ThisIsCommonSense.org

Well, the election has finally happened and looks like we’re gonna be stuck with what’s-​his-​face as our President for the next four years. Pundits say this has been the closest presidential race since the Stone Age.

Of course, it’s not a bad thing to have close contests in a system that is supposed to be competitive. Still, this contest could have been lots more competitive. Only the two major candidates were allowed to participate in the nationally televised presidential debates. Third party candidates with a different view to offer were shut out of the conversation. Candidates like the Green Party’s Ralph Nader. The Reform Party’s Pat Buchanan. The Libertarian Party’s Harry Browne.

Things weren’t quite as rigged in previous years. Remember John Anderson? Well, okay, that was a while back. How about Ross Perot? Folks like him add something to the conversation. Didn’t all his nattering about the national debt have an impact? A recent poll by Rasmussen Research and the Appleseed Electoral Reform Project found that much of the voting public agrees. About half of likely voters think Buchanan or Nader should have been in the debates. Looks like the pollsters forgot to ask about Harry Browne, though he has been about even with Buchanan in recent opinion polls. Oh well. Even pollsters aren’t perfect.

My point is, the career politicians want to run a closed shop, and they keep finding new ways to shut people out. Whatever happened to the politics of inclusion?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Look, most of us recognize that politicians are not way up high on the honesty list. But the awful truth about career politicians and the party bosses is that even when what they say is technically accurate, they say it in as misleading and hypocritical a way as is humanly possible. The Republican and Democratic parties call it political advertising.

One of the best tricks is to attack someone for an obscure vote that is stretched completely out of perspective. Like the Democratic Party ad saying Minnesota Senator Rod Grams voted against a gun-​free school zone bill because he’s fond of guns at school. Then there’s the Republican Party ad accusing Florida candidate Linda Chapin of being “soft on convicts” because criminals watched cable TV until, that is, Chapin had it removed, a fact the ad forgets to mention. And the Republican ad attacking Democrat Calvin Dooley as soft on crime for voting the same way as House Republican campaign chairman Tom Davis, whose group made the ad.

Dooley says, “The Republican Party has a criminal case of hypocrisy. Do Republicans think their own chairman is soft on crime too?” But Dooley knows that members of the incumbency Republicans and Democrats couldn’t care less what anyone is for or against. Just use whatever you must use, twist whatever you must twist, smear whomever you must smear to win. And why is winning so important? Why? To lead a crusade for truth, justice and the American way, of course!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Sometimes people say to me, “Hey Paul, if term limits are so great, how come they’re not already in the Constitution?” Weren’t the Founding Fathers just as concerned about how power corrupts, and absolute power corrupting absolutely? Absolutely, yes, the Founders were concerned. And they did believe in term limits. They called it “Rotation in Office.”

In those days, folks would remain in office for only one or two terms before moving on. Nobody had to tell George Washington to decline the job of President for Life. They followed the honor system. Several state constitutions did provide for term limits, however. For example, the Virginia Constitution of 1776 declared that officeholders, quote, “should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, [and] return … into that body from which they were originally taken.”

And the Articles of Confederation, the national law of the land prior to the U.S. Constitution, also required rotation in office. The articles said that no person should remain in office for more than 3 years out of any term of 6 years. That’s pretty tough. Yes, the Revolutionaries wanted Citizen Legislators, not Career Politicians.

Indeed, Madison’s original plan for the U.S. Constitution required term limits. But in the end, the drafters decided limits were unnecessary, since the rewards of serving in Congress were few and the privations many. And in those days, it was more plausible to have faith in the good will of the politicians than it is today.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Arizona Governor Jane Hull doesn’t think the average voter is quite up to real decision-​making. So she’s pushing efforts to thwart citizen initiatives by doubling the number of petition signatures voters must collect to get a vote on an issue. Her view is simple: the legislature and the governor are pros who can do all this better than us.

Politicians are so smart that we just can’t live without them. But then oops! … we get a little peek at their handiwork, and up in a puff of smoke goes that particular fatal conceit. Governor Hull is blaming the legislature for one of the biggest, stupidest blunders SHE ever signed into law. See, these geniuses offered to pay make the taxpayers pay half the cost of a new car if the vehicle is rigged to run on both regular gas and propane or natural gas. No requirement that the car use the alternative fuel. And Arizona taxpayers must also subsidize luxury items like leather seats and CD players. So, the program costs a whopping $420 million a full seven percent of the state’s budget and is having zero impact on smog, according to environmentalists.

Don’t worry, Governor Hull, help is on the way. Arizona’s term limits law will now bring fresh faces and real world experience into state government to replace that insufferable know-​it-​all attitude. Term limits were brought by citizen initiative. Blowing over $420 million was the work of experienced politicians, working overtime.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Law breaking by those who make the laws destroys respect for the rule of law. That’s why President Clinton’s perjury hurt our country as have the congressional scandals of Dan Rostenkowski, Bob Packwood, Wilbur Mills and a long list of powerful career politicians. Rostenkowski spent time in prison, but too often elected officials get away with it. Congress regularly turns the other cheek to misconduct.

Take the case of Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Schuster. Schuster is the king of pork barrel. He’s grabbed our tax dollars to build a highway in his district and, with all the humility and class of our political aristocracy, he has named it after himself. And there’s his $40,000 portrait hanging in the Transportation Committee room. An ethics investigation into Schuster’s relationship with a lobbyist who both represents clients with business before Schuster’s committee and who works for Schuster’s campaign found that Schuster, “engaged in serious official misconduct.”

Voters in Schuster’s Pennsylvania district don’t have much choice. Usually Schuster has been unopposed, like this year, and in ’98, ’94, ’92, ’90, ’88, ’86, etc. In 1996, Schuster outspent a rare challenger by better than 10 to 1. So what happens to Schuster? Nothing. Oh, the ethics committee sent him a letter saying he undermined the credibility of Congress quite an achievement. But he remains a powerful member of that body. He gets away with it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Sometimes you find out the hard way who’s your friend and who’s your enemy. In 1998, the people of Florida passed term limits for their state’s delegation to Congress, eight years in the House and 12 years in the Senate. The measure passed with a whopping 77 percent of the vote a landslide.

In keeping with the voters’ desire, Representatives Charles Canady and Tillie Fowler endorsed the term limits initiative and pledged if elected to serve no more than voters had stipulated. Those eight years are now up and both are keeping their commitment. But U.S. Senate candidate Bill McCollum, a 20-​year veteran of Congress, is different.

Though he regularly boasted of being the nation’s leading advocate of term limits, he refused to support the citizen initiative that would actually limit his terms. What’s more, McCollum bristled at the suggestion that he should personally abide by any limits whatsoever. To McCollum, term limits is a debating position, not something to live by. So, fearful that Florida’s term limits law might force him from office a full decade before any constitutional amendment, McCollum introduced legislation to overturn the vote of his own constituents.

McCollum’s arrogance and phony support of term limits helped hinder our movement. His real intention is clear: he wants to rule, not take turns. That’s why McCollum is no friend of term limits. As Phil Handy, the leader of Florida’s term limits effort said, McCollum is just “not one of us. He’s really in the way.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.