So here we are, at the start of summer, with Capitol Hill in a frenzy, talking up a storm as it readies to leave for a long break. Goodness knows, your members of Congress deserve their rest, given all they've accomplished: Social Security reform. Immigration reform. Lobbying reform. Healthcare reform.

Oops. Wrong list. Well, there was that made-for-TV debate over nonbinding (as in, meaningless) resolutions about troop withdrawals in Iraq. Or, say, that proposal for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that failed--as everyone expected. And what about the upcoming, all-important debate against flag-burning timed to coincide with July 4th celebrations? (Is anyone really for flag burning?) Can't beat that if you're looking for something that adds meaning to your life. It's certainly more important than, say, re-upping one of the nation's most significant pieces of civil rights legislation--the Voting Rights Act--which was derailed by some conservatives objecting to multilingual ballots. (Is anyone really against voting rights?) Kind of renews your respect for your elected representatives, busy at work.

So it's kind of startling that, according to a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, about half of all Americans still like their own congressman. Given what's going on in Washington, the question comes to mind: Why? As each party strives to take fecklessness to new heights, concentrating on little more than job survival, why not hold members responsible for their lack of achievement? If each of us accomplished as much on our jobs, we'd be out of work. So here's an idea: Fire incumbents.

This is not advice offered lightly. I am not a Congress basher by profession. Yet, sad to say, I've come to believe that the institution may be even more corrupt than we suspect--and fully two thirds of us already believe it's corrupt. But we've been focusing on sleaze as if it's just a narrowly defined slice of overt political scandal--stories about lobbyists gone wrong like Jack Abramoff, or congressional pork barrel favors steered to friends in exchange for personal gain. That's shady, to be sure--and members of Congress should have been scared into reform. They weren't.

All of which points to a much broader swath of corruption infiltrating Capitol Hill--a stench that stems from arrogance. Not just the arrogance of the majority, which is, admittedly, breathtaking. But there's an arrogance of incumbency that comes from safely drawn districts and a 98 percent re-election rate and a sense of entitlement to wealth and power. When that same conceit infects the boardroom, Congress is always full of outrage, the first in line to call for corporate responsibility and reform. This is, of course, the same Congress that can't organize its own House ethics committee, much less police--and reform--itself in any meaningful way.

Leaving empty. Only an elite political class could achieve so little and go home to the voters and happily seek reaffirmation. As the serious issue of the war hangs over the upcoming midterm elections, for instance, Republicans spent the past two weeks "trying to turn chicken droppings into chicken salad," as GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio delicately puts it. They ginned up a meaningless war debate that, in turn, provided a handy bumper sticker for the fall: Democrats want to cut and run; Republicans don't.

Of course, it's not that simple, but never mind--the only real war this is about is the political war. "This is the hand we've been dealt," says Fabrizio, "and we're dealing with it." So when achievements are scarce, caricature the other guy's positions. Or, just heap blame. "Republicans control all the levers of power," says one Clinton-era White House domestic-policy guru. "Bush and the Republicans have zero domestic accomplishments since the last election." All true. Yet while Democrats may not be held equally responsible for the do-nothing Congress, they have another problem: There's no public confidence that they would do any better. Why should there be?

In fact, there oughta be a law: Don't let Congress in session anytime close to an election. Preening members may think we don't see through the transparent agendas or the predictable speechifying or the blatant pandering. We do. We might also send them packing if they don't change--because change is what we really want.