ThisIsCommonSense.org

No one could hate term limits worst than the politicians right? Well, that’s what I thought, too. But I was wrong.

A survey by the Council of State Governments shows lobbyists oppose term limits even more than do politicians. While 76 percent of politicians were against term limits, among lobbyists a whopping 86 percent were opposed. Of course, 75 percent of regular Americans are in favor.

Why do lobbyists hate term limits? Lobbyists know that their power and influence comes from developing long-​term relationships with incumbents, especially with those in leadership. Under term limits, not only do lobbyists lose these long relationships, but also leadership and committee chairmen no longer have the unilateral control they used to wield. Term limits equalize power within the legislature, and thus lobbyists can no longer ramrod legislation through on the basis of their relationship with one powerful member. Instead, they have to make their case on the merits and to all the representatives.

Reader’s Digest reported: “In term-​limited legislatures, lobbyists can’t play their game by the old rules .… In one state capitol after another where term limits have been enacted, lawmakers express a wariness bordering on hostility toward those who seek to influence their votes.”

One Michigan lobbyists complained, “Gone are the days when you belly up to the bar and ask someone for their vote on a bill.” That’s why it’s such a hoot when opponents of term limits pretend lobbyists will gain power.

With a vampire, you have to drive a stake through its heart. With lobbyists, just mention term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Those of us who criticize the often-​irresponsible actions of the Congress are labeled as “Congress-​bashers.”

The label isn’t fair. We want to restore Congress to a citizen legislature, believing it should be the most powerful branch of government, the branch closest to the people.

Note that since 1951 when the president was term-​limited, the president has clearly gained power, prestige and authority. Equally noteworthy, during the last 5 decades as congressmen have served longer and longer, Congress as an institution has steadily lost power to the other branches in most cases giving it away willingly. Yes, career politicians fight to protect their personal positions and perks and privileges, but rarely do they lift a finger to protect the institution of Congress and it’s rightful constitutional authority.

In 1995, Congress was confronted with two issues of power. One was the Line-​Item Veto. The other term limits. The Line-​Item Veto was about Congress’ power relative to the executive branch. Term limits about their individual power. Congressional leaders took a dive on term limits, while doing everything in their power to pass the Line-​Item Veto. Even though it gave the President significant power over the Congress, the Line-​Item Veto meant Congress could blame the President and escape responsibility for wasteful spending.

A Congress of career politicians has proven to be gutless, unwilling to fulfill its responsibilities under the Constitution. The professional politicians are the real “Congress-​bashers” and it’s time we put a stop to them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

When it comes to war, the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare it and makes the President the commander-​in-​chief to wage the war. Of course, the Constitution has long been ignored in this area and congressional power handed over to the executive branch.

When the United States fought in Korea and Vietnam tens of thousands of American boys gave their lives without Congress ever taking political responsibility by declaring war. It seems strange that while Congress began to fill with career politicians, they were willing to trade away their congressional power to avoid responsibility.

Congress, the branch of government our Founders gave the power over issues of war, has become silent on foreign policy. One Capitol Hill newspaper asked the question: “Should Congress have a voice on Kosovo?” One response came from columnist Robert Novak, who said:

“We have lost the Constitution’s clear mandate that only the Congress has the power ‘to declare war.’ Declarations of war long ago became passe , and now a president dispatches remote-​control weapons without congressional approval. Such awesome power is magnified when the United States is the last superpower accountable to nobody in the world. This cries out for input by Congress. The president cannot make minor changes in Medicare or farm supports without congressional approval but can wage wars around the world on his own. That is hardly what the Founding Fathers envisioned.”

The Founders envisioned a Congress of citizen statesmen, not one of career politicians afraid of their constitutional responsibility.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Want to know how Washington works?

Anne Eppard is a Washington lobbyist. Last year she earned $1.5 million. That’s a lot of money! But what’s truly amazing is that her lobbying fees kept coming in even after she was indicted on seven felony counts alleging among other things that she took $230,000 in payoffs to steer government contracts to special interests.

“Eppard’s experience since her indictment,” writes The Washington Post , “provides a pointed illustration of the realpolitik of the Washington lobbying world: What matters most to clients is not who you are, but who you know, and your ability to get results.”

You see Anne Eppard is a very close friend of Congressman Bud Schuster, the powerful chairman of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee. You’ll remember that Schuster is a leading pork-​barreler whose committee was caught offering members of Congress an extra $25 million of wasteful spending in their districts in exchange for their votes on last year’s transportation bill.

Relationships like Eppard’s and Schuster’s, which compromise our government and waste our precious tax dollars, don’t spring up overnight. This one has developed over the 25 years while she worked as a staffer for Schuster. Nor do most congressmen go to Congress believing that the federal government is their personal plaything.

But sometimes, especially after almost 30 years in office, that arrogant attitude takes over. So this is how Washington works with the sweetheart deals between lobbyists and career politicians. But of course, that means Washington doesn’t work.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Remember Tiananmen Square?

The student who stood bravely blocking tanks only a satchel of books in his hand. These students’ courage was moving and so was their reverence for American symbols of freedom. They passed out our Declaration of Independence on the square. And out of crude materials they fashioned a beautiful “lady liberty” after our own Statute of Liberty.

This June marks the 10th anniversary of the crackdown on the pro-​democracy students. Chinese leaders rolled tanks over the bodies of young people asking for the simple freedom we must never take for granted. The world owes the U.S. of A. a debt for being a shining beacon of liberty. Our institutions have served as real examples to other people who yearn to be free.

But we owe it to ourselves, and the world, to protect these freedoms.

A recent Fox News poll shows a majority of Americans believe President Clinton traded national secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions. We know the chief of China’s military intelligence funneled money to the president’s reelection fund. The career politicians’ greedy desire to win reelection at all costs is at work here.

Whether or not Clinton was aware of all the rotten activities, he clearly was concerned with raising the funds to get reelected, and everything else including the security of our country be damned. Our free society is a beacon to the world, but is U.S. policy made in China? The very question is a slap in the face to our heritage.

Thank goodness for the two-​term limit on the president.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Ask the average person if they’ve ever had to live within a budget and the answer is: “Of course.” We all have to and we take pride in being able to stretch a dollar.

But there is one group in our society that doesn’t think they should have to live within a budget. How did you guess? It’s our congressmen.

The Congress has set-​up a spending cap. Why? Well, while the politicians tell you that the budget is balanced, that’s true only when they take all the money being paid in for Social Security. And that leaves a disaster of gigantic proportions just around the corner for millions of retired folks counting on that Social Security money Congress is spending right now.

In order to prevent Congress from spending all the money coming in during these good economic times, and leaving Social Security in bankruptcy, reformers pushed for spending caps. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska recently complained, “I don’t think we can live under these [spending] caps.” Not surprising because as a career politician for the last 30 years, he’s grown accustomed to spending all the money he feels like. Last year when a budget was passed, out went the spending caps. President Clinton demanded more spending on his pet projects and then Republicans in Congress grabbed more money for their favorite government programs.

So the President and the Congress had a food fight with our money. The interesting thing is that for the most part these are not bad men. But when they’re in Washington term after term spending other people’s money, they change. To them it’s only money ours.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.