Categories
Accountability general freedom government transparency initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders nannyism porkbarrel politics term limits

Cheaters Never Prosper

Arkansas State Senator, Jon Woods, term limits, Arkansas, pay raise, disgrace, election, illustration

“I want to go home,” Arkansas State Senator Jon Woods whimpered.

The poor, pitiful politician — announcing he would not seek election to another legislative term — cried that he had not “been fishing with [his] brother in a year.”

“I have friends in my district who I miss,” he further lamented.

Before reaching for a tissue, realize that the legislator lives a little over three hours from the capitol in Little Rock and the legislature has only been in session for about 100 days in the last two years.

Certainly, that Senator Woods has any friends left is news — at least, non-lobbyist, non-legislator friends.

Woods infamously authored Issue 3, which narrowly passed last year and is now Amendment 94 to the state constitution.

Woods tricked voters by wording the ballot title to claim it was “PROHIBITING MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY . . . FROM ACCEPTING GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS.” But now, lobbyists buy legislators lunch pretty much every day.

He misleadingly told voters the amendment was “ESTABLISHING TERM LIMITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,” when in reality term limits were weakened, allowing pols like Woods to stay a whopping 16 years in a single seat.

The slippery solon’s amendment also created a so-called Independent Citizens Commission — a majority appointed by legislative leaders — that has since rewarded legislators with a whopping 150 percent pay raise.

The Arkansas Times’s Max Brantley called it “strange” that the “full-time legislator . . . would drop out of the race at this point.” Now that it’s time to face the voters with all his mighty “accomplishments,” the senator decides “to start a new chapter in [his] life.”

Dejected, befuddled, limping home as a martyr to crony politics, Woods knows he can’t win.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Arkansas State Senator, Jon Woods, term limits, Arkansas, pay raise, disgrace, election, illustration

 

Categories
Thought

Will Rogers

Our constitution protects aliens, drunks, and U. S. Senators. There ought to be one day (just one) when there is open season on senators.

Will Rogers, Daily Telegram number 2678 (March 6, 1935).
Categories
Today

UK Death Penalty

On November 9, 1998, the death penalty was abolished on all crimes other than murder in the United Kingdom. Murder had already been disallowed from a capital punishment since 1965, and no executions in Great Britain had occurred since that time. But the new law formalized the anti-capital punishment stance.

The idea of reinstating capital punishment has been tried numerous times in England since then, but revelations of false convictions for murder since 1965 have helped put the kibosh on such plans.

Categories
links

Townhall: One or Two or . . . Free

The change in China’s one-child rule policy demanded a Townhall.com. So click on over, and then come back here, for more reading.

And tell your friends and . . . enemies!

Categories
Thought

Virginia Woolf

“If you do not tell the truth about yourself you cannot tell it about other people.”

Virginia Woolf, The Leaning Tower (May 1940)

Categories
video

Video: George Will on Money in Politics

George F. Will has been a major defender of free speech against the campaigns for “campaign finance reform” for a long time. Here he makes his case concisely, with animation from PragerU:

Categories
Thought

H. L. Mencken

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

H. L. Mencken, Women as Outlaws, The Smart Set (December 1921)

Categories
general freedom nannyism privacy

One, Two or Free?

one child policy, china, family planning, communist, five year plan

The vast majority of Chinese people are celebrating. Last week, the 18th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party decreed that it will cease enforcing the one-child-only policy this coming March — after 35 years — as part of its 13th Five Year Plan.

Just speaking for myself, infanticide, coerced abortions and forced sterilizations seem . . . well, not good. Bad, even. Really bad. Or more precisely, evil, tyrannical and totalitarian . . . you know, if we want to use such “extreme” language.

But not everyone sees it my way.

Back in 1990, Molly Yard claimed that “[t]he Chinese government doesn’t coerce people.” Why, according to this former head of the National Organization of Women, “the only responsible policy [China] can have is to control family planning.” She went all the way: “I consider the Chinese government’s policy among the most intelligent in the world.”

The Los Angeles Times reported in 2012 that China’s “population control efforts have helped lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and contributed to China’s spectacular economic growth.”

That has not only been disputed — many economists point to policy changes that allowed entrepreneurship and private property — but overturned by reality. The one-child policy has been a disaster. There are now 117 young men for every 100 young women in China, and an aging population without enough youngsters to provide for them.

Alas, the one child policy is not being replaced with reproductive freedom. The government will still limit couples to two kids. That’s better than one, sure. But I have three children. If I were Chinese, I wouldn’t want to give up one of them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

one child policy, china, family planning, communist, five year plan

 

Categories
Thought

Virginia Woolf

“Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes. Any help we can give you must be different from that you can give yourselves, and perhaps the value of that help may lie in the fact of that difference.”

Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas (1938)

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom nannyism national politics & policies tax policy

Pass/Fail/Pass

November 2015 vote, Washington, Ohio, marijuana, legalization, illustration

While the Ohio measure to legalize marijuana did not pass, this week, the Washington State measure to wrest tax limitations out of a recalcitrant legislature did indeed succeed, with a 54 percent win.

Win some, lose some.

But in both these cases, there is some evidence for a general smartening up of the voting public.

With Ohio’s Measure 103, the support for cannabis legalization, a few weeks before Election Day, seemed strong. But the more voters looked at the measure, the more they caught a whiff of stink — and it wasn’t skunk weed. It was crony capitalism and insider favoritism. So, while a solid majority reasonably favors legalization — even in Ohio — it strikes most reasonable people that the measure’s secondary provision of setting up a monopolistic/oligopolistic production cartel is as anti-freedom as the legalizations is pro.

Smart folks saw through the proposal. Cannabis legalization is proceeding, state by state. Better results for legalization next time?

Perhaps, provided a better measure is offered.

Washington’s I-1366, on the other hand, had several levels to it, too, but they worked together. Voters seeking a constitutional tax limit, got it — or, if the legislature balks at delivering it as a future referendum (as the measure instructs) then the initiative’s main feature would kick in and the sales tax would be lowered. Low-tax voters get low taxes either way, legislature cooperating or resisting.

As I’ve explained some time back, repeated legislative betrayal had forced Evergreen State super-activist Tim Eyman to concoct this rather clever ploy.

In both Ohio and Washington, what voters voted against was against politics-as-usual — and that is good, no?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

November 2015 vote, Washington, Ohio, marijuana, legalization, illustration