ThisIsCommonSense.org

Politically speaking, I think term limitation is the best thing since sliced-​bread. But it’s being given credit for a change in the Arkansas Legislature that, well … I just never expected.

The Arkansas Legislature, like legislatures in 18 other states, is term-​limited. Now the big news is that the Legislature is, for the most part, sober at least much more so than in the past. And many folks are connecting the two: putting the credit for the recent sobriety trend, or the blame, on term limits. Seems in the old days, before term limits, the nightlife of a legislator was a heckuva lot more exciting than it is today. For instance, there’s the old story from the 1960s. The Speaker announced that a late night vote was going to be even further delayed, when a legislator yelled from the back of the chamber, “We’ve got a bigger problem than that, Mr. Speaker. We’re out of ice.”

No doubt some of the stories have gotten wilder in the retelling, but one legislator’s mother, who had long worked in the Capitol, tried to talk her son out of running for office saying, “You’ll go up there and you’ll start running around and lose your marriage and everything.” There are lots of funny stories about the parties and antics of legislators past. Only problem is the stories are not funny; they’re sad. I don’t know if term limits deserves the credit for the greater sobriety among legislators, but what the heck we’ll take it. Let’s be glad, in any case, for yet another refreshing change in legislative behavior in the wake of term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

So they’re finally paying attention, huh? Whaddaya know. Well, I can’t say it comes as a shock. Yup. Looks like thanks to term limits, politicians in Houston are heeding the voters just a little bit more than they did before.

Mary Williams of Taxpayers for Accountability sure has noticed the difference. Since 1997, her watchdog group has succeeded in getting a majority of the city council to sign a no-​new-​tax pledge. Mayor Lee Brown has also signed the pledge, along with over 100 candidates for seats on the council. Why this sudden shower of sensitivity toward the taxpayer? Term limits mean more electoral competition. More electoral competition means more accountability to the voters. So long as Houston politicians enjoyed an unchallenged power of incumbency, the power to get reelected almost automatically, they didn’t have to worry much about answering to the voters.

As Mary Williams says, “Without term limits, these no-​tax pledges would never have been signed or kept. Most taxpayers understand that term limits are necessary to hold politicians’ feet to the fire and to protect the wallets of the taxpayers.”

Mary Williams is right. In response to those who would disparage the 70 percent of Houston voters who said yes to term limits, she says, “We the people still have freedom. And that freedom includes the right to deny part-​time Houston City Council members long-​term careers.” She believes that Houston citizens have a right to genuine representation. Before term limits, Houston citizens had a problem. Now they have a solution.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Gosh, it’s tough having to run for office without already being a permanently entrenched incumbent who can just snap his fingers and instantly command vast resources and firepower. These out-​of-​work career politicians really have my sympathy.

Consider, for example, the plight of former California Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa. He’s running for mayor of Los Angeles after having been termed out of his job in the state legislature. He says it would be a lot easier to campaign if he were still in office. “Would I prefer to be speaker right now?” he asks rhetorically. “Absolutely.… If I call a press conference [these days], no one shows up. If you do it as speaker, everyone’s there.… And, you can raise money if you’re already in elected office.” Straight from the horse’s mouth, folks. The incumbents themselves admit that incumbency as such confers huge advantages over challengers on the campaign trail. From which fact one can readily deduce that term limits helps even the playing field.

As the Los Angeles Times points out, the benefits of incumbency are “immeasurable.” They include “a battle-​tested army of aides, ready attention from the media, and that most important political asset of all, access to money.” The political consultants agree. “The advantage of incumbency is amazing,” says Rick Taylor, a political consultant in LA. Campaign manager Ace Smith says, “If you’re a [known incumbent], you have Rolodexes the size of oil drums of people you’ve helped for decades. You just dial for dollars.” Just dial for dollars? Sounds like fun. Maybe too much fun.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

People are nervous. The stock market has taken a hit. Some folks say that shows how dangerous it would be to allow people like you to control more of your own money so you can better plan your own retirement. Risky scheme, as Al Gore told us. Better to let the politicians manage it. Yes, the politicians are always super-​careful with your money. Well, I’m not convinced.

Sure, no private investment is without risk. But how much riskier to let the government plan our retirement for us! We all know that Social Security funds never were set aside for safekeeping as originally promised. There is no lock box, never was. The program is pay-​as-​you-​go. The U.S. economy is basically very strong. Anyone who has invested in the stock market with reasonable prudence over 30 or 40 years has come out ahead. If some folks find stocks too risky, there are always safer investments available.

Today, federal government workers have an excellent retirement program that allows various choices of relatively safe investments. On the other hand, the Social Security program is a financial basket case. If the feds can’t keep their promises when the economy is strong, do you think they’ll be able to give everybody a happy retirement if the economy really tanks? Government can’t create wealth out of thin air. The government gets their money from you and me. Don’t let politicians scare you. The real issue is who gets to control your money you or them?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Okay, Dubya. We get it. You love baseball. We love it too. And we love Mom and apple pie. Now that that’s settled, can we have our money back? President Bush is boosting baseball. He invited baseball players to hobnob with him at the White House and they came. Hey, neato. Well, I guess if you’re the President, and you ask folks to visit you, they will come.

Another baseball-​boosting event was a mano-​a-​mano meeting at Milwaukee’s Miller Park stadium with former baseball commissioner Bud Selig. Bush said, “I like baseball. Do you like baseball?” “Sure, I like baseball,” said Selig. “Me and baseball, we’re like this.” Bush nodded. “Yep, baseball. Love it.” It’s not just about baseball, though. It’s about politics. And taxes.

These days, politicians think it’s A‑OK to fund stadiums out the taxpayers’ pockets. Big baseball teams bring in huge revenue. Yet the Milwaukee Brewers paid less than a fourth of the expense of Miller Park, a $400,000,000 venture. Angry Wisconsin residents had to pick up the rest of the tab. There was nothing they could do about it, since Wisconsin voters are denied the right of initiative and referendum. The President is well aware that other places around the country also have taxpayer subsidized sports stadiums. As a former co-​partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, Bush pushed for and won a similar stadium subsidy from unwilling taxpayers. The tax-​cut President should know that Americanism and baseball still mix, but not when the game is being played on the backs of taxpayers.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

It’s great to have protection. I think you know what I mean. The right of initiative and referendum. The right to directly pass a good law or knock out a bad one. The right to govern your governors.

Maybe you remember Proposition 13, the California law passed in the 1970s that limited property taxes. Prop 13 allowed many homeowners to keep their homes. It was the beginning of a tax revolt that swept the nation. But what if you have a tax revolt and no power of initiative? Well, you’re up the creek without a paddle, basically. The politicians will do whatever they want to you. Take Connecticut, for example.

Connecticut used to be one of a handful of states that did not impose a personal income tax. People moved to Connecticut to take advantage of the more favorable tax climate. It was good thing. In 1990 a Republican named Lowell Weicker ran for governor in Connecticut. He promised he would never impose a state income tax if he were governor. Then, as soon as he became governor, he pushed the legislature to adopt a state income tax.

People were angry, people were upset. A public rally was attended by 65,000 furious residents. But Connecticut voters do not have the legal power to repeal measures or put a referendum on the ballot. No protection. Sure, Weicker paid a political price, choosing (wisely) not to face the voters for reelection. But the income tax remains. In 24 states, citizens have the right of initiative and referendum. Twenty-​four down, 26 to go.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.