This is Daniel Hannan, who, if the UK has any chance at survival, will be the next occupant of #10 Downing Street. He is currently a member of the European Parliament, representing South East England. He was first elected to that position in 1999, and was re-elected in 2004. In April 2008, he was elected to the top position of the Conservative list for the 2009 elections. He blogs regularly at:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan
Here’s a sample from one of his recent blogs that got me thinking about, and longing for, term limits.
“… MPs these days tend to mess about in para-political jobs before standing for Parliament, as think-tankers, researchers, trade union officials, NGO agitators, party apparatchiks or lobbyists. Look at the current Cabinet. As far as I can work out, not one of its members has ever been involved in making anything or selling anything. Almost all are creatures of the public sector
“There are lots of useful ways to clean up Parliament. But making MPs wholly dependent on state spending is not one of them. The idea that being an MP ought to be a full-time job sounds reasonable, but is specious.
“Ideally, I'd like to go further, and have citizen legislators: that is, parliamentarians who meet for relatively few days each year and who, although they are compensated for their time, cannot expect to make a living from it, but are assumed to be carrying on with whatever they did before. Something similar happens in Switzerland, and the Swiss seem to be doing pretty well….”
________________________________
Here in the United States, Congressional efforts to limit the terms of members of the House and Senate lost their air in 1997, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be resuscitated. The Republican majority in Congress, in their 1994 “Contract With America,” initially declared term limits a priority, but that Congress failed to get the necessary votes for a constitutional amendment – which would be needed to mandate the limits.
Our House of Representatives today has 62 members who have “served” for more than 20 years. Nineteen of them have “served” for over 30 years, and two (both Democrats) for more than 40 years. Almost 58 percent of the Members have been there for 10 years. Does that sound good?
James Madison wrote: legislators should be “called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature and continued in appointment for a short term of office.” I don’t think he meant by “short term of office,” 40 years, 30 years, or even 20.
It has not always been so. From 1798 to 1901, the average number of terms served by House members was 2.18. From 1901 to 2002, the average number of terms per House member increased to 4.86, and since 1947 that number has increased to 5.84. In short, we are living under the “guidance” of professional legislators some of whom have never held a real job – let alone create a real job.
Jack Kemp always said that the best way to argue against a bad idea was to offer a good idea. So here's my good idea, and borrowing from Jonathan Swift, I'll call it a "Seven Step Modest Proposal to Improve Representation."
1. Members of the U. S. House of Representatives may serve only two (two year) terms in their lifetime, and those terms need not be served consecutively. They may thereafter serve in the U. S. Senate, but not in the term immediately succeeding their final term in the House.
2. Members of the U. S. Senate may serve only one six year term in their lifetime. They may thereafter serve two terms in the House of representatives but not in the term immediately succeeding their term in the Senate.
3. The House and the Senate will be modeled after the U. S. Military Reserve Force. Both Houses will meet in Washington D. C. one weekend each month, and for two weeks each summer. The weekend meetings, when possible, will be accomplished by way of telephone or video conferencing.
4. Each member of the House and Senate will have a full-time staff made up of two members in Washington D. C., and one in the home district. The Senate staff member may serve anywhere in the state, at the discretion of the Senator.
5. In order to be a candidate for either the House of Representatives or the Senate, the individual must have served in the U. S. Military. Those not eligible for active combat service must have served in some ancillary military capacity.
6. All candidates for seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate must pass an intelligence measuring test that demonstrates, at a minimum, competency in reading, writing, and balancing a checkbook.
7. All travel and living expenses of members of Congress in connection with their official duties will be reimbursed by the U. S. Treasury. Retirement and health insurance will not be provided, but a modest sum will be paid to each member, while serving, which can be used to contribute to any personal retirement or health insurance plan set up by the member.
Adoption of this modest proposal will, hopefully, lead to a new kind of legislator: one who will be motivated by service to country rather than by self aggrandizement. Their knowledge of the real world will serve them well as they legislate, and their legislative experience will make them even better citizens when they return to private life.
One of the principal arguments advanced against term limits, even less draconian than the above modestly proposed steps, is that such a Congress would not have nearly enough time to legislate. I would answer that argument with one word: EXACTLY!
