America deserves a capable and committed federal government. That is not the case today. The nation’s future is at risk if dramatic change is not brought to Washington, D.C. The daily barrage of political arguments should prompt us to focus on an obvious root cause of our national economic and social dilemma.

Congress and the president are clearly gridlocked in their on-going power struggle to get re-elected. Re-election campaigns always drain critical resources (time and funds) from important national priorities, such as reducing the federal deficit, ensuring a strong military for national defense and protection of borders, balancing the budget and creating a fair federal tax process for all taxpayers.

Other priorities would include creating viable international trade policies, creating a viable immigration policy, creating a viable education system, prioritizing entitlements for the truly needy citizens, downsizing the federal government in favor of state government control and other critical issues that continue to be held hostage to partisan politics.

When a prudent and accurate analysis is made regarding each of the Washington-based central agencies (energy, education, defense, agriculture, housing and urban development, transportation, commerce, interior, etc.) it will become obvious that the politicians have focused on centralization for standardization of policies and regulations.

However, they didn’t plan for a needed, timely decentralization of activities back to the individual states for local control and efficiency. Yes, it can be argued that the states are also remiss in managing agency tasks, but the problems will most likely become more visible to the local voters for remedies.

Small, federal oversight functional management offices, reporting to the president, and responsibly-sized state agencies would significantly improve the performance of our currently fragile economy. One size doesn’t fit all.

The absence of term limits is one of the primary root causes of the national downward spiral.

Members of Congress usually pledge to create improved political dynamics during their term(s), but nothing ever changes. Unfortunately, Congress establishes the rules for their salary, retirement benefits and miscellaneous perks.

The U.S. Constitution never intended to have individuals spend their lifetime in Congress. Individuals seeking a congressional office must understand that their time is limited to produce results; then they must return to a private sector position.

Creation of a one-term (six years) policy would sustain an independent thinking and more productive U.S. Congress. The stated term should be accompanied with a transition plan to support continuity for legislative open issues.

U.S. presidents have routinely allocated large blocks of time campaigning to be re-elected to a second term in office. The U.S. Constitution defines the vested executive powers of the president. He must use his term to provide positive leadership in conjunction with a properly staffed and effective U.S. Congress.

A change to a one-term presidency for six years would ensure a more productive leadership function.

A 50-state national referendum may be necessary to have a constitutional convention to modify several of the existing Constitution articles and amendments unless our seated Congress can support constitutional amendments for presidential and congressional term limits. The new amendments must support the nation’s survival as a world power.

America will continue to sustain a two-party political system and the elected officials will continue to pledge allegiance to their voter base. The change that I propose is quite simple: Provide one and only one congressional term ( for six years). If a person cannot influence positive change after six years, they should not be in Congress.

Term limits provide a level playing field for positive power and influence rather than bullying techniques from a seniority viewpoint.

During the sixth year, each elected official will spend time supporting a politically compatible replacement to carry the defined strategies forward on behalf of all of the nation’s citizens. Each member of Congress will not need to take time away from the nation’s critical issues for their individual re-election campaign.

Rather than competing with the incumbent official, the party’s new candidate(s) will have their support.

It is expected that a term-limited Congress will be more willing to limit congressional perks because they (as individuals) will become private sector contributors after their one, six-year term.

U.S. presidents and members of Congress should consider serving their term while following a value-based, bi-partisan, prioritized code: Nation, God, self.

I will vote for candidates who support the need for congressional and presidential term limits.

Len Greaney of Rumford Center is a former Rumford town manager.