Term Limits

In answer to Nicholas Beaudrot's question about term-limits for congressional committee chairs I don't think such limits are optimal policy. They are, however, superior to the leading alternative -- strict seniority. The main impact of term limits is to enhance the power of the congressional leadership vis-a-vis committee chairs. That's because all fairly senior members know that there's bound to be a reasonable amount of limits-related churn, making the leaders' views on what your next assignment should be very important.

This, in turn, is an important thing to do because the US government simply has too many veto points -- bicameralism, the need for presidential ascent, strong judicial review, and fairly strong federalism make it quite difficult to legislate in the United States. The era of strong committee chairs (and of strong committees) introduced even more veto points into the system, giving special interests extraordinary ability to frustrate popular general-interest legislation. Term limits have led to stronger leadership and weaker committee chairs and that's a good thing, even if ideally you might achieve that same result some other way.

Comments

So the reason to get rid of strict committee seniority is the same reason for getting rid of the legislative filibuster: it's one of the veto-point arrangements that's not hard-written into the constitution and so can be easily disposed of.

Posted by otto | January 7, 2007 9:25 PM

bicameralism, the need for presidential ascent, strong judicial review,...

Did you really mean 'ascent' or did you mean 'assent'? The sentence (almost) makes sense either way.

Posted by Dave Howard | January 7, 2007 9:36 PM

"The main impact of term limits is to enhance the power of the congressional leadership vis-a-vis committee chairs."

Yup.

"Term limits have led to stronger leadership and weaker committee chairs and that's a good thing"

Well, that all depends on who the chairs are.

40 years ago, the committee chairs were Southern conservatives. Today, the committee chairs are urban liberals.

If you're interested in more funding for mass transit, as well as a whole host of non-majoritarian policies that would benefit urban America, then term limits are actually a very bad thing.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2007 10:08 PM

The idea of seniority rank--that relative power in Congress is personalized--has always troubled me. After all, it is the citizens of the district who are entitled to their say in Congress. The member of Congress is, literally, only the representative of the citizens of that district. Along the same idea that this is supposed to be a goverment of laws, not of men, it seems to me improper that the citizens of a district would gain or lose institutionalized stature within the government based upon the person they happen to send to Washington as their Representative in any particular year.

Posted by k | January 7, 2007 10:17 PM

It is good to repeat this elitist idea: add passing an aptitude test to the requirement for the job.

As our top diplomatic and military challenges come from Middle East, with a complicated and crucial interplay of Shia and Sunnis, it was lamentable that the new Chairman of Intelligence Committee could not tell who are the Shia, and who are the Sunni.

Other committees can also benefit from some knowledge and skills being in the possession of the Chair. Say, Chair of a committee responsible for personal income tax being capable of filling his/her tax return without help.

Posted by piotr | January 7, 2007 10:19 PM

If you need an argument against seniority, all you need to remember is "the internet is a series of tubes. It is not a dump truck." This is what happens when old farts hold too much power in a quickly-changing world: their diapers get filled up too fast and need to be constantly changed so they don't get to learn about how the world is changing. The Alzheimer's also doesn't help.

Posted by Reality Man | January 7, 2007 11:08 PM

presidential ascent

Matthew, can we work out some way for you to avoid homonyms altogether?

Posted by Chris Conway | January 8, 2007 12:41 AM

It strikes me that a seniority system is likely to put people in charge who are out of step with the current politics of the country. Personally, I'm a big fan of the old-school liberalism represented by some of the new committee chairs, but the fact is that when you go to the polls these days, folks of that stripe are not usually one of the two choices.

Posted by Steve | January 8, 2007 2:42 AM

When I was a congressional intern in the Summer of 1975, I had the pleasure to see Wright Patman take the gavel. Technically, he'd been removed from the Chairmanship of the House Banking Committee, and past the age of 80, he was clearly infirm. It was a little weird seeing him there in the committee room, with his portrait staring down from the wall.

But, the man knew power and the drama of its exercise. He took control of the room and the witness and he got answers.

The government of the United States is far too complicated, and the devil is in the details. Policy can not be effectively handled or coordinated by the central leadership of Congress, without strong committees to effectively handle the details.

The Republicans just demonstrated how a strong central leadership leads to a neglect of the details in Committee. Instead, lobbyists tend to the details, and write the legislation, while Congressman raise campaign funds and take bribes.

Strong committees have deeply experienced members and strong committees make for a strong and powerful Congress. Making Congress more powerful in relation to the Executive is the most important task, as far as righting the Constitutional boat is concerned.

