Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 18, 1992 TAG: 9203180332
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The attempted cover-up, engineered by the House Democratic leadership, of the check-kiting scandal (dubbed "Rubbergate") and the Supreme Court decision upholding California's term-limits law for state legislators have fueled the clamor for political reform that is sweeping the nation like wildfire and is now licking at the steps of the U.S. Capitol.
The latest ABC News-Washington Post Poll shows that public disapproval of Congress has reached a staggering high of 73 percent.
This fall, more than a dozen states will have term-limit proposals on their ballots. Proponents are gathering signatures on petitions in 18 other states in hopes of putting term limits before the voters in future elections. The petition drive in Florida is headed by a group called "Eight Is Enough." In these environmentally aware times, recycling trash and Congress seems to have broad appeal.
Entrenched members of Congress have created what the Cato Institute's Ed Crane has called a "culture of ruling." Policies that benefit the country are ignored in favor of those that perpetuate a member in office. The special interest, not the general welfare, has become supreme, and the most special interest of all is the elected official's.
Members of Congress spend more than $100 million a year on self-promoting mail whose major purpose is to win them re-election. An additional $3 million annually goes to pay for the House and Senate Recording Studios, which allow members to produce their own video and audio releases for local broadcasting stations to enhance their visibility and electability. To paraphrase Calvin Coolidge, the business of Congress is the re-election business.
Term limits would again make government the servant of the people, not the reverse. As Founding Father Roger Sherman said, Congress should be composed of "citizen legislators" who "ought to return home and mix with people. By remaining at the seat of government, they would acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those of their constituents."
Opponents pretend that term limitation is something new. Not only do we have the 22nd Amendment, which limits the president to two terms, 31 states have limited the terms of their governors; three states - Oklahoma, Colorado and California - have limited the terms of their state legislators, and Colorado went a step further: limiting the terms of its congressional delegation. The terms of city council members have been limited in Kansas City, Mo., San Jose, Calif., and Wichita, Kan.
Arguing for ratification of the 22nd Amendment 40 years ago, a Washington Post editorial said it was necessary to limit presidential terms because of "power-grabbing officials common enough in both history and current world experience to warrant this safeguard."
Opponents say that if term limits take effect, only "rookies" will be in Congress. But how far has experience gotten us? Congress has been unable to balance the budget in two decades.
Opponents argue that voters' choices will be restricted by term limits. In fact, they will be expanded as more people run because they would have a better chance to win. Of the 406 incumbents who ran in 1990, 79 were unopposed, and, according to Common Cause, 158 more incumbents ran financially unopposed - that is, the challenger raised less than $25,000. The congressional turnover rate has fallen to record lows. From highs of 60 percent in the 19th century, the turnover rate dropped to 7.6 percent, the lowest ever, in the 1988 election.
Vice President Quayle has been campaigning for term limits for the last two years. If President Bush would make the issue a central part of his re-election strategy, it could be a major accomplishment of his administration. He ought not to let this winter of voter discontent over Congress pass him by.
Los Angeles Times Syndicate
by CNB