Category: term limits

Categories
media and media people term limits

Meet the Personal Interest

term limits, politicians, public good

“Poll after poll finds American voters believing the country is on the wrong track,” Chuck Todd, host of NBC’s Meet the Press, told viewers last Sunday. “And if there’s one other thing that Democrats and Republicans have in common these days, it’s that they don’t trust Washington to fix it.”

Is this a smart electorate or what?

Todd compared today’s public mood to October 2001, just after the 9/​11 terrorist attack. Back then, solid majorities of both Democrats and Republicans “had trust in that Republican control of government. Twenty years later, these numbers have collapsed among both parties.… Republicans down to just 9 percent trust in government to do what’s right most or all of the time.

“It’s a Democratic government,” he added. “That’s why the Democratic number’s a little higher here [29%], but this is really troubling.” 

And then Mr. Todd even posed the right question: “How did we get here?”

Calling the public “very cynical” — shouldn’t you be, if paying attention? — Todd explained that most Americans don’t believe “that most candidates that run for office … do it to serve the community. Only 21% think people run for office in order to worry about the greater good — 19% of Democrats think this, 24% of Republicans.

“A full 65% think most candidates run for office to serve their personal interests, nothing else,” he added. “And this is across the board — 66% of Democrats believe this, 63% of Republicans.”

Todd suggested “this may be bigger than any polarization problem that we have.”

It is bigger. But it’s an easy problem to solve. Just takes two words to bring back public trust in those who represent us, in them not just representing themselves, their personal career interests.

Term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom term limits

Too Many Words

Mount Pleasant, lawsuit, Attorney Chris Smith Kelly Gallaher,

The Institute for Justice (IJ) asks a question: “Does the First Amendment protect your right to criticize public officials without being subject to frivolous lawsuits?”

Kelly Gallaher is an activist in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, who provoked the ire of Village Attorney Chris Smith.

Seeking punitive damages, Smith has sued Gallaher for inflicting “emotional distress.” Her sin is penning “hundreds of posts on social media” criticizing Smith and other officials and their policies. (Hundreds! So many scribblings by just one person?)

The issue that apparently caused him to say “By Gawd, this is the last dang straw!” is term limits.

Recently, the town’s board of trustees voted to lengthen their elective term from two to three years. Gallaher and others called for a referendum to reverse the term-fattening.

To assuage concerns, Smith claimed that changing term limits had been discussed since 2018; in other words, the change wasn’t something being sprung without prequel. When Gallaher, remembering no such previous discussion, found no evidence of it, she suggested that Smith had lied.

Smith demanded a retraction. Gallaher didn’t want to retract, but did, fearing a lawsuit. Smith sued her anyway.

“The village attorney thinks he can use his law license to bully a political opponent into silence,” says Robert McNamara, the IJ attorney assigned to defend Gallaher. “But government officials are not in charge of how members of the public talk about politics, which is something we’ll be happy to explain to him in court.”

A politician so far from the spirit of American free speech is a politician who needs something more than a withering rebuttal in court. Think: recall vote.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability general freedom local leaders term limits

Freedom in Granite

Governor Sununu, New Hampshire

“In the past two years,” the Cato Institute announced last January, “Governor [Chris] Sununu and the State of New Hampshire have topped Cato’s rankings for both our Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors and our recently released Freedom in the 50 States report.”

How? Why? 

The governor points to “a long history of local control,” insisting that “town meetings matter.” 

He also cites the state’s executive council which, along with the governor, publicly debates “every contract over $10,000,” as well as a two-​year gubernatorial term that “sucks” for him but gives citizens “all the say.”

Most of all, consider the sheer size of New Hampshire’s House of Representatives.

“When you have one of the largest parliamentary bodies in the free world with 400 members representing only 1.4 million people,” Gov. Sununu explains, “by definition” it has to be “one of the most representative bodies of government in the world.”

He elaborates that “they only get paid a hundred bucks a year. I mean, it’s like herding cats. Don’t get me wrong, it has its ups and downs. But that’s one state representative for about every 3,000 people. Like town selectmen, your representative in Concord is going to be somebody you know, somebody you see at the grocery store, somebody you can easily reach and who can hear you. It’s very different from other states where you have one person representing a district with tens or hundreds of thousands of people.

“Which means the control is really at the individual level,” Sununu adds, and “an individual citizen has much more say on how their taxes are spent or what’s going on in their schools or whether that pothole is going to get filled or not.” 

Sounds like citizens are more in charge.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
government transparency partisanship term limits

A Bazooka to Congress

Congress, term limits, chairman

It is “like bringing a bazooka to a sword fight,” complains an anonymous long-​serving Democratic congressional aide.

