ThisIsCommonSense.org

In Virginia, one is enough. The governor can serve only one term. Of course, in 37 of 38 states which term-​limit their governors, people get to try for two terms. I’m not complaining. Let people come into the office, do their best, and give another guy a chance.

The one-​term limit is the topic of a recent op-​ed in the Virginia Pilot newspaper. Writer Margaret Edds complains that the one-​term limit means governors don’t have to live with the consequences of their actions. I guess this is true in the sense that they don’t run the risk of being defeated for a second term if they do something unpopular. But don’t governors have neighbors? What the one-​term limit also means, of course, is that Virginia’s executives don’t have to cater to special interests, who might expect to be catered to in exchange for their PAC money and political support. And if former governors want to pursue office elsewhere after they leave, they can still be chastised or rewarded by the voters.

If the problem is a so-​called imbalance of power between the executive branch and the legislature, I have a solution for that. Term-​limit the legislature, too. I wouldn’t be too upset if the state of Virginia had a two-​term limit, but one term works just fine. Edds herself admits that “Gilmore was elected on a ‘No Car Tax’ pledge, so that was from Day One his priority.” True enough. While the Legislature waffles on the car tax, the one-​term governor has remained a straight arrow keeping his promise. Term limits concentrate the mind wonderfully. Good point.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

He’s a winner! He’s making a dent! He’s rattling the cage! He’s … he’s … He’s Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo, who swept into office a couple years ago thanks in part to an emphatic term limits pledge. And he’s just won some major victories for congressional reform

A new rules package passed in the House of Representatives includes two Tancredo-​backed changes to how that House is run. One of these “good government” rules prohibits naming federal buildings after sitting members of Congress. Given all the outsized egos there, putting an end to this arrogant indulgence probably was quite traumatic. Maybe that’s why the new rules passed by such a close margin: 215 to 206. Some perks of power are hard to let go of.

Another change Tom has been pushing has to do with all the unauthorized spending that gets slipped into bills. The new rules require greater reporting. And no longer can the public debt be increased automatically. Congressmen will have to vote openly for any new red ink they spill on us. You’ll note that Congressman Tancredo didn’t have to loll around for ten or twenty years slowly collecting seniority before he could achieve something. He’s doing what every leader does: choosing a few key things to get done and zeroing in on them like a laser. He’s not accepting the rules of politics as usual. He’s fighting for new rules. He’s acting like a citizen legislator. Tancredo’s fighting so hard because he won’t be in Washington forever; he’s limited himself to three terms.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Oh those poor rich people. Don’t they need a little more help from the government? Now, don’t get me wrong. If somebody has more money than me and they’ve earned their money fair and square, that’s fine with me. Let them buy all the Lexuses they want. It’s their money, let them keep it and enjoy it. And while you’re at it, let me keep my money, too.

But welfare for the well-​to-​do is a completely different thing. Almost everyone, except for career politicians, would agree that’s just not right. Still, the new edition of the Cato Institute’s Handbook for Congress has a long list of examples of corporate welfare in the federal budget. There’s the sugar price supports. You pay more at the grocery store so $1.4 billion in propped up profits can benefit the 33 largest sugar cane plantations. There’s a “wool and mohair” subsidy that’s supposed to benefit people with small herds of sheep, but last we looked ABC television journalist Sam Donaldson collects almost $100,000 in subsidies every year.

And how about this for corporate welfare: every year the Agriculture Department splurges $80 million to subsidize the overseas advertising of food exporters, little guys like McDonald’s and Coca-​Cola. There’s an amendment proposed every session of Congress to kill this beauty, but somehow it always survives. So why does this nonsense happen? Oh, politics as usual, brought to you by career politicians.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

It’s official. Passage of Congressman Mike Castle’s “Franked Mail Savings Act of 2001” is one of the top priorities this year of the National Taxpayer’s Union. That means that congressmen who votes against it will lose points with NTU, which rates congressional performance every session.

The franking privilege is one of the most flagrant abuses of taxpayer dollars that Congress engages in. As former House Press Secretary John Solomon admits, “the purpose of these mailings has become little more than to remind citizens of who their elected officials are before they vote. It’s an unfair perk of incumbency.” Only about 10 percent of franked mail is sent out in response to the mail of a constituent. Most of the time, it is nothing more than political advertising, a prepaid political benefit that comes at the expense of both taxpayers and fair electoral competition.

In 1999, individual postage limits for congressmen were lifted, making it easier than ever to abuse the franking privilege. Mr. Castle’s bill would define a “mass mailing” as being 250 pieces or more of mail. And it would prohibit such mailings within 180 days of general elections and 90 days of primaries. Of course, many other advantages of incumbency would remain untouched. But passing this bill would be a step in the right direction. Let’s see if our representatives do the right thing. Even if they don’t care what the National Taxpayers Union thinks, they should probably give a darn what the nation’s taxpayers think.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

How do you a boil a frog? Very slowly. Because if you just toss a frog into boiling water it will jump right back out again. I don’t want to say Congressman Robert Ehrlich is the same as a frog. But the heat IS being turned up very slowly and he DOES seem to like the temperature just fine.

In 1994, when he arrived in the nation’s capital, Ehrlich had already served 8 years as a legislator in Maryland. So he felt right at home. So much at home, in fact, that he never quite got the hang of rebelling against the out-​of-​control ways of the Congress. You can imagine a self-​limiter like Tom Coburn proposing 115 amendments to an appropriations bill to try to curb runaway spending. Not Mr. Ehrlich. “I’m a process kind of guy,” he says. Of course, citizen legislators know how to work with their colleagues. But since they don’t have to fret about a political career, they know when to get ornery, too.

By contrast, Ehrlich tells National Journal that he’s had “more realistic expectations, maybe lower expectations.” He’s wondering now whether to hold on to his House seat or run for governor. Of course, if you have “lowered expectations” about what you can do, you don’t push as hard. You just sort of settle down in that comfortable sauna, getting boiled. “It’s about as good as it gets in the House,” says Ehrlich. “Is it worth giving up this seat?” Ask the frog.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

It’s going to be a long, tough battle to term-​limit the Congress. Why is that? Well, not because term limits are controversial. My goodness, more than 70 percent of Americans, in every possible group, consistently favor limiting the number of terms a congressman can serve. Very few of us oppose term limits. But within that tiny minority lies the most intensely interested segment of the population. They’re fanatical about term limits … fanatically negative. They are called politicians.

They think we thunk up the idea just to be nasty and thwart their well-​intentioned attempts to rule over us. That’s about half-​right. Nah, term limits supporters aren’t angry at particular politicians or out to get them. Sure, there are a couple of really bad apples, but that’s not the problem. The problem is much more systematic and serious. Even the best legislators become, shall we say, significantly less good over time. Career politicians lose touch with the folks back home and buy into a corrupt system of special interests and special privilege. Plus, incumbents have so many reelection advantages that fewer and fewer regular citizens run for Congress. It’s a vicious cycle.

Term limits won’t come easily. The politicians will fight us every step of the way. But we can’t be denied our right to self-​government forever. History shows that good ideas can triumph even over great odds. As the famous World War II song goes: “They’ll be blue birds over the white cliffs of Dover tomorrow, just you wait and see.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.