ThisIsCommonSense.org

On issues, politicians love to tell us how much they care, but they hate to tell us where they stand.

Last year, Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania ran a different kind of campaign. No poll-​driven, mushy sound bites. He didn’t tell voters what they wanted to hear, but what he really believed. Toomey did something far too rare these days; on issue after issue, he took a stand. Toomey campaigned for a 17-​percent flat tax, elimination of the IRS, and partial privatization of Social Security. He pledged to term-​limit himself to 3 terms in Congress. In the primary, he defeated 5 other candidates including a powerful incumbent state senator. Then he went on to win a hard-​fought general election.

About his victory, Toomey said: “As rough and tumble as this political process can be, it is encouraging to see that the voters are way ahead of the politicians, pundits, the consultants and the spin doctors.” Toomey went on, “From the beginning, the campaign professionals told me not to be specific in this campaign. Don’t talk about issues, they said. Don’t talk about that flat tax; don’t talk about real reform in Social Security; don’t talk about term limits, because they are all way too controversial. Well, folks, we have proven all the pundits wrong.”

Toomey has a point. Those who want to spend a long career in Congress are terrified of ruffling the feathers of any special interest group. But candidates who go to Congress to accomplish things for the country cannot ignore issues. To them, issues come first. You may not always agree with these term-​limited citizen legislators, but thank goodness they take a stand.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

They say no one’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.

Well in Arkansas it’s safe now; the legislature has adjourned. But even while they were in session, this year was a whole lot safer than in the past. That’s because the Arkansas Legislature has changed. Like 17 other states, covering 40 percent of the U.S. population, Arkansas has term limits. This year, 57 out of 100 representatives were new.

Before the session began, the political pundits acted like Chicken Little telling us the sky would fall. We couldn’t survive without the 800 years of legislative experience that had to leave due to term limits, they warned us. Well, under term limits the legislature did more than survive it blossomed. Rep. Bobby Glover, who had served in the legislature many years ago and returned this session, said: “Before the session, there was a big question of how effective this session was going to be. I couldn’t have been impressed more. I’ve never seen a group that was more conscientious in scrutinizing legislation.”

Rep. Ted Thomas, a veteran legislator, said the freshmen “wanted to know what the facts were, not who the personalities were.” Term limits leader Skip Cook wasn’t surprised. “It seems to me what’s taken place here is the same thing that has happened in California and elsewhere,” he said. “It’s proven to be that average citizens can give up their job, go to [the Capitol], make democracy work and go home again.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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.