.

In other words, if your first concern is re-election, rather than the what is best for the country, you reap the rewards of a long tenure. Is this any way to run a country?

The fundamental reason we need Congressional Term Limits is simply that Congress is no longer doing its job. Instead, it is working very hard at keeping its job.

Of the many hot issues actually ‘debated’ by Congress and passed, most have been so chewed up, amended, and emasculated, that they are often not worth the paper they are written on. Congress will do anything it can to avoid making clear-cut decisions to get good legislation, in order not to offend or lose the voters they need for re-election.

Some people would say that’s the way a democracy works, and to some degree that is true. However, I take issue with that way of looking at what is actually happening. Rather, I believe that what we are seeing is the result of the emergence of a Congressional class which is overwhelmingly committed to re-election first, all other considerations, especially good governance, last. This is true on both sides of the aisle.

The best evidence of this is the fact that in two recent (‘02, ‘04)elections, Congressional incumbents won re-election at a 99% rate. Before 50 years ago, that rate was about 50-60%. Do you really believe that 99% of incumbents deserved re-election ? In two successive elections?

The ‘06 election was merely a bump in the road. Things have not changed. A great majority of the really long termers survived. They always will, thanks to gerrymandered districts, name recognition, and other incumbent advantages. We still have a virtually permanent Congress.

How this has come about can be understood by examining Congressional voting patterns on the major issues in our current political environment, allof which are now routine, and all of which have arisen during the last part of the 20th century, as Congress has learned how to ‘game the system’.

For example, and the following applies to both sides of the aisle :

•They don’t reform Soc Sec to get personal retirement accounts. They might lose voters for re-election

•They don’t reform health care to get personal medical accounts. They might lose voters for re-election

•They don’t stop earmarks, because they want to spend federal money (for local votes) for re-election

•They don’t vote school choice, because they want teacher’s union money for re-election

•They don’t vote for tort reform, because they want lawyer money for re-election

•They don’t vote for right-to-work, because they want union money for re-election

•They don’t want computer neutral redistricting, because they want safe seats for re-election

•They don’t deregulate campaign financing with instant disclosure, because they lose contributors for re-election

•They won’t lower taxes, because they won’t be able to vote irresponsible ‘goodies’ for re-election

•They won’t reduce the size of government, because that would reduce their control of voters for re-election

•Last,but not least, Congressional office has become a livelihood, which is in itself, a conflict of interest, because incumbents become more interested in holding on to the job than passing good legislation. Unlimited reelections should not be allowed.

A great many state and local offices are already term limited. Why not Congress ???

Nelson Lee Walker
tenurecorrupts.com Comment

070507 CONGRESS IS BREAKING THE LAW !

I recently came across an interesting new website, www.foavc.org . It’s focussed on the idea that Congress is already so out of control that it has been violating the Constitution for many years now. In what way? Let me explain:

Article V of the Constitution, which sets out how the Constitution can be amended, says very clearly that “ The Congress...on the Application of the Legislatures of 2/3 of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments...” There are no ‘ifs, ands, or buts’ in that statement in the Constitution. It’s as plain as the nose on your face. It does not require that there be any specific subject, or unanimity of agreement among the states as to what subjects the Convention would address, nor any time limits for the applications.

Yet, in the over 200 years of our history, during which all 50 States have sent in 567 legitimate requests to Congress to call for an Article V Convention (all requests are in the Congressional Record), never once has the Congress responded to the States’ requests to call a Convention.

This is sheer, brazen arrogance! Essentially, it is tyranny by the Congress !

Until now, I had no idea this was going on! And I am certain that none of you did either. I always thought that there was no call for a ‘Convention to propose Amendments’ because not enough state legislatures had applied. They have applied in spades, ‘out the gazoo!’ The documentation is at www.foavc.org

And Congress has ignored every single request. And I believe that the basic reason is that one of the most popular subjects for amendments is electoral reform, such as term limits. And Congress knows it would happen, ending their gravy train, so they grimly stand pat, ignoring the States and defying the Constitution, as long as they can get away with it.

If Congress can ignore the Constitution on amendments, what is the next Constitutional guarantee will it ignore ? Freedom of speech ? Fair trial ?

Well, one citizen, Bill Walker of Seattle (no relation), who is a co-founder of foavc.org, has taken it to the 9th Circuit Court twice, where he lost on some technicality, and to the Supreme Court in 2006, which refused to hear the case! (on another technicality)

Hopefully, Bill Walker, or some other group, will reorganize for another run at the courts.

But don’t you agree that this is the best reason yet, and proof positive, that we badly need Congressional Term Limits ?

