Term Limits?
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <1/12>

      As usual I have a little problem with this idea. I have no problem with limiting the terms of our illustrious representatives to Congress, rather I have a problem with why that is needed. The problem comes down to the policy of giving out committee chairmanships based upon the number of years on Congress.
      Why is that a problem? Because the committee chairmen have a power that makes objections to a 3/5ths majority to raise taxes pale in comparison. They have the power to prevent bills from coming to a vote.
      So while people are complaining that term limits are unconstitutional, that a 3/5ths majority for tax increases in unconstitutional, we have a situation where a simgle committee controlled by a single person along party lines can stop any and all legislation assigned to his committee.
      Now to my mind a committee or subcommittee should have two functions. The first should be to set up an honest priority system as to which of the submitted bills it will work on (and preferably consolidate many into a few for a vote on the pieces of it on the floor). The second is to put the sumitted legislation into the form of a bill that is suitable for floor debate and vote. Both of these are grunt work. That is what committees are for.
      No one in their right mind really wants to be on a committee. In the real world people have to be bribed with expense paid meetings in exotic places to be on them. They are hours of tedious wrangling.
      Yet the committees in Congress are not like that at all. People work to get on them. There is a system where the most senior get on the "best" committees and the most senior of them by majority party becomes chairman. And these "best" committees are the ones with the greatest workload. These are obviously different from the committees the rest of us are familiar with.
      If we presume these are rational people we then have to presume these committees are not quite the committees the rest of the world has come to know and hate.
      And the difference? They are not grunt work committees. So, as the problem is that committees have too much power, in fact the chairman has more power than the entire body of the Congress, why are we nibbling around the edges with term limits when the essential problem is that committees have powers they have no buisness having?
      A committee should have a job of bringing as much legislation in good form to the floor of Congress as expeditiously as possible and nothing more. The committee, including the chairman, that does not do that should be replaced as expeditiously as possible.
      Every problem we have with seniority has not been with seniority itself but with the powers of congressional committees. By its own rules congress can change the powers of committees and make them into what they should be. We do not need to be delving into the term limits nonsense or even the internal limits upon the position of chairman.
      In one swell foop without any constitutional amendment, without any incitement of a national debate, every reason for discussing term limits could be eliminated by congress. But that is not the case. In fact quite the opposite. The new committee members and chairmen seem quite willing to continue in their positions of power.
      The balanced budget amendment languished in the House Ways and Means Committee for some twenty years almost bringing on a Constitutional Convention. Why was something much less than even a simple majority permitted to do that? And what are the plans for eliminating that power? None of course.
      If this is not to be business as usual Congress, let us see this change before the new committee members become comfortable with their new power.