All of these issues sound great. It's just sad that the Executive Branch cannot delilver on almost every one of them.

Congress writes the laws, controls the checkbook, and holds the hearings. The Executive Branch may have some element of "leadership," but in the end gets its orders from Congress. It may not seem like it to listen to the candidates and the spin doctors, but that's how the Constitution has it.

I've read a lot of complaints on this board about energy policy, border security, immigration, the Iraq War (which Congress keeps funding - and they have access to all of the classified information the public never sees) and many other matters. While Congress as a whole gets slammed, individual congresspersons continue being re-elected so often they become permanent fixtures in many neighborhoods in DC, Maryland and Virginia - and visit their districts with just enough pork-barrel funding to keep the votes coming.

If you REALLY want change, there are already term limits on the Presidency. This is just the list of the Members of the House who have served ten consecutive terms or longer:
27 Terms, Consecutive - John Dingell, MI
22 Terms, Consecutive - John Conyers Jr., MI
20 Terms, Consecutive - David Obey, WI
19 Terms, Consecutive - Charles B. Rangel, NY; C.W. Bill Young, FL
18 Terms, Consecutive - Ralph Regula, OH; Fortney “Pete” Stark, CA; Don Young, AK; John P. Murtha, PA
17 Terms, Consecutive - George Miller, CA; James L. Oberstar, MN; Henry Waxman, CA; Edward J. Markey, MA
16 Terms, Consecutive - Norman Dicks, WA; Dale Kildee, MI; Nick Rahall, WV; Ike Skelton, MO
15 Terms Consecutive Jerry Lewis, CA; James Sensenbrenner Jr., WI; Thomas Petri, WI
14 Terms Consecutive David Dreier, CA; Barney Frank, MA; Ralph Hall, TX; Duncan Hunter, CA; Harold Rogers, KY; Christopher Smith, NJ ; Frank Wolf, VA; Steny Hoyer, MD
13 Terms, Consecutive Howard Berman, CA; Rick Boucher, VA; Dan Burton, IN; Marcy Kaptur, OH; Sander Levin, MI; Alan Mollohan, WV ; Solomon Ortiz, TX; John Spratt, Jr., SC; Edolphus Towns, NY; Gary Ackerman, NY; James Saxton, NJ
12 Terms Consecutive Joe Barton, TX; Howard Coble, NC; Bart Gordon, TN; Paul Kanjorski, PA; Peter Visclosky, IN
11 Terms, Consecutive Peter DeFazio, OR; Elton Gallegly, CA; Wally Herger, CA; John Lewis, GA; Louise Slaughter, NY; Lamar Smith, TX; Fred Upton, MI; Nancy Pelosi, CA; Christopher Shays, CT; Jim McCrery, LA; Jerry Costello, IL; Frank Pallone Jr., NJ; John Duncan Jr., TN
10 Terms, Consecutive Eliot Engel, NY; Nita Lowey, NY; Jim McDermott, WA; Michael McNulty, NY; Richard Neal, MA; Donald Payne, NJ; Dana Rohrabacher, CA; Cliff Stearns, FL; John Tanner, TN; James Walsh, NY; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, FL;Gary “Gene” Taylor, MS; José Serrano, NY; Robert Andrews, NJ

Above are 65 reasons Congress gets nothing done, yet these folk have become institutions on a two-year recurring contract. That's fabulous job security for them, and they have in their ranks the biggest whiners and complainers in the world - all of whom have made a 20-to-54 year career campaigning for "change."

Three big issues: 1) when will Congress "change?" 2) when will Congress "change?" and 3) I think you can guess that one....

SteveZ,
There are very few members on this site that posts material that is always informative and a pleasure to read as you do. I truly enjoy your posts!!

ditto about steve's very good posts! and he always does it in a non-partisan and non-inflammatory way...very tactful!

SteveZ. I wrote many of these long term US Senators and Representatives back in 1991 about the University of Minnesota Law Library's putting my mental health in question on and off for months in 1991 when I just told them I wanted to be honest with potential employers about my interest in doing something about a niche in access to practical information for survivors of crimes.

