ThisIsCommonSense.org

Merry Christmas, folks.  Boy, I’m telling you, this is getting to be a rough time of year. I just got a letter complaining about the entrenched incumbency of a certain office-​holder in the North Pole.

“Dear Paul,” writes Virginia Grinch of Whoville, New York. “Should Santa Claus be term-​limited? He has held the same office since the 19th century. He stays in power by bribing pint-​sized lobbyists who annually demand free goodies. Furthermore, many elves in his workshop have complained that Claus is arrogant in exercising his authority, and that he is even becoming excessive in his attentions toward some of the intern elves. It is time for Santa Claus to go. Sincerely, Virginia Grinch.”

Well, Virginia, I haven’t heard these charges about abuse of authority. I tend to doubt them though. I think Santa is a very merry, jolly, all-​around nice guy. It is true that many private organizations could benefit from term-​limiting their top officers. But even if a private group fails to organize itself in the best way, the damage it can do is limited.

By contrast, when it comes to government the whole citizenry suffers from the excesses of endless incumbency. Now, Kris Kringle deals with people on a completely voluntary basis. Taxpayers are not forced to pay for the gifts that Santa distributes. All he does is spread joy and happiness, and that should go on forever. So, no, Virginia, there should be no term limit on Santa Claus.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

What is going on down in Florida? It seems the election is never over: the results are ignored while the campaign just goes on and on.

Never mind the presidential race! I’m talking about term limits in Tampa, Florida and arrogance by Tampa politicians that you just don’t find every day, not even in Washington, D.C.

Voters in Tampa have been pretty clear about wanting term limits some observers think that’s why voters passed term limits to begin with. But the city council thought otherwise. When they placed a repeal of term limits on the ballot, many of the city council members no doubt were thinking: “The voters love me. They can’t live without me.”

But this past November the voters reiterated their preference when they overwhelmingly defeated the repeal. Now the anti-​term limits group wants to put the question back to the voters in a special election that will cost taxpayers lots of money and promise a much smaller turnout of voters.

But, finally, some sanity: Council Member Gwen Miller, who had voted to put it on the ballot once, said, “The people have spoken. If they felt like they wanted to end term limits, they would have said so. We don’t need to keep putting it on and on again.”

Voters love term limits because they want new people and new ideas in government. That keeps our government closer to all of us. Politicians, well, they just don’t get it. Or maybe they do, but just don’t like it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Throughout all this incredible and unprecedented legal and political wrangling over who will be the president, there was all along one thing we could count on that provided a true measure of stability: President William Jefferson Clinton would not, could not be the President of the United States for a third term. It may have taken us a while to figure out who is the president, but we had great certainty about who could not be.

The 22nd Amendment to our Constitution stipulates that no person can hold this highest office for more than two full terms. And once held for those two terms, he or she cannot ever hold the office again. The reason is simple: we shouldn’t allow any one person to hold power for long because power corrupts. Washington made the point when he stepped down as president after two terms.

Thomas Jefferson continued Washington’s limit of two terms and the tradition lasted until FDR. Then Congress passed the 22nd Amendment limiting the President to two terms though alas absentmindedly forgetting to term-​limit themselves.

And now, having seen a presidential election that could have turned into a real crisis, it’s good to know that life went on normally in our land because we are, at our best, governed by the rule of law, not the arbitrary edicts of men. The 22nd Amendment, term limits for the president, is an important part of that foundation of law.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Here’s some food for thought. The Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, doesn’t want you to hear about the benefits of certain nutritional supplements. So they’re violating the seller’s right to free speech or trying to, anyhow.

Monday, December 11, 2000

Much as I love to bash Congress, this is one area where they’ve tried to help out. In 1991 and 1994 the Congress passed a couple acts having to do with Nutrition Labeling and Dietary Supplements. One provision said the FDA could not block truthful health claims. And a 1999 court decision, Pearson v. Shalala, ruled that the FDA’s current approval process for health claims continues to violate the First Amendment. The FDA never appealed this decision.

Perhaps it’s a mistake to have a powerful government agency deciding what people can say even before they say it. But how much worse is it that the FDA refuses even to obey the law? Life extension experts Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, who’ve been fighting the FDA, say the agency continues to stall in approving health claims as a way to evade the law.

Thank goodness that with today’s explosion of easy-​to-​get information on health and nutrition, the FDA is fighting a losing battle to keep consumers uninformed. But lawlessness at the FDA must be addressed. This is the responsibility of our representatives in Congress. Congress must oversee the federal agencies they’ve created to make certain they obey these laws.

Yep, there’s more to the job than just fundraising receptions.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

The presidential election wasn’t the only nail-​biter in our fair land. There was the Missouri Senate race which had been hard fought for months when, just weeks before Election Day, Governor Mel Carnahan died in a terrible plane crash.

Senator John Ashcroft suspended his campaign as people mourned. But Carnahan remained on the ballot. His widow announced she’d go to Washington in his place. On November 7th by the slimmest of margins and with allegations of voter fraud and irregularities in Democratic strongholds Carnahan won.

Senator Ashcroft could probably have sued, probably won, and probably stayed in the U.S. Senate. A deceased person obviously cannot meet the legal requirements to be on the ballot. But Ashcroft gracefully declined to contest the election. Instead, he offered congratulations, seeking to unite the people of Missouri he was still pledged to serve. Perhaps it all comes down to there being something more important to John Ashcroft than being a U.S. Senator.

I had the privilege of working with Senator Ashcroft in Washington. So many politicians give lip service to term limits, but never lift a finger behind the scenes to advance the cause. Senator Ashcroft was different. He and his staff constantly had new ideas and rolled-​up sleeves. John Ashcroft served under term limits as Attorney General and as Governor. He believed they helped him stay focused and energetic. When he went to the U.S. Senate, he voluntarily pledged to limit himself to two terms in office. Like all great leaders, Ashcroft leads by example.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Beware of FCC agents bearing gifts. There might be a hidden price tag. The Federal Communications Commission is conducting a test of free speech. This is only a test.

For the first time in over three decades, TV and radio broadcasters are going to be allowed to either criticize or endorse political candidates without being forced to provide so-​called “equal time” to opponents. Geez, it might be nice to know the editorial opinions behind the news we get. But for 60 days only, though. Then the 5 dictators on the FCC board will collect a lot of report cards and see how we all did with our freedom. And they will decide whether we should be allowed to have a little more free speech or maybe a little less. Can’t just let us exercise our First Amendment rights and be done with. No, that would be too easy.

During the 60 days the FCC wants broadcasters to fill out all kinds of forms documenting the effects of the gag removal. Free speakers will have to keep a record of how many complaints they received during the 60-​day period, how much editorializing they did, etc., etc. Broadcasters worry that they will be under pressure to cater to FCC expectations during the 60-​day period if they hope to have the ban lifted permanently. And what kind of freedom to speak is that? Let’s hope that all ends well for our right to free speech. Let’s hope we pass the test. But this is not the kind of exam that should ever be given in a free society.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.