Why do we accept such poor performance? Do we think
if they did more, worked harder, longer, smarter, they'd get a better result?
Do we want Congress to be more productive and pass
more laws with more pages? Even now we learn that Dodd-Frank has 5,320 pages covering
400 new regulations. ObamaCare was a 2,700-page bill and so far has 13,000
pages of new regulations. Or do we want Congress to undo some of the old laws
that we no longer like? Would we prefer Congress respond to issues that we
think are important? Or did we elect our member to vote the way he or she
wants?
If the polls are right and 90% of Americans believe
that Congress is doing a poor job, how can that be? Are we accepting mediocrity
as the price of freedom? If we vote for the "best candidate" in our
district, why are they so effective campaigning as a candidate and so
ineffective as a member of Congress?
Have campaigning and fundraising proficiency trumped
their legislative ability?
Ask yourself, why do we keep electing the same
politicians if we get inferior results year after year?
Is it because Congress is not performance-based?
We know it is not a meritocracy. The best do not
rise to the top. The best are not rewarded for their great behavior. Seniority
rules… so incumbency attracts power. Power attracts position and campaign
donations. Then position and donations are used to attract more support, votes
and tenure.
Maybe we're using the wrong metrics when we think
about measuring Congress' job performance.
If the pollsters are right and Congress is as bad as
they claim, then each of us is responsible for continuing to elect poor
performers to the Congress. Or are they accomplished people who are incapable
of getting anything done because they have to continually convince a majority
of their 535 peers?
Whenever I have seen voters with their congressman
they are always gushing - the voters not the Congressmen. They refuse to ask
tough questions. They throw politically convenient softballs, which the
congressman always has the answer to or he makes sure he can use artful circumlocution
to wend his way out of a messy question.
Constituents inevitably are very polite. They invite
their friends to fundraisers. They are delighted to contribute to the campaign.
They seem to be happy with a photo-op standing next to power. And they vote for
the same politician over and over and over again.
But when the polls come out, voters polled turn and
complain that Congress is not doing its job. Well which is it? They are the
doing the job we elected them to do or they are incompetent, economically
illiterate, politically mendacious boobs?
If we look at the Congress as a whole it may only be
as strong as its weakest link. So, we need to identify the poor performers.
They need to be voted out of office.
In corporate America on an annual basis some
companies cull 5%-10% of their lowest performing workforce. But if we did that
can we expect superior performance from the entire body of Congress? Not if we
keep electing the same incumbents for 5, 10 or 15 terms?
I'm not advocating term limits here as some states
currently have. This sometimes has the unintended consequence of taking good,
seasoned politicians and pushing them out of office.
But if we had a way to systematically look at the members
of Congress, compare them one to the other on an independent basis and discover
who falls into the bottom third, it should make it easy to figure out who
should then not be reelected.
Political party strategists focus on this but even
poor performing incumbents with name recognition can still draw sufficient
contributions to drown out a challenger's voice.
So instead of supporting our congressmen and blindly
awarding him or her an A and then complaining about the body of Congress by
giving them a D, we should examine closely who our congressman is and ask a
different set of questions.
What is my representative's position on the issues
that matter to me and what legislation has he sponsored? What committees or
subcommittees does he chair? How much did he receive from his party committee,
the DNC, the RNC etc? Who are his big donors? What percentage of his financial
support came from outside his state?
It might surprise you to learn that your district
votes may be heavily influenced by media buys sometimes financed by out of
state interests. Someone wants you to vote for the incumbent so you don't rock
the boat. Who benefits from his incumbency?
What success has your representative had? What has
he done for you? What are his key issues and are his actions really improving
your community, your business, your neighborhood and your congressional
district?
So if your representative deserves an A, give it to
him, but don't tell the pollsters Congress deserves a D.
Unless you are politically engaged, you may never
understand how Congress earns a D while your congressman always gets an A.
As Thomas Jefferson said, "We in America do not
have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who
participate."
So engage politically, and give your congressman an
honest grade.
About the author: John Thibault is the founder and
CEO of iLobby. iLobby® connects you with other voters where you can debate
critical issues, pool your resources and hire a lobbyist to represent you and
your cause. Put simply, this is lobbying for small business and individuals.
Find out more at http://www.ilobby.co. John
worked in Governmental Affairs at MCA and served as the first VP Marketing and
Business Development at eBay and Financial Engines.
Learn more about Congress at
http://ilobby.co/page/us-representatives.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment