SPENDING BY CONGRESS CALCULATES GROSS EXCESS

America's alienation from its supposed governmental extension, Congress, is more tangibly understood not in the context of scandals or headlines about congressional gridlock, but in simple calculations. The business of Washington, D.C., is government, and business is good. Unfortunately, the prosperity that comes from growth in America's legislature seems to be of inverse benefit to the rest of the nation.

Plenty of noise is being made about this, the popular cry from candidates (challengers and some incumbents) being that Congress needs an overhaul. The noise is welcome. Congress meets too much, has grown too big and spends far too much on itself and everything else. It has become a wasteful institution that in no way exemplifies the economical nature of most people in this country. A lot of blame can be leveled for how Congress got this way: errant leadership, overbearing special interests, inadequate institutional discipline, inattention from voters. The approaching reform, now highly touted, will have to be multi-faceted as well.

One place to start is the actual size of Congress; that is, its support mechanisms. According to the 1991-92 version of "Vital Statistics on Congress," there were 3,556 congressional staff positions in 1957. In 1989, that number had more than tripled to 11,406. Operating expenses for Congress were $228 million in 1957 and $3.7 billion in 1989. The institutional expenditures are daunting enough, but the real significance of the growing staff is that more outlets have been created for spending tax dollars; i.e., more programs, more oversight, more need to make sure constituents are getting their "fair share," because "fair share" bears an elusive definition.

Have the dealings of Congress indeed, of modern American life become so complex since 1957 that three times the number of staffers are needed to support members of the institution? If the answer is "no" (and that is the answer), then Congress might look to the past and cut back on what it needs to get by.

Washington is understandably nervous about a downsizing. Government jobs are the lifeblood of that city. However, our responsibility as Americans doesn't include promotion of economic development in the District of Columbia. Our attention should instead be turned to putting in place a government that despises wasteful practices and unnecessary actions the way most of the rest of us do. The talk of congressional reform should be listened to seriously by voters this fall, and real efforts should be launched to curb some of the legislative excess.