Reforming Congress -- but not like this

Some of you may have received, as I recently did, a chain e-mail letter addressing the need for reform of Congress. I have not passed it on, as requested, for it is ripe with bad ideas. Suffer me to comment on it point by point.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
I don’t agree with Congressional term limits. True, there are several living fossils that I would love to see retired (as well as some obnoxious new-bies) but it is up to their constituents to do the retiring, not you or me. Term limits impose arbitrary constraints and also imply that a representative or senator is expected to serve x years. There is no reason why their constituents should not retain them so long as they are contributing and effective; no reason not to turn them out immediately if not.

2. No Tenure / No Pension: A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
This is harsh. People of talent in industry get some sort of retirement program. If we want good people in government, and most of them are bright, well intentioned, and could be working elsewhere, we ought to provide them a competitive income and a retirement program of some sort.

Currently, Senators and representatives earn $174,000/yr. The Speaker gets an additional $49,000; majority and minority leaders, an added $19,000. Not lavish by industrial and, certainly not, by financial standards. I was earning more than that 20 years ago, and I am not as capable as many of our representatives and senators.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security: All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
There is a lot of false mythology out there about retirement benefits and Social Security. For example, I believed, before researching this, that a Representative would receive a life pension of 100% of salary if only having served one two-year term. Wholly false, it turns out; an urban myth.

Since 1985, all members of congress regardless of when elected participate in Social Security, just as do all wage and salaried Americans. In addition, they have a contributory retirement system as do all Federal workers. Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to qualify for any pension. The amount of a Member's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
Well, of course, not all Americans purchase their own retirement plan. The ignorant assumptions underlying this statement defy response. Congress members can participate in IRA’s just as can you and I, if they choose.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
The 27th amendment of the Constitution mandates that Congressional pay raises go into effect after the end of their term. I understand the angst about self-rewarded pay raises, but dislike arbitrary ceilings or automatic raises.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
Good notion. But which one is that exactly? No question, there should be equity on this hot topic, and members of Congress should be in the same boat as most of us.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
What is this? Last I knew, the law applies to all. I don’t know from what laws they are exempt. This idea is driven either by an assumption or by some exemption of which I am unaware. Reader: educate me in comments below, please.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11: The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
This “Reform Act” is an near-hysterical pitch based upon faulty premises. It ignores the complexity and challenge of legislating for 320 millions rather than the 4 million of 1790, for 50 states rather than the then 14, for an area that spans six time zones rather than the one that then extended only to the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. And the demands become more complex and confusing each year as the rest of the world’s 6 billions press upon us. Does not “go back to work” imply a deep disdain for what we ask them to deal with?

This “Reform Act” proposal focuses on the Members rather than on the system in which we have entrapped them. It is the system that needs to be reformed so that they can do "the work of the people” (an obnoxious phrase, coined by Clinton or “W” I think; it grates on me as arrogant and self-righteous.) But we do need reforms so that they can focus; have time to think, read and reflect; and work on national needs and concerns. The tar-babies that we and they can’t let go of: campaign costs and two-year terms.

Money: we must reform, constitutionally, the reliance on private and donated funds for waging a campaign. Santa Clara County v. The Santa Fe Railroad Company (1886) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976), together have given corporations the rights of individuals to free speech and made money the equivalent of speech. This has turned congress into a sandbox in which corporations and associations can play to their hearts content. They ”play” through paid lobbyists and by writing checks. Members of Congress, especially representatives, have to dance to the tune of big money every day of their short terms if they are to be re-elected, which they want to be in order to achieve whatever drove them into public service in the first place.

Terms: not limits, but revision. The founders’ congressional terms were four months the first year and three months the second. Even as late as 1933, Roosevelt’s famous “first hundred days” were the product of a Congress that was in session for only 100 days. In these complex times, we need to give representatives at least three years, if not four, in which to learn their jobs and make a mark. Perhaps we should consider raising the President’s term to five years, if it takes more than one session of the House to get his or her ideas enacted.

The reforms we need should be aimed at facilitating good governance, not at punishing able people who (God knows why) are attracted to working in Congress to improve our society through law. Studies of representatives and senators show they are bright and well intentioned. Sure, they have huge egos (535 high school class presidents all talking in one building – OMG!) but nobody seeks that role for a mere $174,000 and all the grief and abuse they and their families can stomach. They really believe they can serve the country and its public.

Our challenge is to get the best out of them; this proposed “Reform Act” is not the way.