An important concept that has been forgotten is that our legislature is supposed to be comprised of citizen-legislators that stay connected with the “real world” of their constituents, not become disconnected career politicians that serve as their own special interest. Also, not only staying in tune with those they represent, but they should also have to return to the private sector and live with the results of their acts in Congress, this would provide strong incentive to serve in the interest of the people and not just themselves. The system easily allows a career to be made in Congress because once elected there is a very high chance of reelection mostly due to public apathy, lack of funds within a competitor’s campaign, or political action committees that heavily favor incumbents. Limiting them to specific terms has the advantage of promoting urgency in the legislative process due to a known time constraint that would be mandated. It also serves as a motivation for future candidates knowing that the current elected officials are time limited, thus unseating them is not viewed as hopeless.

The longer a member stays in Congress and avoids returning to the private sector the easier it becomes to lose touch with the citizens as taxpayers, thus creating bureaucracy becomes customary and with it financial discipline is abandoned. It becomes beneficial to use taxpayer money to buy and retain power by positioning themselves as overlords of our money and the economy. It is through this process that corruption and actual contempt for common Americans starts raising its ugly head. The belief sets in that they are above the law and any accountability to the people because they view themselves as superior and untouchable. Mandating a system that rotates citizens through Congress would go a long way to mitigating these destructive behaviors and practices from becoming established within this institution. It may even become an honor to serve in Congress once again and attend to issues on the people’s behalf, plus the image of doing so would be greatly enhanced thus attracting future candidates.

There is opposition to the idea of limiting terms for members of Congress as expressed in the often cited argument stating that we would be replacing experienced members for others with less ability. This somehow would lessen the effectiveness of a Congressional body that continually displays incompetence, corruption, and disrespect for our citizens. Could it really be any worse if you randomly selected someone from the public at large taking into consideration our abysmal approval of Congress and our level of distrust for them? Occasionally a good member will have to resign their seat to make room for a new person, but overall it seems worth it because they will bring new ideas and ways of thinking that will keep it energized. It does not need to be onerous, perhaps a reasonable limit would be two terms for Senators and five terms for Representatives giving them about 10-12 years total, and then rotate them out to the private sector to live with the consequences of their legislation. This seems sensible and not overly strict, but it just might be the perfect remedy to alleviate the diminishing result our present system provides us, and have the effect of instilling honesty while serving “We the People” of this nation.

Members of our Congress that voted for this plan should be held accountable for Gross Negligence. A 1071 page bill was rushed through to voting without sufficient deliberations. A “no” vote should have been the default until enough time was given to fully examine and study the bill. Instead, it was quickly passed so it could subsequently wait for four days for the President to sign. This is four days that could have been used for analysis. Why did Congress feel so compelled to rush? Did Congress want to end the session and return home, were there vacations to Europe waiting for certain Congressional members, was support waning for this bill as time progressed? Unfortunately, the answer to all these is yes. The question that should be on America’s mind is do “We The People” deserve better? Such an enormous piece of legislation was not even read by Congress. They show such contempt for all Americans that they did not even give due consideration to something that will obligate Americans for years and generations to come. Is it too much to expect them to read and study the proposal, or to ponder the current and future consequences of it? Apparently, that was the case. “We The People,” the ones that voted them into office to represent and serve us, have been considered irrelevant to the greater goal of them serving their own agendas.

Gross Negligence is a very high hurdle as a legal standard, it is so blatant that even attempts at limitation from it are often not even enforceable. Gross Negligence requires more than egregious negligence, it goes further to include intentional, willful misconduct. Having negotiated many agreements with banks myself in the past proved they were famous for limiting their liability for everything except Gross Negligence, which means they knew there would not be much recourse to them because the standard of proof is set too high. It has to be intentional, willful, and blatant negligence before you can pursue remedies against them. Do these words sound familiar regarding our Congress? For the provision to be of minimal risk to a bank knowing it would be exceptionally difficult to prove the breaching of the threshold of Gross Negligence, our Congress just arrogantly pushed right past it, and certainly they did it with conviction that “We The People” will not likely do anything about it.