Golden Parachutes and Politicians

The following letter from Deedee Vaughters appeared in the Aiken Standard on September 2. As usual Deedee made some excellent points and we must keep them in mind in November when we go to the polls.. Our career politicians do not serve us well. The very idea that part time legislators should have a pension upon retirement is absurd. We should have citizen representatives not careerists.


"Last week I had the pleasure of attending the Aiken Republican Club luncheon and hearing Comptroller General, Richard Eckstrom speak. Comptroller General Eckstrom gave a rousing speech educating those present on many of the issues that South Carolinians face with regards to the state budget and the economic outlook for the future. I was disturbed to hear during Comptroller General Eckstrom’s address that the state continues to have major issues with regards to unfunded liabilities in the state retirement plan that currently exceed $11 billion.

Equally as disturbing was a recent article by Rick Brundrett, investigative reporter for the South Carolina Policy Council. According to Mr. Brundrett’s research, our state legislators earn an average of $19,605 in gross retirement benefits per year. He cites the July figures from the state retirement system as his source. From the same source Mr. Brundrett was able to determine that the total paid in benefits for all retired legislators annually is $6.5 million. The amount paid since the plans inception in 1966 is $89 million.
The amazing thing here is that the annual paid per year to retired legislators is more than the average amount paid to retired teachers and police officers. Interestingly, being a legislator is a part time job with the legislature meeting 3 days a week from January to June. This design was to ensure that legislators could remain gainfully employed while serving. In other words, being a legislator is not supposed to be a full time job or a career.
This begs the question, how does this happen? How do part-time legislators earn more in retirement than full-time state employees? The answer is actually quite simple. It happens when politicians are allowed to vote themselves benefits and salary increases with a voice vote. The vote is therefore not recorded leaving the public without the ability to hold them individually accountable. This is unacceptable.
Currently 9 states no longer offer retirement benefits to legislators. Rhode Island is one of the 9 states and also has a January to June legislative session.
The unfunded liabilities for the State of South Carolina should be of major concern to all South Carolinians. If the General Assembly continues to fail to fund the state retirement plan realistically, then an $11 billion unfunded liability with a 30 year shortfall is expected. Our legislators have only added to the problem with their own increasing retirement benefits rather than working to solve the issue. Each legislative session ends without the issue being addressed. Are they hoping it will go away or that it will eventually become the next politician’s problem? Are they counting on the fact that we are unaware of how dire the situation is?
It is time that we hold our elected officials responsible. On the record voting is a must in order to achieve fully transparent and accountable government. Politicians who are looking at being elected as a career opportunity and a way to further their own personal interests must go. It is obvious that many of our elected officials have lost sight of the fact that government should be of the people, by the people and for the people. Cushy retirement plans for legislators illustrate how far removed our state government has gotten from the people they claim to serve.

The writer is a board member for the South Carolina Policy Council. She and her husband own a small business in downtown Aiken.

South Carolina Policy Council September 7th Rally in the Alley

The Aiken Standard published a good report on the rally but it is not easily available on the Aiken Standard website so I have posted it here.If you have not read it please take the time to do so.

 Aiken Standard Article September 8, 2010   

I had the opportunity to speak with Senator Tom Davis and Representative Ralph Norman after the rally. Both are dynamic speakers and importantly they believe in term limits. They are committed to taking on the entrenched dysfunctional system that gives too little power to the Governor and way too much to the legislature. We need to return to the idea of citizen legislators rather than career politicians!!!!

In 2004 Governor Sanford tried to rein in government growth after detailed review of their proposed budget which embodied 20% growth.  He issued vetoes on 107 line items which State agencies said they could do without. In an egregious display of arrogance and power of the legislative leaders the vetoes were overridden by unrecorded voice votes in 53 minutes! At the rally Senator Davis said that by 2008 the government had grown by 45 percent.

The only way we will ever get SC budgets under control is remove legislative leaders who use their power of control over committee assignments to threaten Senators and Representatives. A recent example of this abuse of power was SC House leader Bobbie Harrell taking important committee assignments away from Nikki Haley because she insisted upon pushing legislation that would require all house votes to be recorded.  We heard at the rally that this approach of punishing those who do not support the leadership is standard operating procedure in Columbia.  This means that representatives whom we send to Columbia end up having more incentive to side with the leadership there than to represent our interests.   Both Rep. Norman and Sen. Davis made this clear.

There will a leadership showdown in November following the general election. Representative Ralph Norman is campaigning to replace Bobbie Harrell as Leader of the House. The Republican members will caucus to elect its leadership for the new term. The current rules allow the “election” to be held by an open voice vote instead of a secret ballot. This means that Bobbie Harrell can punish anyone who does not support him and therefore he is assured of enough votes to be elected again. The only way to remedy the situation is for the caucus to agree to a secret ballot which is the very essence of democracy. Understandably Harrell opposes this idea as he knows that he might well lose.

