If we’re really looking for a change in Washington politics then it must be done at the core of the cancer and not just by substituting a new face or different political party in the highest office. A number of my friends have had some intriguing ideas on how to create real systemic change:
My buddy Paul has suggested that a team is more important than an individual presidential or vice presidential contender. To this end he argues that each candidate name his potential team in ample time before the election. The President’s intended cabinet would be made public and voters could choose a lineup instead of an individual. Critical positions such as the Secretaries of Defense, State, Energy and Education are far more crucial in today’s world as opposed to only a few decades ago.
My friend Richard is compulsive about waste in government and cannot point to any program that is administered efficiently. In the sea of mediocrity that swamps government administration, we often find agencies responsible for billions of budget dollars run not by a senior, competent executive but by a party hack, a large contributor or a friend of someone in a high office.
Richard makes the point that distributing government dollars is a business and not a rote exercise. In spite of potentially inciting electorate revolt, he believes that hiring competent business people at commensurate salaries to run these agencies would result in huge savings by eliminating fraud, waste and introducing efficiencies. If someone is paid a salary of $1 million a year and saves the government billions, it seems this would make a lot of sense.
My pal Lynn is an anti-lobbying fanatic. Let’s face it, lobbying in spite of recent restrictions has become a flagrant form of corruption. Jack Abramoff may be in jail but that doesn’t mean 100 or even a 1,000 of his clones aren’t still in Washington. Lynn thinks that campaign contributions by lobbying organizations are simply bribes. No one would contribute to a Congressperson’s campaign and expect that individual to vote against the lobbying organization’s interests. We have laws in this nation that prohibit bribes to foreign government officials and yet our own system allows well-funded pimps to have direct and immediate access to our lawmakers to a far greater extent than the general public.
My own nemesis is the lack of term limits in Congress. Any good organization should incorporate a blend of fresh exuberance with experience. At one end of the spectrum a continual flow of new faces could foster some serious mistakes. At the other end of the range, Congress members having served for decades become encrusted in the past and can be sluggish about changing circumstances in an ever-changing world. Two current examples: Charles Rangel, age 78 (D-New York), and Ted Stevens, age 84 (R-Alaska), both of whom are coincidently embroiled in alleged cases of misconduct. Both have become imbued in the system, both have perpetuated it and both should leave their long legislative careers as a memory.
I believe this country would be a better place if any of the above ideas were implemented and enforced. Unfortunately, Congress would need to police itself should any serious correction be enacted to the system—an iffy proposition at best.
I have heard change and reform as the buzzwords in every election since I began voting. In the words of Albert Einstein, “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.”
Tags: Change Congress, End Lobbying, Radical Concepts, Term Limits
September 20, 2008 at 5:01 pm |
Lou,
I have been pondering the term limit issue for a while.
Fundamentally, the need for fresh faces with new ideas must be balanced with the benefit of experience, age and wisdom. This is a tricky balance to achieve in any organization, but especially so in a legislative branch like the US Congress.
The current system (without term limits) fosters a class of “professional politician”, who if successful, serves for life. Once elected, their primary motivation quickly becomes job security, i.e. continuing to get reelected. As I see it, the underlying problem is that the longer a congressman or senator is in office, the greater the likelihood of corruption by special interest groups – either for personal monetary gain, to garner more personal power, or most importantly, money to fill the campaign coffers to facilitate reelection. The longer they are in office, the greater the probability of being reelected. Thus, the deck becomes stacked in favor of incumbents at election time, which inhibits the infusion of new people.
If we think beyond the issue of balancing fresh blood with experience, we come to a flaw perhaps greater than the term limits. That is the concentration of power resulting from the seniority system. Due to the house and Senate rules, committee assignments are based on party politics. More importantly, the chairmanships are based upon seniority. The real power resides in the chairmen of the important committees. It seems almost impossible to unseat a powerful committee chairman.
So, instead of term limits, the country might be far better served if the committee assignments were based upon experience and qualifications, and chairmen were rotated on a regular basis. I think this would make term limits a moot point. Reducing the concentration of power among the longer tenured legislators would improve the a balance of experience vs. new people, plus reduce the potential for corruption.
Of course, such procedural change has less of a chance to be enacted than term limits!
Cheers, Mike
September 20, 2008 at 7:27 pm |
Dear Mike,
I agree about the absolute political power welded by committee chairmen and this is how one party’s majority takes control of nearly every aspect of government. Seniority has been the yardstick for both parties which is the basic working of government. Elevated positions usually have nothing to do with competence.
Charles Rangel, the Chairman of The Ways and Means Committee seemed to have forgotten his summer house may have been a taxable entity. That can happen but it should not happen to the most powerful person in charge of taxing.
As we seem destined to remain a two party system, maybe one should consider legislation that 30% of the Cabinet positions and the Chairmanships should be awarded to the minority party.
Best regards,
Lou