ThisIsCommonSense.org

I got a call the other day from a woman who wanted to know why I liked President Clinton so much. Huh? It was news to me.

In her view, if I can’t give Republican George Nethercutt a free pass for breaking his word to step down this year, I must be a Clinton-​lover. Weird logic.

We may be terrible, but the other party is even worse. George Nethercutt is the guy who defeated House Speaker Tom Foley in 1994. Nethercutt is now breaking his commitment to serve no more than three terms.

When the President admitted he had lied to the country about Monica what’s-​her-​name, Nethercutt called for Clinton’s resignation saying, “Your word is your bond, whether it’s your public life or private life. The honorable thing for him to do is resign.”

Republicans braved negative public opinion to impeach Mr. Clinton for lying under oath. Was it just because he was a Democrat? These same Republicans are rushing to the defense of Mr. Nethercutt, who broke his oath. National Republicans are funding a $200,000 ad blitz attacking, well … us! U.S. Term Limits. My group.

What did we do? Well, we put the issue of term limits and the issue of integrity dare I say it? Above party, either party, any party. I’d rather be right than be Republican or Democrat. As Rep. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma says, “I don’t want to be associated with people that tell Americans one thing and do another.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

When money was tight the career politicians in Washington were spending it like there was no tomorrow.

Now with a surplus watch out!

There are lots of “good ideas” in this world. Of course, since every good idea costs money except maybe one we can’t afford to do everything for everyone.

But sometimes government thinks it can. Who can be against a new hospital? More money for the needy? Higher pay for soldiers, and teachers, and policemen? Shouldn’t we fund NASA and reach for the stars? Find cures for diseases! A chicken in every pot. A computer for every child! End poverty! Abolish unemployment and mandate eternal happiness for all! Swell ideas, each of them.

But we have to ask ourselves a question: Do we have the right, constitutional or moral right, to spend our neighbor’s money to fund our dreams? If we do, so do the millionaire ball club owners who want their stadiums built at taxpayer expense.

Jeff Flake, a congressional candidates who has signed the term limits pledge, says that, “If anybody can conclude that spending public money on a football stadium is OK at the local level, then heaven knows what they would do at the federal level in that candy store.” Those, like Flake, who don’t want a political career sure are a lot better at saying NO to demands for more candy.

Here’s another idea: maybe folks should pay their own way in life and not be dependent on government. Hmmm, I like that one.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

What if you could spend money you have no legal right to spend? Maybe even billions and billions of dollars? What if you knew you wouldn’t get caught? Would you do it?

I guess it depends on what kind of person you are.

One kind of person would spend all those billions without any thought about right and wrong. A better person would say, “Hey, this isn’t right! I don’t care if I get caught or not, this ain’t right, by golly!”

Well, we’ve had this situation in Congress for years, except now the bad guys are getting caught. Congress has to authorize a spending program. When the authorization lapses, they have to authorize it again to keep it going.

Except way too often they don’t bother, because they know they can’t get the votes. If career politicians don’t have the guts to cast the “Yes” vote to keep a program going, the funding for it should stop too, so we can all save some money.

But that isn’t what’s been happening.

Freshman Congressman Tom Tancredo has discovered 247 programs costing a total of $120 billion bucks that have not been authorized by Congress this year. Tancredo recently succeeded in passing an amendment requiring greater disclosure of unauthorized spending, ripping the cloak of secrecy from this dishonest practice. He’s been working with the Citizen Legislators Caucus, made up of other members with self-​imposed term limits.

They’re willing to fight the establishment to do what’s right. Just like you and I would.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Sometimes the outfit I work for, U.S. Term Limits, takes a little heat when we criticize a politician for breaking a term limits pledge. If we say Republican Congressman George Nethercutt should keep his word and step down from office, some Republicans are annoyed. If we say Democrat Congressman Marty Meehan should keep his word and step down, some Democrats are annoyed.

Well, we believe integrity is a nonpartisan virtue.

The term limit pledge is a solemn promise to give up power after a short time in office. It’s not a promise about when you’re gonna meet somebody for lunch. It says you will serve as a citizen legislator who puts principles and people first. Congressmen Matt Salmon and Mark Sanford understand. They’re keeping their promises and stepping down this year. Says Salmon: “The longer people stay, the more indistinguishable the parties are.”

Rep. Sanford adds, “We get so hung up on the party thing we miss the bigger picture.” We all have our own political views, and many of us are aligned with a party. But truth must come before party. That’s what makes us Americans first. And if truth is on our side, we have nothing to fear from term limits.

New people endeavoring to be citizen legislators will find the right course in policy decisions more often than those who place their party first. Keeping your word is a lot more essential to a free society than being a Republican or Democrat or a career politician.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Americans want term limits for members of Congress. It takes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But most Americans are unaware of an important case headed to the Supreme Court that could move things in that direction.

It concerns a Missouri term limits initiative passed in 1996. Missourians passed an amendment to their state constitution. It followed the age-​old practice of instructing elected officials. In this case, the amendment instructed congressional representatives from Missouri to use every effort to pass a term limits amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These instructions were not binding. Voters cannot force their representatives to vote a certain way.

But in our country’s early days, when elected officials could not in good conscience abide by the instructions of the voters, they almost always resigned from office. In those days, there was such a thing as honor. Not so much today. So the Missouri initiative went one step further. It provided that the voters would be informed on the ballot if congressional candidates refused to abide by the voters’ wishes.

Critics have decried the ballot notation as, in effect, telling the voters that a candidate is “unworthy to hold public office,” resulting in “potential political deaths” of those politicians who oppose term limits. And geez, we don’t want that. The Supreme Court must decide: Do voters have a right to instruct their representatives and to be informed on whether those instructions are followed? A favorable court decision would be a big step in the right direction.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.