Terms Limits in Congress

West Virginia Senator Robert C. Byrd died while in office at the age of 92. Some great milestones were reached for him: longest on a Senate committee, longest serving Senator and oldest Senator. He is most well-remembered for one thing in particular: his great love for pork. The committee that he spent the most time on was the Senate Appropriations Committee, serving over half a century there. (This committee, which is the largest of such, determines what projects and states are to receive funding and by what amount.)

His legacy is large: from 1991 to the present, the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) have noted almost $4 billion "earmarked" by Senator Byrd, which means that almost $210 million were secured each year for projects for his constituents (note that while this money is often tacked onto committee bills, this is not universal. Many earmarks are from funds already to be distributed and the allocations are "carved out" of this amount).

For those thinking that this must be an extreme example of the species senatus americanus, the conservative watch group above only awarded Byrd its highest monthly "honor" (for most disgraceful earmarking) four times and its yearly "honor" once. His reputation for pork-spending comes as he has been around long enough for all the WV buildings with his name on it to catch some attention. Now, the Committee was established for purposes to separate funds for government agencies annually, and to do so is admirable. I fear that those who serve for a great deal of time in these (or any) government positions misuse the responsibility they have sworn to honor.

As my father and I were discussing during dinner, as we often do, he brought up the idea of short Congressional tenures, lasting two terms if they are approved of by their constituents. I agree with the suggestion. This would limit time for earmarking, behind-doors wrangling and, I would hope, get rid of the idea of the Senate as a retirement home of lawmakers. With little time for positive good, they may strive more fervently to be recognized as a benefit to their people.

Note the 22nd amendment to the Constitution, only ratified in 1951, which fixes a limit of two to the terms which a President may serve. Before that, only Washington's precedent served as a guide for presidents. To set a limit on Congressional terms by the Constitution would not violate precedent- but it would never be passed by the Congress themselves.

(Information gathered from http://byrd.senate.gov/assets/pdf/BYRD%20RECORDS.pdf, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics) , http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/death-robert-byrd-speall-end-pork-barrel-politics/story?id=11034377&page=2, http://appropriations.senate.gov/about-jurisdiction.cfm, and http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2010/cagw-remembers-king-of-pork.html. For a defense of earmarking (not too terrible) read the Wikipedia page.)