It is ironic that Harrell insists on unrecorded votes on issues important to us, so that the votes of our representatives are invisible to us, and we the interested parties cannot hold our representatives accountable.  When his interest is at stake and he is now the interested party, he insists on a vote that should be secret but is visible to him so that he can dole out the rewards and punishments.   In order to give democracy a chance it is essential that all the members of the Aiken Delegation stand together and demand a secret vote. Our representatives should be made to understand how strongly you feel about the issue!

Term Limits and Staffers

In the CNN article on term limits, David King raises two possibilities and presents them as facts. I don’t agree with either of them. The first claims term limits would take "the business of lawmaking away from elected representatives." I’m not sure how this would happen but I find it disturbing that new members are often characterized as being ineffective. Anyone who hasn’t been around for at least ten years is thought to be a naïve, wet behind the ears, rookie. Someone who would be lost in the rough and tumble complexity of representative government. There is simply no basis to make that assumption. Almost all new members would be fully capable of hitting the ground running and be an effective Representative or Senator as long as the playing field was level i. e. not weighted toward seniority. Even in the present system relatively new members can make a difference. Anyone who watched Carroll Campbell operate during his first years in Washington would not doubt that.
The second claim is that term limits would then give this power "to professional staff and lobbyists." For the sake of discussion I am going to assume Mr. King is referring to Committee staff when he mentions professional staff. A member’s personal staff is simply not that relevant in the legislative process. The power of Committee staff, however, is a legitimate concern. In many respects they are already too powerful. Their power though, ironically, comes from the system term limits is trying to curtail – the seniority system. Many staffers have enjoyed a long- time association with senior members and are viewed from both within the committee and by individuals outside the committee (lobbyists) as the alter ego of those members. When they speak or act others believe they are doing so on behalf of the member. That may or may not be true.
Claiming term limits would increase that power, however, is built on the somewhat faulty assumption the staff would remain after the members have been forced to depart. This is not necessarily correct, nor should it be. The change term limits would bring could also impact staff.
Unlike other government employees, Capitol Hill staffers are not under Civil Service protection. In the case of committee staffers they serve at the pleasure of either the chairman of a committee or the ranking member of the opposing party in the case of the minority staff. When a new member takes over as either chairman or ranking member he, or she, has an opportunity to make changes. I believe it is reasonable to argue the new member will feel more comfortable with his own team rather than inheriting the staff of his predecessor.
With congressional staff salaries being what they now are it should not be too difficult to attract top talent to fill these positions. This is not to say present staff members could not apply for jobs with the new staff – there is something to be said for experience. They just should not be guaranteed a position as they are under the present seniority driven system. The net result would be a stronger staff.
New staffers, like new members, would also be good for the country. They would be able to take a fresh look at issues falling under the jurisdiction of a particular committee. With the present system some long time staffers have proprietary interests in some programs because they helped write the establishing legislation. It’s human nature to protect your own creation. On the other hand a new staff member could critically examine the program and make suggestions for improvements or - heaven forbid – even question whether the program should be continued.
This is not a criticism of committee staff members, of which I was once one. Most staff members are hard working, decent individuals, who put up with lousy hours, cramped working conditions and little recognition because they truly love their country and our form of representative government. Any system, however, benefits from having new blood and fresh ideas. Term limits could help bring that about.
Would lobbyists still approach staff members? Of course, just as they would continue to do with members. But unless we are going to repeal or modify the right to petition as contained in the First amendment, they have every right to do so. However, that has nothing to do with term limits and should not be used as a red herring argument against them.

Anti-incumbent mood fuels term limit debate - CNN.com

CNN.Com has posted an interesting article on term limits. There have been arguments on term limits since the beginning of the Republic. The Harvard argument that the staffers would run the show is a hoot!. In most cases they already do and the more entrenched the incumbent the more power the staff enjoys.

Anti-incumbent mood fuels term limit debate - CNN.com

Campaign Time

Just to say that we are very interested in term limits but we are in full campaign mode at the moment. Once the elections are over we will work in earnest for term limits. Right now we are trying to term limit some candidates by electing them out of office.

State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments

USE STATES TO INITIATE A

TERM LIMIT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

The points made by Dick Smith in his April 7, letter to the editor of the Aiken Standard were right on the mark. They also point out just how far we have drifted from the views of our Founding Fathers when it comes to the subject of citizen legislators vs. professional office holders. When our country was founded it was unthinkable to imagine an individual serving more than a short period of time in a particular position. It was considered a dangerous practice and a potential threat to democracy. In fact, many early governing documents on the state and federal levels prohibited reelection.

