I pretty much agree with your comments. You know term limits would eliminate much of this behavior. The people you elect would be more interested in getting done what they promised their constituents than becoming spineless to insure their coffers get filled by special interest groups for their next election.
I have personally struggled with the concept of term limits. We see the utter idiocy of some of the newcomers to Washington who have no clue of economics or history or any realistic kind of sense of cause and effect, let alone any real knowledge or expertise in identifying enemies of the USA both within and from the outside. There is a wealth of real solid expertise and knowledge currently in Congress and I don't know whether it is advisable to replace that with the know nothings. We could be electing a lot of incompetents who would be at the mercy of professional faceless bureaucrats who are elected by nobody and accountable to nobody.
If we could find a way to put a process in place to reduce or eliminate the ability of those elected to enrich themselves at our expense, perhaps only the truly committed public servants would choose to make a sort of career of Congress or at least would stick around long enough to mentor the know nothings coming in. But fat chance on getting them to agree to that system which would have to include:
1. They fund their 401K just like everybody else does and no tax dollars would ever be allowed for their retirement during or after their service. If it means increasing salaries because of the high cost of being in Washington DC, so be it.
2. They fund their own healthcare buying insurance on the open market just like the rest of us do.
3. They personally are subject to every regulation and law they pass. No exemptions.
4. Nobody in Congress would be able to take any kind of lobbyist job for 5, maybe 10 years after leaving Congress.
5. Congress will pass no law that benefits any person, group, demographic, etc. that does not benefit all. Humanitarian exception can be made when the government needs to intervene in a specific case; i.e. a congressional resolution to correct a specific injustice done to some individual, but the details and limitations on that could be worked out.
6. All federal courts will restrict their rulings to the existing law and Constitution. The court can rule a law is unconstitutional or incompatible with other existing laws with their reasons for the ruling, but it is up to the legislative body that passed it to then change the law. An unelected, unaccountable judge would not be allowed to make any law, negate any law, make any changes in any law. The issue would be clearly publicized, along with arguments as to why a court was likely wrong, so we the people could hold those we elected accountable to follow the Constitution. Congress or any other legislative body would not be able to use the federal courts to absolve them of their responsibility.
7. If members of Congress want to redecorate/refurbish/buy new stuff for their offices, they will need to pay for it out of pocket or raise the funds to do it. Otherwise they can make do with inexpensive and very austere basic government issue or choose something out of the acres of discarded furniture, etc. (We have acres and acres of warehouses filled with discarded perfectly good furniture, equipment, and decor as each new member of Congress buys all new stuff at taxpayer expense and does it again at intervals.)
8. Other than the basic operating expenses of the various departments of government (heat, light, phones, computers, etc.), the Congress will not bundle together bills for projects and various funding of services but will vote straight up or down ON THE RECORD each item they pass that costs the taxpayers money. And there will be no more provision for changing a vote after it is recorded as there is now, and they wont be able to 'revise and extend' their official remarks before the Senate or House as they can now.
There is no way in hell the Congress would pass those recommendations. But if they did, we would again be electing true public servants to high office who would serve for a time and then return home to live under the laws they pass as the Founders intended. Paul Ryan would likely have been a magnificent leader.
Instead we have a permanent political class, professional politicians who achieve high office, usually as middle class, and then leave it multi-millionaires many times over. Why else would they spend millions to get a job that pays less than $200k? They long ago stopped representing we the people. The only difference between them are the people they represent and they throw their respective constituencies just enough bones to keep them voting 'correctly' and spend most of their time benefiting themselves.