As my then high school teacher's daughter Michelle Mitchell had been murdered on my birthday of 2-24 in 1976 in Reno, Nevada, this was something very hard for me just to ignore especially as I had discovered this niche in libraries while looking for material to help my teacher's family and fellow high school English students at Earl Wooster High School in the Spring of 1976 cope with this murder. The Michelle Mitchell murder was also something with very heavy press in Northern Nevada from February 25, 1976 through at least 1985. I went to law school at the U of MN in 1986.

Most of these Members of Congress gave me the runaround of my having to contact my particular Senator and/or Representative for my Congressional district. This was the ones for Minnesota when I started this.

The niche in practical information for survivors of crimes is still there at many U.S. law and public libraries even though they do have a lot more than they did than back in 1991 but many of the same Members of Congress are there also.

I even remember a July 6, 1996 or so (or maybe it was 1995) report from CBS news from their national broadcast that the Library of Congress of all places was using this tactic of putting people who they saw as troublemakers mental health in question as a what they called very effective means of controlling their employees. The CBS national news said that this tactic was a favorite one of totalitarian regimes like the Soviets before the Iron Curtain came down.

Tal,

If I had a dime for every time I got a straight answer from a politician, I wouldn't have enough to make a phone call today.

The only "power" I found I had was at the ballot box. BS me once and it's the last vote you get.

When a 2-year job becomes a 20-30-40-50-57 year career, something's wrong. There must be someone else in those districts worth a hoot.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with the idea that troublemakers are institutionalized as a matter of policy. if that was the case, I would have been rubber-roomed a couple of decades ago.

Steve,

Great Post. So true. They must have a great dental plan.

There are several problems identified in the above posts...

Terms for members of Congress are too long and should be limited

Members of Congress are not responsive to our needs and wants.

My observations:

1)* If the voters could develop a consensus, we would limit the terms of office.* But will we?* Are we united and motiviated enough to limit terms?* I don't think so.* And if we were, would we create a bunch of "lame ducks" by eliminating a major incentive for their good performance - a chance at reelection?

2) Members of Congress who are continually reelected are apparently performing well enough to either a) satisfy the people who care enough to vote and be involved in "the system" in other ways, or b) fool the people who care enough to vote.* The basic problem is that the "voters" don't care enough to be engaged in their government to the extent necessary to provide the required oversight and demand accountability.* It is like a corporate Board of Directors being preoccupied to the point of ignoring the mismanagement of a CEO.

3) Could it be that we are expecting the Federal Government in general, and Congress in particular to do too much - to do too many different things?* If we are continually disappointed by the performance of either an elected official, an employee, or a business, we seek change.* Using a local government example, if a private entity can provide a particular service better, e.g. solid waste collection or water treatment plant operation, they outsource.* There are too many things we expect our federal government to do.* The more we expect them to do, the worse the service becomes.* Why?* Frankly, the federal government is the wrong institution for doing many of the things we are expecting it to do. And at the same time we complain about high taxes.* Sounds unrealistic to me!* We have to look to ourselves as voters and consumers of government services.* Have we (the "collective, corporate we ;D)* become fat (figuratively speaking, of course), lazy, complacent, and uncreative?* Is it easier to be complainers then to pursue alternatives when we [unrealistically] expect the federal government or Congress to be responsible for our welfare?

Originally Posted by gfmucci

1) If the voters could develop a consensus, we would limit the terms of office. But will we? Are we united and motiviated enough to limit terms? I don't think so. And if we were, would we create a bunch of "lame ducks" by eliminating a major incentive for their good performance - a chance at reelection?

It's SUPPOSED to be a temporary job, not a career. The reward for doing a good job as a congressperson is to get back into the work world - or elsewhere in government - and progress to something else. Right now it's the best stagnant job there is. I'm not sure I'd want an employee who showed no incentive to progress. that being the case, why would I want a congressperson who only wanted reelection above all else?

Health Care
Education
Fair Trade that Promotes American Jobs