I believe we should go back to the philosophy of the Founding Fathers and adopt some form of term limits for legislators on both the state and federal levels. (The President and 36 governors are already term limited.) A legitimate question to ask any candidate for legislative office, be it federal or state, is where the candidate stands on term limits and what is his or her definition of an appropriate limit. Having said that, I am not optimistic any meaningful reforms will result from legislative action. Typically those who control legislative bodies are advocates of the status quo and it would be an uphill battle to dislodge them.

The United States Congress presents a particular problem. There is no initiative and referendum provision on the federal level. In addition, the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot impose term limits on their own U.S. House members or their own U.S. Senators. This means that if we follow the more traditional method of amending the U. S. Constitution we must involve Congress itself. Good luck! In 1995 the 104th Congress, especially on the House side, considered some of the most far-reaching reforms since the House stripped Speaker Joe Cannon of his dictatorial powers in 1910. The reformers were successful with some of their proposals--but not with term limits. A proposed Constitutional amendment would have limited members of the Senate to two six-year terms and members of the House to six two-year terms. A majority of the House approved (227-204) but this was well short of the 290 votes required to pass a constitutional amendment.

The chances of reversing this mindset from within are not good. As Dick Smith pointed out, too many elected members are professional politicians who are more interested in their own future than in the country's future. A lucrative financial package, including a pension plan that emphasizes longevity and an operating system that rewards seniority over merit doesn't produce fertile territory to recruit term limit supporters.

Nor are the chances of bringing in large numbers of new, reform minded individuals. Over the years both parties have used the redistricting process to protect their own members. Congressional districts are solidly one party or the other. This obviously benefits the incumbent. The number of truly swing districts is probably not more than 40 or 45. Admittedly, in an election year when passions are high and there is a sentiment to "throw the bums out" (as it could be this year) more seats may change hands. But remember we are talking about enough votes (290) to ensure passage of a constitutional amendment.

Fortunately, there are two ways to propose an amendment to the U. S. Constitution. The first, as has been mentioned, requires both the House and the Senate by two-thirds vote to propose an amendment. This requires a proactive role by Congress in which they decide if there will be an amendment. The second method leaves it up to the states to initiate action. If at least two-thirds of the state legislatures request Congress to call a convention for the purpose of proposing a constitutional amendment(s), Congress must do so. Under this method the congressional role is more a passive or ministerial one which the members are required to fulfill.

There is an additional part to the constitutional amendment process which must be performed, regardless of how it is proposed, and that is ratification. This can be accomplished by either an affirmative vote in at least three-fourths of the state legislatures or an affirmative vote in conventions held for that purpose in at least three-fourths of the states. This is a subject for further discussion but either method precludes members of Congress deciding their own fate.

Utilizing state initiative to get the ball rolling on a proposed amendment can be a long and tortuous journey but it would be well worth the effort.

Letter by Dick Smith on Term Limits

The following letter was published in the Aiken Standard today:

All the candidates have filed for their respective primary elections and now we the voters must choose which of them will best represent us in the governments of the County, State and Nation.

My personal opinion is that professional politicians do not always make the best public servants. Too many of them go along to get along with their leaders in order to get and retain good committee assignments. They become more concerned with their careers instead of doing what’s right for their constituents. Over the years their egos grow ever larger and they believe they have all the answers. They also become cynical and earmarks and cronyism are the accepted way of staying in power. As the saying goes” power corrupts.” There are way too many examples of this on both sides of the aisle.

My preference is for term limits but unfortunately they are not the law of the land. Fifteen states do have term limits and 6 others have tried to implement them. Several other states are still trying to have them. I hope South Carolina will try again.

A few years ago an attempt was made in the SC Assembly to establish term limits. Under the bills placed in the House and Senate House members could serve up to eight 2 year terms in the house and then switch to the Senate for three more 4 year terms for a total of 28 years.

The proposed bills contained a “grandfather clause” exempting currently serving members from the limits. Even these very broad limits would have resulted in term limiting almost one quarter of the house members and half of the Senators. Despite the grandfather clause the bills went nowhere. Obviously the only way we will ever get term limits is to insist on a referendum and let the people decide.

In the meantime the only recourse we have is the ballot box. I urge everyone to look very hard at all the candidates in the races and closely examine the records of those who have already served several terms in one position or another. Have they consistently done a good job or have we simply become accustomed to them? Do we tend to view them as a friend and are we not as critical of them as we should be of all elected officials?

Also look hard at the challengers and their reasons for running. Don’t be afraid to vote out the good old guys and gals. According to recent polls a sizable majority of voters want new leaders with fresh ideas at all levels of government.

This is an extremely important election year. Please exercise your right to vote and choose your preferred candidates as though the fate of our great country depends on your decision. IT DOES!

Dick Smith