Minimizing the corruption inherent in our democracy

The "fiscal cliff" deal that was just struck to avoid tax increases to all taxpayers is emblamatic of a basic problem with our democratic institutions - trading pork for votes.  In order to continue current tax levels on most folks, with an increase in taxes for those making over $400,000 a year, Congress "had to" give big tax breaks to the rum industry, Hollywoods film industry, Nascar and algea farmers.  A big part of the reason we have the deficit spending problems we have is that so many enactments of Congress get passed by giving unfair tax advantages to some influential (and wealthy) group with a key member of Congress in their pocket.  Nothing new in this as demonstrated by the movie "Lincoln" circulating in the theatres at the moment.  "Lincoln" documents the great emancipator's ability to cut unsavory deals to get the amendment banning slavery through Congress.  

 I am sure many in Congress don't like this tradition, but go along because "thats the way things get done"  The tradition of pork is supported by a couple of factors that would be applicable even if all members of Congress were high minded persons seeking to do the right thing (we are giving some of them the benefit of the doubt here).

First, every member of Congress, particularly in the house with its two year terms, is looking to their job security - how do they get re-elected.  So they cultivate powerful interest groups that can funnel them money to fund their campaigns, or who are influential in their district.

Second, new members who come to Congress are generally full of untested ideological opinions about what government should do or be, with little practical experience with what works.  Good public policy requires a broad understanding of history, economics, law and social sciences among other topics.  Most of the people who have the ambition to scramble up the political ladder are a little too busy with their ambitions to have time to develop that kind of understanding and the minute they arrive in Washington they are thinking about positioning themselves for re-election.

What if:

1.  Instead of having people constantly worrying about their next campaign we made the terms of House and Senate members longer and limited everyone to one term, and required members to sit out of public life for 4 years after their term.  To avoid the problem of having a Congress full of newby's who can be manipulated by lobbiests (which is what term limites often accomplishes) we could also have elections a year before the prior members term expires, and the newly elected member would serve a one year apprenticeship during which he does not actually vote, but spends his time learning what he will need to do to do a good job.

2.  Another approach that could simultaneously be pursued would be a constitutional amendment giving the president a line item veto.  This would allow the President to strike out pork without vetoing an entire proposal  Some may recall Congress enacted a line item veto back in the early 1990's.  The Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional, hence the need for a Constitutional amendment.  Some argue the line item veto is abrogating the power of Congress.  Seems to me the line item veto doesn't reduce the power of Congress, they can still overturn an item veto by a 2/3's vote.  What it abrogates is the ability of individual members of Congress to hold legislation hostage to further the selfish interests of their supporters or constituents.