Category: term limits

The Arrogance Award

One reason politicians give themselves awards is that, frankly, nobody else will.

Recently, Idaho Speaker of the House Bruce Newcomb received the William M. Bulger Excellence in State Legislative Leadership Award from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

What did Newcomb do to earn this award?

Why, he led the legislative effort to repeal Idaho’s statutory term limits law.

What a superhero!

Newcomb, who is unpopular with Idaho voters for his arrogant assault on term limits, clearly scores plenty of points with career politicians.

Marty Linsky, chair of the award’s selection committee, says, “Speaker Newcomb demonstrated extraordinary political courage and a deep commitment to the institution of the state legislature by taking on the unpopular challenge of repealing term limits.”

“Excellence” for legislators is apparently judged by how eagerly they sling mud in the public’s eye. And get this. The award is named after William M. Bulger. That’s the Massachusetts Senate President who refused to hold a vote on term limits back in 1993, even though the state’s constitution mandated that such a vote “shall” take place.

That was corrupt enough for me. But Bulger is also refusing to say where his brother is. He has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before a congressional committee, to protect his brother Whitey. Whitey is wanted by the FBI for racketeering, extortion and involvement in nearly two dozen murders.

Hey, Mr. Career Politician. You may already have won.

This is common sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

term limits

Chairman Jeffords

If you’re a partisan Republican, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont is a no-good, rotten traitor. If you’re a partisan Democrat, he’s a genuine man of principle. If you’re the average American, his switch of parties is all just so much shuffling of deck chairs on the Titanic.

Jeffords can, of course, legally change parties. The dominance of the major parties and the so-called two-party system were created entirely outside the Constitution. Nothing in our Constitution recognizes the parties or gives them any standing whatsoever. But it’s a little much to switch teams just a few months after an election in which many folks and organizations voted for you at least in part because of your partisan affiliation.

Sure, under fire, Jeffords has now offered to return contributions to any Vermonters who want their money back. But this is an empty gesture. Only roughly 10 percent of his funding came from the people he represents. Most comes from PACs, Republican elected officials and party committees. Though his record in the Senate seems more in line with the Democrats, Mr. Jeffords sure took a lot of money from the Republicans he now can’t abide.

So what really prompted Jeffords to make the switch from Republican to Democrat after 26 years in Congress? One big possibility: term limits. While we don’t yet have term limits on congressmen themselves, we do have term limits on committee chairmen. After 2002, under Republican control, Jeffords would have had to give back his chairman’s gavel and all that power. By switching to the Democrats, however, he gets to stay a committee chairman … well, perhaps another 26 years.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Tags Jim Jeffords, Vermont

term limits

Is This Seat Taken?

Ah, women … you can’t live with them and you can’t live without them.

What’s that got to do with anything? Not much, just thought I’d use an easy trick to get men shaking their heads in agreement.

I’m not much for the battle of the sexes. I’m generally for peace. But while I don’t think a person’s gender matters when picking the best candidate to represent us in public office, it is troubling to consider how difficult it is for new people to break into politics.

Numerous studies show that women do as well as men once incumbency is taken into account. One study by the National Women’s Political Caucus found, “[O]ur political system is tremendously biased in favor of incumbents.… Since at one time all officeholders were men, women did not start with a level playing field.”

In states without term limits, there is less turnover and far fewer open seats, so women candidates constantly have to overcome the power of incumbency.

Take New Jersey, for example. The state has fallen from 10th in female representation back in 1974 to 43rd today. Without term limits, every member of the State Assembly ran for reelection two years ago. Not a single seat was open.

Term limits break up entrenched incumbency the good ole boy network. So is there any indication term limits help women? Sure, under term limits Arkansas and Missouri have set records for the number of women legislators. Four of the five states with the highest percentage of women in the legislature have term limits.

Just a coincidence? Hardly.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

term limits

The Silver Bullet

Remember the Lone Ranger? With the help of Tonto, he fought corruption and injustice in the old West. His trademark was a silver bullet.

In his new book Completing the Revolution, columnist and TV commentator Robert Novak says, “Term limits is the silver bullet, because unless you have term limits … you can’t do the other things I talk about cutting taxes, ending the IRS system, privatizing Social Security because they’re afraid they’re going to lose their seat.” Novak blames the lack of progress by the Republicans on their careerism.

The rest of us see it too. A Rasmussen Research poll confirms that 72 percent of Americans now view the federal government as “a special interest that looks out primarily for its own interests.” The longer politicians stay in office the more they become part of the special interests of Washington, and the more they pursue their own power through their constant reelection.

Not surprisingly, those in Congress who have imposed term limits on themselves don’t suffer from this careerism bug the dreaded Potomac Fever. They’re more concerned with doing what they came to do than with scrambling to protect their own political career.

We need more representatives in Washington with the courage and integrity of the Lone Ranger. Folks who will fight the good fight. And that’s why term limits are the silver bullet.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Tags Bob Novak

political challengers term limits

Bad and Worse

The best argument for voting for the Democrats is they aren’t the Republicans. On the other hand, the best argument for voting Republican is they’re not the Democrats. With choices like these, no wonder we’re fed up with both parties.

One of few things Congress did to change the corrupt culture of Washington was term-limit committee chairmen. It was the most significant reform of the Republican Congress because it would have ended the near dictatorial rule of a small number of career politicians.

With term limits on chairmen, power was to be more equalized and opportunities for corruption reduced. Good thing, right? So guess what? Speaker Denny Hastert and the Republican leadership are weakening the six-year term limits on committee chairmen. The GOP leadership’s new interpretation allows a chairman to step down from chairing one committee and immediately begin chairing another committee. Still too much power in too few hands.

Now flip to the Democrats. They boast they’ll kill committee chair term limits altogether if they win back the House this year. Maybe their election slogan should be “The People Be Damned.” Too often our election choices come down to the lesser of two evils.

Well, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Is there anything behind door number 3, for goodness sake? Well, forget about parties. Look for principles. If you want a real choice, look for the candidate who takes the term limits pledge the guy who refuses to be a career politician for either party.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

term limits

Eternal Vigilance

There have always been prophets of doom. Thomas Malthus predicted that over-population would exhaust our resources by the end of the century. And that was two centuries ago. Mankind steadily progresses, building on our learning, our methods of production and our technology. The doomsayers are quietly left behind.

But in politics it’s different. A little bit of doomsaying makes sense. Expect the worst and try to prevent it. Our Founders wanted to contain political power. They believed unchecked power would destroy the freedom they had fought for and won. This wasn’t pessimism; it was realism. They had seen the destructive nature of power throughout history. George Washington said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” This is why the Founders took such great pains to limit the power of government.

And they knew we were fighting against the odds. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The natural tendency is for government to gain ground and liberty to yield.” Today, we’ve only reconfirmed the lessons taught by the Founders. Even in America, we’ve seen the federal government take more and more of our freedoms and the fruits of our labor. As those in Congress became career politicians, the size and power of the federal government exploded.

We must fight to protect our freedom against those who monopolize political power. According to Jefferson, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” That’s why he didn’t want eternal politicians.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.