ThisIsCommonSense.org

Career politicians love to be perceived as reformers, just as long as they don’t have to submit to any actual reform.

Term limits have teeth. We like term limits but politicians don’t. Better for politicians to favor some sort of complex reform scheme that offers lots of wiggle room and a scapegoat to blame when the planned failure occurs. That way they can play the corrupt game even while condemning the game they’re playing.

The Washington Post recently defended campaign reformers who only talk the talk, writing, “It seems too much to demand that a campaign reformer raise no money from the lobbyists he denounces …” Only in Washington do people justify raising money from those they denounce as evil.

If you don’t like this squishy thinking, there is a different view. Rep. Matt Salmon of Arizona knows the problem is careerism. That’s why he has term-​limited himself to three terms. Why doesn’t Congress reform? Salmon says, “I have seen countless people come to Washington with a zeal for reform only to be seduced by the power, status and privilege that come with the office. And like an addictive narcotic, many people simply can’t give up power and influence after they’ve taken their first hit.”

“Only term limits can change the character of the people who aspire to serve in Congress,” says Salmon. “And until we do that, real reform will have to wait.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

In football, it doesn’t get any better than the NFL. That’s what it means to be a pro. In politics, to be “a pro” means something very different.

Missouri State Sen. John Schneider has been in office for 30 years. He doesn’t like the term limits that 75 percent of Missouri voters imposed on the legislature. With typical arrogance, Schneider has introduced legislation to water-​down limits so he can stay even longer. Comparing legislators to professional football players, he said, “There’s a whole lot of difference between the NFL quarterback who’s a rookie and the NFL quarterback who’s got some seasoning.”

Oh yeah? Missouri is home to the NFL world champion St. Louis Rams who were led this year by an unheralded rookie quarterback who grabbed most valuable player honors as well as MVP of the Super Bowl. More rookies please.

In California, Michigan, Colorado, Oregon, Arkansas, and Maine where term limits have already gone into effect the new “rookies” are doing just fine AND cleaning up messes left by the old pros. Give us the amateurs. An amateur is someone who does something for the “love of it.” If you aren’t in public office because you love this country, if it’s all about you and your benefits and your career, then get out.

Congressman Matt Salmon of Arizona is stepping down after six productive years as a citizen legislator. He puts it another way: “If the NBA operated like Congress, they would have a bunch of fat, old men shooting free throws.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

We can argue about the nature of God from our different religious persuasions, but I’m certain we’ll agree He isn’t a member of either the Republican or Democratic Party.

Though politicians would probably argue the point.

Arguing is what the Washington crowd does best, after all. And, they’re at it again. The simplest decision in Congress, if it requires even the tiniest bit of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, becomes the equivalent of the Paris Peace Talks.

Now the leadership of both parties are squabbling about who should be the new chaplain of the House of Representatives. Democrats want a Catholic priest and Republicans want a Protestant minister. As usual, the career politicians in Congress are acting like children.

If they can’t get along any better than this, they don’t deserve to have a chaplain at all. It’s bad enough that they sling mud, but now they want to drag people’s religious faith into the mud with them.

Enough is enough.

And pray tell what does this signal about their ability to solve any of the problems that we confront? If they can’t choose a chaplain without a partisan jihad, do you really expect them to work together to solve more complex problems? All their bloody fighting only demonstrates the critical need in Congress for new blood.

When he was the chaplain for the Senate, Edward Everett Hale was once asked, “Do you pray for the Senators, Dr. Hale?” “No,” he replied, “I look at the Senators and I pray for the country.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Incumbent congressmen have many advantages over their challengers. So many that after two terms their reelection rate goes from an incredible 98.5 percent to an untouchable 100 percent.

Perhaps the biggest advantage is their ability to use the power of the federal government for their friends and against their enemies. Recently Congressman Jay Dickey of Arkansas told a group of black farmers that he would not support a judgement in a lawsuit that the farmers had won against the Department of Agriculture. His reasoning? Dickey said, “You want us to take away from projects that serve our base and give it to people who not only don’t vote for you but work for your defeat?”

There you have it. The merits aren’t the concern here, but rather, how effectively various interest groups can be bribed for their votes. As one of Dickey’s opponents said: “It shows what kind of man Mr. Dickey is, that they have to prove they are going to help him get elected before he will provide representation for them.”

Now we can see why politicians who seek a career tend to want an ever bigger and more powerful federal government. They can wield that power to protect a lifelong ride on the congressional gravy train.

A representative should do the right thing whether it wins him votes or not. That means they need to view their service as a calling, not a career.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

In the real world when two people have a disagreement and seek a compromise, they usually meet somewhere in the middle of their two positions.

That’s not how it works in Washington.

Back in 1997, Congress and the President made a compromise agreement that a paltry $580 billion dollars would be spent on discretionary programs in the 2000 budget. That agreement was ignored. The President sent Congress a discretionary budget spending $592 billion dollars, or $12 billion over the agreed on cap. That called for some consultations between Congress and the White House, and of course, a “compromise.”

But when they reached what they called a compromise the spending was $617 billion $37 billion over the agreed on cap and $25 billion more than the President asked for. Usually in a compromise, both sides give up something. But when Washington politicians compromise, they spend even more and send the taxpayers the bill.

Same thing happened with an agriculture bill. President Clinton asked for $469 million dollars. The Senate approved $474 million. Their compromise hiked spending to $486 million.

No wonder a compromise has been defined as, “An agreement between two men to do what both agree is wrong.” In the real world, you fight the good fight by compromising over details, but never compromising your principles. In the world of Washington, when the career politicians start talking of “compromise,” taxpayers better hold on tight to their wallets.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.