Unelected Bureaucrats and Unintended Consequences
The call for congressional term limits is an oft-debated issue, especially in recent years as more and more voters find it unacceptable that their representatives and senators have been in Congress since before they were born. Couple that with a growing disdain of being governed by an ever-increasing number of octogenarians. Even Texas senator Ted Cruz has filed legislation - multiple times - to limit senators to serving only three terms (Patrick Leahy, currently the President Pro Tempore of the Senate is in his 8th term. His predecessor Chuck Grassley is in his 7th and has announced a bid for another term.)
The purpose behind term limits is a good one: to ensure that the populace is governed by a truly representative body, and that the “establishment” can’t tip the scales in favor of incumbents for too long. FDR’s disgraceful abuse of the norms of only running for two terms as president quickly led to the 22nd amendment, ensuring that no would-be tyrant stays President too long ever again. We obviously aren’t opposed to term limits, so why limit them to just the President?
Thanks for reading Spencer of All Trades! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Term limits for the President and Congress are all well and good but they miss a critical cohort: the bureaucrats. Political tides ebb and flow, parties form majorities and then minorities, but paper pushers are eternal. Congress doesn’t even fully govern the United States, the executive agencies promulgate more regulations and policies than Congress and the President enact laws - and federal regulations hold the same weight as law. So Congress can keep hemming and hawing about how many billions of our dollars to spend on supporting LGBTQIA+ discourse in Pakistan, our actual domestic affairs will be quietly decided by nameless and faceless nerds at the Federal Reserve, FTC, FCC, IRS, DOE, DOT, etc.
Congress’ long-lasting abuse of the Necessary and Proper clause has created a situation where Congress has legislated itself into near-irrelevance. This is only made worse with the Supreme Court’s precedent of Chevron Deference. Starting in 1984, this allows federal agencies to determine for themselves what actions are within the scope of their agency, and denies lower courts the ability to strike down federal regulations unless the exact issue at hand is prohibited by Congress. This has incidentally led to our federal agencies having near carte-blanche in regards to what they are allowed to do. The recent SCOTUS decision in West Virginia v. EPA brings some long-overdue restrictions to Chevron, essentially preventing agencies from enacting policies that have failed passage in Congress, but unfortunately does not go far enough.
As it stands, the current system is actually beneficial for incumbent politicians. Whenever some domestic issue lodges itself into the minds of the public, Congress can say “Don’t blame me, blame the agency!” or, “The agency head was appointed by the Other Party - vote for us this November!” Congress should never be expected to solve an issue that they can keep running on to get re-elected. They also don’t have to focus too hard on real domestic issues, they just tell the relevant agency to figure it out and implement their law somehow. We cannot keep letting Congress neglect their actual duties to govern this country. It is past time that Congress reassert it’s authority to actually decide how the country is run and be held accountable to voters, but don’t hold your breath.
If you argue that it would be unreasonable for 535 people to adequately decide how such a vast country as ours should be run like the way the multitudes of agencies currently do, then I would agree. Congress ought not make a law for every little thing, forcing Congress to decide everything for themselves would require shrinking the size and scope of the federal government. Allowing states to take the control that the federal government would have to shirk off. The federal government was never meant to become this bloated and over-regulated.
Even though I would vastly prefer it if the size and scope of the federal government were to be drastically reduced, I propose this modest concession if things must stay as they are: term limits for bureaucrats. I suggest that one person may only work for the federal government (excluding the military) for some fixed number of years (it matters little what the number is, any number will inherently be an arbitrary decision), no matter how many different agencies or departments they work for.
Some decades of government employment is certainly a long enough time to adequately bring about meaningful change and to have a successful and stable career with a multitude of skills and experiences that would serve one well in the private sector. It would also prevent stagnation of new ideas by forcing people to leave before they can become a permanent fixture of an agency. One reason I don’t think term limits for the House or Senate would be effective is because it would make new legislators even more dependent on the experience of the permanent bureaucrats that never leave. Forcing the federal agencies to continually find new leadership and new rank-and-file paper pushers ensures that those agencies change alongside the people they serve.
Our government was created to serve its people, over time we have exchanged true representation for expedience and convenience in the form of countless federal agencies. If we are to have a truly responsive government that has ideas and solutions that change with the times, then enacting this simple term limit measure for bureaucrats could be a good start.