Some interesting “Pesky Truths” about how we voters feel about Congress:
A Rasmussen survey recently found that just 11% of voters say Congress is doing a good or an excellent job (some other polls have that figure in single digits). Congress’ approval rating has been below 17% for months, so that’s not exactly “above the fold” news.
But that’s not all, another Rasmussen report indicates the depth of disgust many of us have for our current members of Congress.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that if they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 59% of voters would like to throw the current legislators out and start all over again. 59%!
Just 17% would vote to keep them in office.
Only half (49%) believe that the current Congress is better than individuals selected at random from the phone book.Thirty-three percent (33%) believe a randomly selected group of Americans could do a better job and 19% are not sure. Poll results from: rasmussenreports.com
That bears repeating:
Only half (49%) believe that the current Congress is better than individuals selected at random from the phone book.Thirty-three percent (33%) believe a randomly selected group of Americans could do a better job. What a vote of confidence!
From a Human Resources perspective, if that was my performance appraisal, it would tell me that if I wanted to keep my job, there’d better be drastic improvements in my performance. Unfortunately, Congressional jobs are like tenured professors, once they’re in, they’re very difficult to get rid of … and they know it.
When the Constitution was written, the nation’s founders expected that there would be a 50% turnover in the House of Representatives every election cycle. That was the experience they witnessed in state legislatures at the time (and most of the state legislatures offered just one-year terms).
For well over 100 years after the Constitution was adopted, the turnover averaged in the 50% range as expected. In the twentieth century, turnover began to decline. As power and prestige flowed to Washington during the New Deal era, fewer and fewer Members of Congress wanted to leave. In 1968, Congressional turnover fell to single digits for the first time ever and it has remained very low ever since.
Think about it. Once elected, a congressperson has a cushy job, an important, highly visible position with little individual responsibility. They get ample base pay ($169,300 for most, $188,100 for the minority and majority leaders, and $217,400 for the speaker) with lots of perks, excellent healthcare and retirement, an office with expenses paid, a staff, travel expenses (both domestic and foreign), all for basically talking and negotiating for a living. They don’t even get their hands dirty.
And then there are the “indirect” benefits. Especially the insider deals (like FOA (Friends of Angelo) home loans from Countrywide, real estate that benefits from a bridge to nowhere, or land that just happens to be adjacent to new highway routing. Family members that reside on boards or become lobbyists help to make ends meet. And there is lots of other inside information that leads to investment profits.
And what do they do to deserve the pay and perks? They do everything they can to get re-elected – that’s their job – to get re-elected. Everything they do has a component of “how will this vote impact my reelection” – and they vote accordingly. They may say that they’re working for us, but that’s BS and they know it, and we know it.
And the parties operate like a street gang – if, as a rookie Congressperson, you want their help, cover, or protection, you’ll do as the leadership directs – or else. The “gang” mentality sees their strength in solidarity of purpose. Pretty soon the strength in numbers concept overwhelms any other altruistic motive and you fall in line with Nancy or Harry
There are some good members of Congress (a few), but speaking for myself, I’d be willing to dump my good ones: John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Rep. Sam Johnson, if it meant that all current members would go and the entire country would elect new (different) members.
How about you guys in California, New York, Massachusetts, etc. would you sacrifice your beloved incumbents for the good of the country?