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