Ruling Class Disease...

Recently the NY Post reported on Barney Frank's acting out when he was denied a senior citizen's discount because he didn't have the requisite county issued senior's ID card. 

Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank caused a scene when he demanded a $1 senior discount on his ferry fare to Fire Island's popular gay haunt, The Pines, last Friday. Frank was turned down by ticket clerks at the dock in Sayville because he didn't have the required Suffolk County Senior Citizens ID. A witness reports, "Frank made such a drama over the senior rate that I contemplated offering him the dollar to cool down the situation." Frank made news last year when he was spotted looking uncomfortable around a bevy of topless, well-built men at the Pines Annual Ascension Beach Party. Frank's spokesperson confirmed to Page Six that his partner, James Ready, asked the ticket office for a regular ticket for himself and a senior ticket for Frank, "but was turned down because Frank didn't have a resident ID."

It seems that our "ruling elite" has become so wrapped up in their perq's that they get irate when the little people deny what they believe is their "right."   They get so wrapped upn in the belief that they "are important, and you're and ignorant swine for not recognizing me."  When you include many politicians avoiding taxes (John Kerry's yacht, Tim Geithner's tax avoidance until appointed to high office...) a patter begins to emerge.  In the article America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution Angelo M. Codevilla says,

Never has there been so little diversity within America's upper crust...until our own time America's upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter...Today's ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters -- speaking the "in" language -- serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct.

There's a great deal of truth in that passage and therein lies the problem.  Those who now run the country in Washington, have forgotten what is important to "flyover country"...and those issues aren't the ones that are important in the capital. 

I have a very good friend who is intimately involved in politics.  While he is a great admirer of the Tea Party movement, he does, often, decry the "amatuerishness" of many of the first time candidates.  An excellent example of this is the GOP nominee in Nevada who seems hell bent on losing the race BECAUSE she's not a professional politician.  For many of us who are only now becoming actively involved in politics, this isn't necessarily a drawback.  Too many of the "political class" have begun to demand privileges for "serving us."  Forgetting that they SERVE us...not we them.

For this reason, I have come to the conclusion that regularly changing our Congressmen and Senators is an excellent idea.  I'm not certain that term limits are the answer either, because they would  raise the importance of the "professional staffers" of the various committees as well as the congressional office  staff.  However, I'm not opposed to a constitutional amendment limiting duration of office tenures either.  After all, we limit the number of consecutive terms a President may serve,

Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits. Ratified 2/27/1951

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Though, I think that limiting the number of terms in a lifetime isn't the answer here.  I think it would have been better to have worded it to say "two consecutive terms...".  So, perhaps we should so limit the amount of time any particular Congressman or Senator may serve in Washington...but that might not stop the problem either...so...what are your suggestions, please feel free to comment and offer up suggestions.