Nelson Lee Walker
tenurecorrupts.com Comment

061004 WHY DID THE FOUNDERS OMIT TERM LIMITS ?

Our Founding Fathers visualized Congress made up of ordinary citizens, elected by their peers, to serve one, two, or three terms, then returning to their ordinary previous pusuits, such as being farmers, artisans, merchants, or other private activities. They certainly did not think of Congress as a permanent career opportunity for a class of professional politicians. In those days, Congressmen were paid only a token salary, had very poor accommodations, no perks, and very little press. The Founders knew from their English history, that tenure corrupts. They expected that elected representatives, whether good or bad, had best serve for only a brief period, and then leave office in favor of fresh faces, and fresh ideas (and be glad to go home).

The Founders did not believe legislators would or could serve forever. Voters wouldn’t allow that !

Some people think that the Founders left term limits out of the Constitution because they didn’t think it would be a good idea. Quite the contrary!. Rotation in office was a very important issue for them. It was an unfortunate incident which caused them, in 1787, to postpone deciding the issue.

During the Founders’ time under the Articles of Confederation, which did include term limits for legislators, an ugly debate occurred when the Rhode Island delegation refused to vacate their seats when their terms expired. It was the residual effects of the very bad feelings from that incident which caused the Convention to omit any reference to term limits in the new Constitution. Rather than risk undoing all their hard work with a 'failed' Convention, they opted to leave that issue for another day.

We can see that term limits was as divisive an issue then as it is today.

Apparently, for all their intellectual brilliance, the Founders never suspected that Congress would learn how to ‘beat the system’, make their jobs very rewarding, and fix it so that they could stay in their jobs indefinitely. They assumed that the voters would not let that happen, and that future voters would use Article V to amend the Constitution to include term limits in some form.

However, they made one mistake. When they composed Article V in the new Constitution, they left the ‘real power' of amendment almost completely in the hands of Congress. Thus, it is difficult for voters to get a Term Limits Amendment directly out of a very reluctant Congress, and it is difficult for voters to indirectly get Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments.

It is past time for the voters to re-enter this debate, and to finish the job. Many of the Founders wanted ‘rotation in office’, but could not win it at the time. Now we can see that they were right. Congress is virtually a permanent ruling class (99% reelected in 3 of the last 4 elections!).

Voters must fight for a Congressional Term Limits Amendment.

Nelson Lee Walker
tenurecorrupts.com comment

060904 WHY THE SILENCE OF PUNDITS, EDITORS, AND BLOGGERS ?

It is a mystery to me that, in all the new ‘good government’ websites that I come across, I never find any that stress the fact that, in order to effect REAL reform, it is necessary to have a Congress made up of ‘citizen’ legislators, rather than the current crop of careerist professional politicians who grimly hang on to their jobs and the status quo. [1]

Additionally, in all the ‘sound and fury’ in editorials and blogs on all the issues on both sides of the political spectrum, nowhere does one see any suggestion that the overriding problems of good governance lie with the professional politicians, who are more interested in holding their seats permanently, than in constructively addressing the country's issues.

Why is there no recognition in the political media that we need Congressional Term Limits ? Why does no one recognize that Congressional service is not a legitimate permanent livelihood or career? Why do they not recognize that we need to churn the occupants of Congress to get fresh blood to keep our democracy healthy ? [6]

To eliminate professional politicians, it is necessary to change politics from being a livelihood or career, to merely a civic duty, where persons will try to change government for the better during a short stay, then return to private pursuits. That’s the way it was for the first 150 years of our history, before the enticements of politics became too good to give up. [2]

Politics as a livelihood, or a career, is a fundamental conflict of interest. When one is supposed to be a representative of the people, putting the people’s interest, or the country’s interest, before his own, he should not be in a position to be concerned about his job, or his reelection. [3]

In an attempt to correct this flaw in our country’s political framework, we should be stressing the idea that, to improve our government, we must change the character of our Congress, and the most direct way to do that is to enact a Congressional Term Limits Amendment. We must end the idea that Congressional service is a career, or that it is permissible to be reelected forever, even if you have the votes.

The voting public should be made aware that ever longer terms in Congress is dangerous to their freedom. Experience has shown that tenure corrupts ! And it is the duty of the editorial media and the blogosphere to end their silence, and to remind the voting public that entrenched power is dangerous.