We are, shortly, going to see whether Jack Murtha can write a Defense Appropriations bill that fences Bush out of effective power. That kind of highly detaled appropriation, which dictates in detail what will be done, is necessary if Congress is to regain its role in the strategic direction of the country. You don't do that with a short-time Committee members/chairs.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | January 8, 2007 3:09 AM

In theory, putting more power in the hands of floor leaders should reduce the number of veto points over party legislation. But, it hasn't worked out that way since party leader started taking power away from committee chairs in 1974. The problem is the size of the relevant constituencies. Party leaders have to satisfy every member of the caucus and both the Democrats and Republican caucuses have a fair number of marginal members whose votes have to be bought through pork barrel benefits, earmarks, etc. The old time committee chairs had much smaller constituencies and could keep marginal members in line more easily.

Of course, there are problems with both arrangements. With the strong committee chairs, the chair was a strong veto point because their control over their committees made them immovable. This was an especially big problem for reform-minded Democratic leaders in the sixties and seventies. With stronger party leadership, the veto points are weaker and more diffuse, but it costs a lot for the leadership a lot to buy them off. This has especially been a problem for the Republicans because of the ideological nature of their leadership programs. In 1981 and during the Bush years, Republican leadership had to pay very high prices to buy the votes of marginal Republicans and conservative Democrats.

Posted by Ric Caric | January 8, 2007 3:46 AM

It seems to me that for Democrats, at least, the use of term limits for committee chairs is an idea whose time has come and gone. It was a solution to a particular problem - that the Dixiecrats, who held the most seniority, were grossly unrepresentative of the party as a whole. Today, however, the representatives with the most seniority in either party are likely to be members who represent the full party line in strong districts - urban liberal Democrats, rural conservative Republicans. They have safe seats and don't much have to worry about being voted out. In other words, now that the Dixiecrats are a thing of the past, term limits have outlived their usefulness.

Posted by Josh G. | January 8, 2007 5:12 AM

Term limits have led to stronger leadership and weaker committee chairs and that's a good thing, even if ideally you might achieve that same result some other way.

Just curious ... are you okay with that if the popular will legislation is "bad"? Like, say we all really lost our minds and decided to put Muslims in concentration camps post 9/11. Would you be okay with a system that made that easier, as long as it also made it easier to pass universal health care?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 8, 2007 9:50 AM

"Just curious ... are you okay with that if the popular will legislation is "bad"? Like, say we all really lost our minds and decided to put Muslims in concentration camps post 9/11. Would you be okay with a system that made that easier, as long as it also made it easier to pass universal health care?"

I'm in favor of eliminating the filibuster for the exact reason Matthew names - to ease the functioning of government. A better functioning government can certainly be used for bad purposes, but everything considered, I think that reducing the number of choke points in the American system is the proper course for a progressive to advocate.

That said, I'm opposed to ending chair term-limits for the much more specific reason that urban America is over-represented among the committee chairs. And considering the ways urban America is under-represented in the way we elect our Congress, I think that alone makes chair term-limits a bad thing.

Interestingly, the power of committee chairs helped out the South in an era where the South had little grasp on national power, in much the same way committee chairs should now help out urban America in an era where urban America has little grasp on national power.

Posted by Petey | January 8, 2007 10:02 AM

Term limits on committee chairmanships is actually a pretty good idea. It's no cure-all and it introduces other problems. However, on balance, it leads to better government. The ideal would be to go to a system where seniority was irrelevant. Each committee would select its chair at the beginning of each congress. Another reform might be to term-limit membership on appropriations committees (and sub-committees). That's where the real corruption is.

Posted by Marvin Toler | January 8, 2007 10:18 AM

If that's where the corruption is (Appropriations), would you advocate getting rid of the Appropriations committees entirely and giving their power to the authorizing committees? That idea was discussed the last time the Democrats led Congress and instituted reforms in its structure (I forget if that was in '93 or '94). Obviously it didn't go through, but it had some major backers including if I recall correctly, Sen. Inouye (who's in line to chair Appropriations after Robert C. Byrd).

Posted by Scott | January 8, 2007 11:44 AM

We want to keep the good long-term committee heads, lose the bad ones. My suggestion would be to make there be some kind of road bump at the six year level where it would take more support/votes, evidence of effectiveness, etc. to remain committee head. Or say that only one-half, one-third or one-quarter of committee chairs could go longer than whatever the limit is.

The other bad thing would be that if everyone starts with the six year countdown at the same time, you'd end up with a large turnover six years out.

Posted by NotThatMo | January 8, 2007 9:15 PM

Actually, that's not a problem. Except for Sam Rayburn, speakers rarely serve more than 4 terms. Tip O'Neill served 5 in a row. The committee chair term limit would lead to a de factor limit on the Speakership as well ... might as well make everyone move around at once.

Again, I don't know whether these are good things or not.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 8, 2007 11:31 PM