Opinion: Politicians' constant running interrupts office task

Nov. 7 is not Election Day; Nov. 7 is the first day of the 2008 congressional campaign.

This is just not working. It is my opinion the every-two-year election process for members of the House of Representatives has morphed into a political morass with incumbents slogging around in a slurry of pork and promise.

You see, the problem is, they are constantly running for office.

For instance, in the waning moments before Congress made its way to airports for the frenetic last trip home to stay employed, this body of legislators passed the “Secure Fence Act.” By a 283-138 vote, this legislation, which was written just 24 hours earlier, obligates this nation to construct a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border as a smart response to the difficult issue of undocumented workers who permanently reside in the United States.

The passion for some legislative response was so intense that the people who represent us forgot one item in the bill: how to fund it. That’s right; this legislation has no provision for the $7 billion to actually fund putting up this fence.

But both sides can now weigh in with sound bites for the evening news: “It is essential to do this today to tell the American people we have got the message” (Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.) and “We have been awash in talk of reform … but seven weeks before the election, we see the majority has labored long and produced a mouse” (Rep. David Obey, D-Wis.).

Cyclical problems

There are three problems with our present every-two-year cycle of electing members to Congress.

First, if everyone in Congress is essentially trying to hold on to political power from the moment they take the oath, no one has the time or interest in what is best for the country.

If you want an illustration, look at the practice of earmarks. Earmarks are special-interest spending amendments that make it possible for both parties to guarantee there is serious cash shipped home this congressional session. From $50 million bridges that go nowhere to new highways that suddenly end in a cornfield, members of Congress have learned votes always follow the pork.

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) recently said, “The politics of earmark reform is a lot bigger than the substance of earmark reform.” If you are running for office all the time, the politics will barge in on every decision.

For example, the millions of undocumented aliens within our borders produce significant moral, security and economic problems. This conundrum needs a smart response. People from both parties have to sit down and design a national response without the predominant concern of whether or not “I can get some cash to send home.”

Corruption

This leads to the second problem: corruption. Right now, you and I have given this Congress a 31 percent approval rating. Our disgust with their inability to work for us is driven by consistent headlines screaming perks, favors and entitlements.

The footprints of the Jack Abramoff-lookalike special interest lobbyists have yet to be found. Both parties have been embarrassed by the free Gulfstream jet trips to Europe, the $115,000 salaries for spouses who have never showed up one day for work and the “escort services” that were gladly paid by some company that got a favorable vote on an appropriation bill. The list goes on and on.

If you are running for office all the time, and keep getting re-elected, ethical hearing is distorted by the mantra, “What’s the big deal? They love me!”

Finally, the problem with our present system is that kingdom-building will always silence new voices. Out of the 435 chairs that are up for election this year, only 24 of the seats are politically insecure. In other words, the challenges for the vast majority of the seats in Congress are protected by a well-honed “machine.”

Now, here is the genius of our democracy. We can decide to dismantle the machine.

Sure, we always have the potential to “throw the bums out.” And, sure, there will always be cyclical swings in our political history.

But here is a more reasoned approach. Why not, every two years, ask these three questions, regardless of party affiliation.

• Has the person who has been representing me abused my trust by openly amassing political power or financial gain?

• Is my representative a smart person who has gladly severed his political affiliation in order to make the right decision for our nation?

• Is my congressional representative giving me messages today that Nov. 7 is the first day of his next campaign?

Cal LeMon of Executive Enrichment Inc. solves organizational problems with customized training and consulting. He can be reached at execenrichment@aol.com.[[In-content Ad]]