The Career Politician Virus

Summary

The United States is no longer the representative democracy our Founders conceived because of a glaring flaw in our constitution: it allows individuals to make a career of public office. Career politicians have an inherent conflict of interest between serving so that they are re-elected and serving their constituents in a way not clouded by ambition. Support single term limits to eliminate this problem by voting against the incumbent.

Key Points:

• Career politicians face a stark conflict between their own ambitions and their responsibility as representatives of the American people.
• Careerists gradually lose their principles in acceding to campaign contributors, heeding opinion polls and following their political party line.
• Careerism affects abuses in campaign funding, the undue influence of special interests, bloated bureaucracy and entitlements, convoluted tax code, failure to handle the immigration issues, and much, much more.
• We have been misled into thinking that members of the opposing political party are the adversaries, while it is the career politicians, skillfully looking out for themselves, who are the bad guys.
• A remedy to the destructive career politician is a limit of one term in office.

 

Article

Why do candidates for Congress spend millions of dollars for an office that pays $169,200.00? Between 2004 and 2006, members of Congress’ net worth increased an average of 84% – book advances, speaking engagements, stock and land deals, privileged mortgages, etc.

In the 1780s, Alexander Tyler stated that democracy was a transitory form of government. The University of Edinburgh professor wrote: “[Democracy] can only exist until voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.” (Bold and italics added for emphasis.)

The United States is no longer the representative democracy our founders conceived because of a glaring flaw in our Constitution: it allows individuals to make a career of public office. This creates a critical conflict of interest for politicians between their own ambitions and their responsibility as representatives of the American people. Office-holders become career politicians the moment they seek re-election. Then, their primary efforts are fulfilling this goal at our expense.

The average length of time senators are in office is almost 13 years, while representatives average 10 years. The U.S. Senators who have served the longest at the present time are: Robert Byrd – 48 years; Edward Kennedy – 44 years; Daniel Inouye – 44 years; and Theodore Stevens – 38 years. The individuals in the U.S. House of Representatives who have served the longest are: John Dingell, Jr. – 50 years; John Conyers, Jr. – 41 years; Charles Rangel – 35 years; Paul Sarbanes – 35 years; and Ralph Regula – 33 years. How often, in their long careers, have they acted to preserve their positions at the expense of their country?

These “careerists” gradually lose their principles in acceding to campaign contributors, heeding opinion polls, and following their political party’s line. These entrenched legislators can arrogantly oppose sitting Presidents of the United States, knowing they will be in office when his term ends. Career Congressional members, many of whom have been in office most of their adult lives, have usurped much of the sovereignty of the electorate. This has become a government of the people, by the politicians, and for the special interests, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln.

There are irresistible motivations — power and fame — compelling politicians to run for re-election. Power is an aphrodisiac for an individual’s ego. The monetary gains — both while in office and after — are extensive. Belonging to the Congress of the United States, the world’s most exclusive club, is an honor limited to very few. The Congressional seniority system reinforces members’ aspirations, as the power and privileges of this body are determined not by competence but by seniority. Chairing the important committees, commanding the best office spaces, and enjoying larger support staffs are just some of the benefits enjoyed by the most senior members of Congress. With these perks as incentives, zealous lawmakers employ damaging campaign tactics that protect their seats.

In the mid-term 2006 elections, candidates spent approximately $2.6 billion on advertising. Careerists use any means possible to raise the huge campaign chests they need to stay in office, which includes accommodating special interests and their nearly 34,750 registered lobbyists (an astounding 72 lobbyists per legislator). Unquestionably, money begets legislative representation.

Their interminable need for money makes careerists vulnerable to outside influences. Between 2004 and 2006, members of Congress’ net worth increased an average of 84 percent – book advances, speaking engagements, stock and land deals, privileged mortgages, etc. Incumbents incur binding obligations to special interest groups who supply their campaign funds. Our congressmen don’t represent us; they represent the special interest groups who bankroll them.

As a result, career politicians spend more time campaigning than doing their jobs. And their unelected staff members often improperly represent us because the office-holders are out pounding the campaign trail.

Self-serving, entrenched Republican and Democratic politicos create costly and harmful programs to secure votes. These programs increase Americans’ reliance upon the government, while diminishing our initiative, self-sufficiency, and self-esteem. The average employed American is paying higher payroll taxes than income taxes — for programs from which he or she may never be the beneficiary. These programs, such as unemployment insurance, welfare, Social Security, and Medicare, make recipients completely dependent on the government.

Incumbents seek “earmarks” and “pork” to reinforce their constituents’ loyalty at the polls. Earmarks are expenses that conference committees attach, without a vote by Congress, to approved spending bills. In 2004 and 2005, there were an astonishing 15,268 earmarks that squandered over $40 billion from the U.S. Treasury on non-essential projects, such as the infamous “Alaskan bridge to nowhere.” And in 2007, despite all the political posturing about reform, there was $10 billion of wasteful pork — with the House Appropriation Committee alone writing over $4 billion in earmarks as of November 2007. The average pork for each member of the House was $9.6 million; the Appropriation Committee’s average was $28.6 million per member.

These funds would be better used to significantly reduce our national debt. Instead, members of both political parties indulge in this underhanded funding, while self-serving legislators use their earmarks, an unnecessary waste our tax money, to support their ambitions to remain in office.

LET'S REUNITE OUR POLARIZED NATION