For those of you who have not already heard, I am sorry to report to you that Charlie Rangel has been censured by the House of Representatives. I know, it's truly heart breaking. If you need to take a minute to cry, I understand.
What does this mean? Well, nothing. I have no desire to get into a discussion about whether or not this should have happened, because quite honestly, I do not care. What I wish to convey today is this: the censure process is in desperate need of reform.
These are supposed to be reserved for the most serious ethical lapses that do not warrant actually being expelled from Congress. These censures are usually accompanied by the loss of any committee chairmanships that the person in question holds. In Rangel's case, he had already given up his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee, so the censure meant nothing whatsoever.
In a Dec. 3 article in the Washington Post, "House censures Rep. Charles Rangel in 333-79 vote," Paul Kane and David A. Fahrenthold reported on the aftermath of the censure, writing: "How did it feel to stand in the well and be censured, the first House member in almost 30 years, another reporter wanted to know. 'Have you got a license in psychiatry?' Rangel said. And after that laugh line, the gentleman from New York turned and walked away."
So basically, Rangel doesn't care.
In an institution as important as Congress, I think if you're guilty of an ethical violation relating to your service in the United States Congress, you should face a harsher punishment than a 45-second lecture in front of your peers. Rangel's punishment was roughly the equivalent of what happens to me when my roommate gets upset when I forget to do the dishes. If anything, that's probably worse, because at least my roommate yells.
Censures are not used all that frequently -- they are actually pretty rare to see in Congress -- but reform would have profound impact on all members of Congress. If the very threat of it means more, then members of Congress will work harder to avoid getting them.
One possible fix for this is simply getting rid of censures. I'm serious. If we're unsure of whether or not someone's conduct is appropriate for a member of Congress, then just kick them out. I like to think that in this country of 300 million people, there have to be at least 435 moral people. We need to just get rid of the ones who aren't.
For the record, people don't get kicked out of Congress very often. The last person to get expelled was the hilariously eccentric James Traficant in 2002. If Congress did not have the censure process, they might have to consider expulsion more often. Given the corruption of recent years, I wouldn't mind seeing someone succeed Traficant as the most recent expellee.
Another possibility is to change the process so there is actually some kind of punishment attached to them. Police officers and other civil servants can be suspended without pay; is there any compelling reason we cannot do that for members of Congress? When someone gets censured, it might mean a little more if it came with a dock in his or her paycheck.
The process is one that definitely needs to be reevaluated. Rangel's case has shown how ineffective the process is in making people acknowledge the seriousness of their ethical lapses. Rangel will continue serving in Congress in almost the same way that he was before his actions were recognized.
In the aforementioned Washington Post article, there's a small section on the future of Rangel's service in Congress: "The congressman was asked whether he would be diminished among his peers in the House. 'Charlie Rangel is Charlie Rangel,' he responded. In other words, no."
Like Rhett Butler in "Gone With the Wind," one gets the impression Rangel doesn't give a damn. And why should he?
If we do not reform the process to have some tougher consequences attached to the censure, this problem will only continue on into the future.
If there are no changes, other members of Congress will be forced to not care. We would sure hate to see that happen, wouldn't we?