It is toward this objective that the tenurecorrupts.com website [4] is dedicated. The site contains arguments (pro and con) for Congressional Term Limits, optional amendment wordings, links to similar sites, suggested actions people can take to help, etc. The site blog list has accumulated over two dozen articles on this one subject. (Boring perhaps, but focussed!). Recently, we have begun offering free Term Limits bumperstickers to all requesters. [5]

We would very much like to have you join us in discussions to exercise and expand on this idea, and to help spread the word !

Nelson Lee Walker
tenurecorrupts.com Comment

060813 READY TO VOTE OUT YOUR INCUMBENT?

If you REALLY want to get Congressional Term Limits enacted, you have got to commit to a plan of action, even if you have to hold-your-nose while doing it!

Are you ready to vote out YOUR incumbent ?

Many voters agree that Congress is made up of a bunch of sleazy professional politicians who have been in power much too long. And voters want them OUT!

But when it comes election time, voters can’t make up their mind to VOTE OUT THEIR OWN incumbent Senator or Congressman, because that might let the challenger from the OTHER party win!

Because of that kind of thinking, the career professional politicians get reelected 99% of the time, and stay in office forever.

But there is a way out of that box. It’s called the next-best-choice method.

Democrats should vote for Green Party (or equiv) candidates, instead of their incumbent Democrat candidate. Republicans should vote for Libertarian Party (or equiv) candidates, instead of their incumbent Republican candidate. And Independents should vote for anybody but the incumbent.

In the last few years, Senate incumbents have been reelected over 90% of the time! And House incumbents have been reelected 99% of the time! If enough voters use the next-best-choice method of voting, those high reelection rates will come down. If we do it for two or three elections in a row, we will get their attention. And the attention of the media. Even the challengers who got elected will know that the voters want Term Limits.

When voters get into the habit of voting out incumbents, then we will see a bill for a Term Limit Amendment in the Congress. And by that time, voters ‘will have the bit in their teeth’, and demand that it passes, and is sent to the states for ratification.

So voters, are you ready to vote out YOUR party’s incumbent ?

NELSON LEE WALKER of tenurecorrupts.com Comment

060809 A THIRD PARTY STRATEGY FOR TERM LIMITS?

I have been noticing that, in lots of elections lately, the race as been very, very tight.

This should be looked on, by voters who want to shake up the system, (such as us term limiters), as a golden opportunity to evict the incumbent.

Do you realize that, in close races, it only takes a ‘few’ voters to swing the results?

For example, when 100,000 or 1,000,000 voters are almost tied on each side, it could be a difference of 10, 100, or 1000 votes which make the difference.

When a challenger is in a reasonably close race with an incumbent, a concerted effort by voters who want to vote out incumbents, even if they don’t like to vote against their party, can defeat the incumbent by voting for a ‘next-best-thing’ challenger. (Even if they have to hold their nose while doing so!)

For example, a Democrat voter could vote for a Green Party challenger. A Republican voter could vote for a Libertarian challenger. An Independent voter could vote for either of those 3rd party challengers.

Besides helping to defeat incumbents, this also serves to raise the profiles of the 3rd parties, which would also get the attention of the dominant parties. If we do this to a noticeable degree, it will be analyzed and remarked upon by all the media, the pundits, the bloggers, and even the general public. If so, the battle is half-won. We got their attention!

And if we continue it for two or three more elections, we will get more and more voters doing the same. By that time, all hell will be breaking loose! And finally, the major media will be addressing Congressional Term Limits in their editorial columns.

Nelson Lee Walker of tenurecorrupts.com comment

060729 CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS, ANYONE? APPARENTLY NOT !

But why not ? It appears that there is too much news activity going on around the world, to get anyone interested in Congressional Term Limits. Despite the fact that local and statewide term limits are sweeping our country by 75% ballot victories, it's going to require some kind of ‘bombshell’ to get Congressional Term Limits any kind of respect from the national editorial media, or the blogs. Nobody writes about it. Why so?

The absence of Congressional Term Limits is a festering sore, a cancer, a disease that apparently dare not speak its name. Why the absence of commentary on this vital subject?

During the past 50 years, Congress has managed to improve its ability to get reelected close to 100% of the time, as compared to less than 60% in the previous 180 years. As a result, getting elected to Congress has practically become a lifetime ‘appointment’, just like the Supreme Court! Doesn't anyone consider a permanently 'elected' Congress a danger to our republic? Everyone 'knows' that tenure corrupts.

The growing success of state and local term limits nationwide is a testimony to the native commonsense of the American people. But they need the help of their so-called 'free press' to shame Congress into voting for a Term Limits Amendment.

Why doesn't our vaunted 'free press' pick up the baton?
Are they intimidated? How? Or why?

Nelson Lee Walker
tenurecorrupts.com comment