“Democratic leaders are hammering Republicans,” Mike Lillis explains in The Hill.

At issue? The House Republican caucus is “considering term limits,” Punchbowl News was first to report, “on committee leaders of both parties if the GOP flips control of the House next year.” 

Republicans, since taking Congress back in the 1994 term limits wave, have mostly imposed a three-​term limit on committee chairmanships, when in the majority, and on a committee’s ranking opposition member, when in the opposition. What may be different in the next Congress is that Republicans are looking to impose term-​limits on committee leaders of both parties. 

Democrats, too. By House rule.

Though Democratic Party bigwigs won’t like it … especially current committee chairs who would get the heave-​ho next year, such as Representatives Frank Pallone (D‑N.J.) now in his 34th year in Congress; Bobby Scott (D‑Va.), in his 30th year; Adam Smith (D‑Wash.) in his 26th year; Bennie Thompson (D‑Miss.), in his 26th year; and Maxine Waters (D‑Calif.), in her 32nd year.*

Some younger congressional Democrats, on the other hand, see term limits … as an opportunity.

“High functioning organizations become so by building strong benches and limiting the tenure of leaders,” tweeted Rep. Dean Phillips (D‑Minn.), now in his 4th year. “No matter which party controls Congress in ’23, we should adopt term limits for committee chairs & get serious about developing a new generation of leaders.”

Lillis calls it “a recurring predicament for Democratic leaders.”

But no fuss at all for the rest of us: we’re for term limits. On committee leadership as well as Congress membership.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Even without this change, these Democrats would lose their chairmanships in the next Congress, should the GOP gain a majority in this November’s elections. But with this change they would also be denied the position of ranking member and thus would lose their hold on the chairmanship if Democrats won back the majority in 2024.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
education and schooling term limits

Term Limits for School Boards

Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida, school boards, education

Statewide term limits on Florida’s school boards are finally here.

The limits passed by Florida’s legislature and signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis are not the best one could hope for. State senators pushed for and got a 12-​year limit rather than the eight-​year limit preferred by house members.

Regardless, parents and children are better off with at least some legal limit on the tenure of board members and on their opportunity to abuse power — some curb in addition to the possibility of surmounting the overwhelming electoral advantages that incumbents typically enjoy.

Governor DeSantis agrees that the legislation reaching his desk should have been an eight-​year limit.

“They did three terms . . . and I wouldn’t veto the bill just over that. But if it were a standalone measure, I would have insisted on just two terms for school board members because I think that’s enough time to go, serve, get stuff done.”

In 2018, the Florida Constitutional Revision Commission sent eight-​year limits on school-​board tenure to the voters as Amendment 8. But the Florida Supreme Court knocked the question off the ballot because the limits were combined with other measures to reform education, like more freedom for charter schools.

It is a near-​certainty that voters would have passed the measure — a prospect that terrified those who benefit from rampant school-​board corruption.

Sure, what has now been enacted is only a partial remedy. But it’s something.

I’m a firm believer in the philosophy that something good is better than nothing good.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
government transparency initiative, referendum, and recall insider corruption term limits

Pucker Up

term limits, lipstick, pig, Michigan

“Never have so few applied so much lipstick to such a pig.”

That’s what term limits activist Kurt O’Keefe told the Michigan Board of Canvassers last week, as it considered the official title for a citizen initiative that he argues is anything but.

The Detroit attorney points out that the proposed ballot measure — sponsored by a group named Voters for Transparency and Term Limits — actually comes from “current and future politicians” and “current and future lobbyists.”

These insiders, who’ve “never been in favor” of term limits, seek to replace the 6- and 8‑year cap now in place in the House and Senate, respectively, with a 12-​year overall limit in both houses. At the hearing, proponents argued that the ballot title should declare simply that their measure reduces the current term limits — even though it would double terms in the House and up the Senate cap by 50 percent.

The initiative would also allow former Speakers and previously termed-​out legislators to return like the undead to their former capitol haunts. 

“This is a trick,” warned U.S. Term Limits National Field Director Scott Tillman. “We know it is a trick. They know it is a trick. They had to sweeten it up with transparency.”

That’s the lipstick.

Yet, the transparency fix, instead of simply enacting a financial disclosure system, orders the legislature to do so. Of course, the legislature cannot be forced to legislate, so the measure encourages endless lawsuits against the legislature. 

As if to further show just how sincere these politicians are, their “voters” front-​group has raked in $5 million from “unknown sources,” according to the Michigan Information & Research Service. 

They are transparent only in their self-​serving insincerity.

Oink oink.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts