Category: too much government

Categories
Common Sense initiative, referendum, and recall too much government

Killing Me Softly

Here we go again. As soon as the people gain a little democratic power over their own government, the politicians line up to snatch it back.  Now the governors of Arizona and Maine are attacking the initiative and referendum process, or I & R.

I & R is a very good thing because it allows the people to have a say in government a say that can’t be overturned by special interests and politicians. But that’s just the problem, according to folks like Maine Governor Angus King.  King, says, “Government by referendum is not the system that we have in this country.”

But the state of Maine had its first referendum in 1911. King may be taking that last name of his just a little too seriously we’re still a democratic republic, last time I checked, where the people are supposed to be in charge.

Politicians, like King, know they don’t stand a chance of abolishing Initiative and Referendum outright, so instead they just want to strangle it slowly. King wants to hike the number of signatures required on petitions, mandate that a certain percentage of signatures come from each county, and prohibit signature gathering near polling places. Governor Jane Hull of Arizona wants similar restrictions. That way, they can stop people who lack big bucks or big connections from having a say in government.

It’s no way to represent the people, that’s for sure. And come to think of it, that’s another reason for the initiative process.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

More Politicians?

Even in good economic times, Americans are unhappy with our government. So when someone suggests that what we really need in Washington are five times as many politicians as we have today, well, my first thought is, “Are you crazy?”

But that’s exactly what Bob Novak advocates in his new book. Novak says let’s increase the U.S. House from 435 members to 2,000. But cut the salary of each representative to one fifth what we now pay. It would mean that instead of representing 500,000 people, a congressman would represent about 100,000 people. More personal campaigning and fewer TV ads.

A candidate without much money would have a better chance to speak directly to voters. Instead of spending over a million dollars on their office and paying congressmen more than $140,000 a year, they’d get only $200,000 on their office and $28,000 for salary. Are career congressmen likely to chop their own personal power to do what’s best for the country and the institution of Congress? Nope. But they do talk a lot about taking the big money out of politics.

Well, if they’re serious, this is one way to do it without destroying the First Amendment and handing incumbents the power to regulate their opponents. Increasing the number of congressmen would strengthen the connection between the representative and the individual citizen. I never thought I’d say it, but we could use more congressmen. They would represent us better.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.