The longer a member of Congress stays in office, the more likely he or she is to vote against the taxpayer's interest and the more likely they are to cast votes that create a confusing and costly bureaucracy. This behavior translates into two results for the taxpayer: smaller paychecks and bigger headaches. Political scientist James Payne calls this phenomenon the "culture of spending."

An analysis of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste's (CCAGW) 1999 Congressional Ratings gives evidence to Payne's theory. CCAGW rated every member of Congress based on how they voted on issues that concerned the taxpayer. Those with the highest rating, 100 percent, are "taxpayer superheroes." Only three of the 535 members (.006 percent) of Congress enjoyed this distinction in 1999. Two of the congressmen were in their third term and one was in his sixth. Members of the House who had served six terms or less scored an average of 44.15 percent, while members who had served more than six terms scored only 36.93 percent. The difference between these newer members of the House and the "lifers" was almost identical in the Senate. Senators who had served only one or two terms scored an average of 44.88 percent, while who had served more than two terms only averaged 36.38 percent.

Further evidence of these spending tendencies occurs in the ratings, year by year, from 1990 to 1999. Most members who had once been fiscally conscious and had received relatively high ratings spent more money and had lower ratings the longer they stayed in office. Few members saw their ratings rise. Of the 435 members of the House, 222 (51 percent) saw their 1999 ratings decline more than 10 points since their debut in the CCAGW ratings. Only 39 members (a mere 8.9 percent) saw their ratings climb by even five points. Again, the same held true in the Senate. Forty-nine members (49 percent) saw their 1999 ratings decrease by at least 10 points from their ratings debut, while only nine members saw their ratings increase by more than five points.

Despite their obvious disdain for the taxpayer, these tenured representatives, still come up smelling like roses. By voting against the taxpayer on the floor, the representatives create an enlarged federal government that is difficult for the average citizen to navigate. Citizens have nowhere to turn but to their senator or representative who is, in turn, glad to help out with a favor or a special project because it will mean an extra vote come election day. Large staffs and seniority make it easy to navigate the bureaucracy for their constituents. Essentially, representatives and senators take credit for untangling the web that they have woven.

Those opposed to term limits (a group comprising less than one quarter of the American public but most of Congress) would have the taxpayers believe that imposing term limits on members of Congress, throwing new "inexperienced" blood into the legislative branch, would disrupt America's law-making process. They are correct: it would disrupt the process, but that is the goal. The objective is to move away from the current process, which is overrun with fraud and abuse.

Imposing term limits on Congress can transform the process from one in which the taxpayer is bound and confused by the bureaucracy to one in which the taxpayer can breathe easier, with more of his or her paycheck in hand.