ThisIsCommonSense.org

Let’s say Bad Bart challenges you to a gunfight at the OK Corral. If you beat him you get a chance to clean up the town.

Just one problem. “You get only one bullet in your revolver,” growls bad Bart. “But I get six.” Doesn’t seem quite fair, does it?

But six-​to-​one is better odds than most political challengers enjoy against congressional incumbents.

Incumbents have all sorts of extra ammo, advantages which they voted for themselves and which you pay for. Special interests know which side their bread is buttered on, so most of their cash is showered on the incumbent. Guess who passed the campaign laws that make it tough for challengers to match that fundraising? Yep. Incumbents.

Then there’s taxpayer-​funded advertising, like public service ads. Taxpayer-​funded recording studios. Taxpayer-​funded mail touting the incumbent’s latest pork barrel “accomplishment.” Taxpayer-​funded constituent service. Taxpayer-​funded travel. Even taxpayer-​funded web sites.

All this turf is jealously guarded by those in power. In 1996, the FEC wouldn’t even let CompuServe give free web sites to all candidates for office. That would be an “in-​kind” contribution prohibited under law. But taxpayer-​funded web sites for incumbents are A‑OK.

Why do incumbents stack the deck in their favor in the first place? Well, just like Bad Bart, they like to win. Fair or unfair. Now career politicians say they’re going to even the playing field with campaign finance reform. Yeah, right.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

We hire representatives to represent us. That’s their job, right?Well, these days we’re not getting the real deal. For a lot of reasons. One is that strings are being pulled from behind the scenes by folks we never voted for at all: congressional staffers.

You see, career politicians are typically absentee landlords. The dirty work of drafting legislation, even deciding its substance, falls to staffers, the so-​called “hill rats.” That can cause trouble. In one case, hill rats added a prohibition to a Justice Department budget against transferring personnel. The small reason was to save the jobs of a couple men running a small FBI office in Montana. But because of that trivial manipulation, the Justice Department was stopped from reorganizing its entire force on organized crime.

Once in a while there’s an uproar about this kind of thing, but usually the rats just get away with it. Former Congressman Mark Sanford was one legislator who worked to stem the tide of out-​of-​control staffs. Sanford, who voluntarily limited his terms in office, voted to cut committee staffs and voluntarily reduced his own office staff. But until the career politicians have an incentive to do more than just gear up for the next election, Sanford’s example will be a lonely one.

The job of representation should not one be palmed off on courts, regulatory agencies, or unelected staff. Legislators should make the laws, but too many are too busy pursuing their political careers.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Okay, I’ll come clean. I’m no fan of taxes to begin with. I hope that doesn’t make me sound too un-​American. But as I see it, if taxes are going to be imposed, that’s a job for representatives, for legislators.

Remember that old line about “no taxation without representation”? Well, there’s a sister phrase that goes, “no taxation through judicial usurpation.” The courts are supposed to interpret the law and rule on the law, not make the law from scratch. They have no legal authority to be slapping new taxes on us. Yet more and more, that’s what is happening. For example, in Rockford, Illinois, the courts ordered more spending on schools than the voters had approved through various referendums. In New York City, courts ordered mandatory shelter for the homeless. The lawyer who brought the case was asked why he sued in court, instead of taking his case to the legislature. This guy admits, “Personally, I don’t like politics.” He says, “It’s really hard.” Yeah, it’s a lot easier to pass laws in a dictatorship. You only have to convince one guy. The examples could be multiplied.

Where are our representatives while all this is happening? Well, if they weren’t so gutless, they’d protest this kind of judicial dictatorship. But they’re so worried about getting reelected that it’s actually in their “interest” narrow political interest, anyway to let the courts make many of the tough decisions. So we’re without real representation, and we suffer, and our democracy suffers.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Whenever a new president takes the oath of office, we pay homage to the transition of power itself.

In his inaugural address, President Bush noted that “the peaceful transfer of power is rare in history, but common in our country.” He is right. While democratic forms have penetrated to every corner of the globe, sometimes the substance is a little lacking. But even our own democratic legacy can benefit from an occasional repair job.

For our own sake and for that of citizens around the world, we must keep our democracy strong. To do this, we rely on the good will of the people who lead us. We also rely on the checks and balances of our political institutions, which help ensure that no one branch of government and no single person can ever hold a monopoly on power.

We fought a revolution to get rid of a king. We don’t need another king. The Founders did not formally provide for term limits, instead placing their trust in the honor of those who would serve. For many years, their trust seemed justified: until Franklin Roosevelt, no president stood for office more than twice. But even many who had supported a wartime president for a fourth term saw the wisdom of making presidential term limits formal and official. And so, on February 27, 1951, the country ratified a constitutional amendment term limiting the presidency.

This year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of that amendment the 50th anniversary of a renewed and strengthened commitment to democracy.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

When it comes to elections, the local career politicians in New York City and Washington, D.C. would no doubt tell you that “every vote should count.”

But if they told you that’s the way they personally try to govern in their cities, they’d be flat-​out lying.

Instead, when it comes to their own political careers, these politicians are eager to trash the voters’ clear desire for term limits. The voters of New York City passed term limits for their mayor, city council and borough officials in 1993. There was no scandal that drove support for limits it was just good public policy, a way to open the political process to new people and keep current politicians a little closer to their communities.

In 1996, New York City politicians put a measure before the voters to lengthen term limits and delay them from going into effect. The voters said NO loud and clear.

Now these same politicians think they have found a legal loophole to repeal the limits without having to let the voters have a say on the matter. They are threatening a repeal as I speak.

In 1994, Washington, D.C. voters passed term limits by nearly two to one it won in every single ward of the city. Now as those limits are about to go into effect, the D.C. City Council is talking about repealing the people’s term limits law.

A Washington Post editorial urged the politicians to ignore the people on the issue and gut term limits. Seems that some folks think every vote should count only if and when that vote is for them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.