Tag: Congress

Categories
Accountability government transparency term limits

Promises & Limits

term limits, senate, house, Congress

Last year, Americans — everywhere from Montgomery County, Maryland, bordering the nation’s capital on the east coast, to sunny Santa Clara, California, on the west coast — voted to impose term limits on their elected officials.

There were 40 separate local votes to enact term limits or, conversely, measures put up by politicians to weaken or abolish those limits. In every single case — that’s 100 percent — voters came down on the side of strong term limits. And by a whopping average vote of 74 percent.

Not. Even. Close.

Back in 2014, term limits admittedly did not fare quite as well. In that election year, a mere 97 percent of local term limits ballot measures prevailed. You can’t win them all.

Most folks I know believe we most desperately need term limits on Congress.

Even in these days of division, with our nation racked by partisan rancor and recrimination, a constitutional amendment to term-limit Congress has better than two-to-one support by folks across the spectrum — favored by 77 percent of Republicans, 67 percent of Democrats and 79 percent of independents.

President Donald Trump pledged in the campaign’s homestretch that, as his first order of business in “draining the swamp,” he would push Congress to propose an amendment limiting House members to three terms, six years, and Senators to two terms, 12 years. Those are the limits in the term limits amendment already introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.).

Speaker Paul Ryan has promised to bring it to the floor for a vote. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has refused. McConnell’s office number is (202) 224-2541.*

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* His Facebook page is here.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Common Sense

Effrontery Propaganda?

fake news, congress, ministry of truth, censorship, illustration

Buried within another, more innocuous-sounding piece of legislation*, the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act passed the U.S. Senate last week. Introduced in March, the corresponding House bill is still in committee.

Designed to “counter foreign disinformation and propaganda,” especially but not limited to Russia’s, the law, if enacted, would set up what amounts to the ultimate fact-checking outfit. But since, in politics, Nietzsche’s Law of Hermeneutics** holds — “there are no facts, only interpretations” — what it really would be is an anti-propaganda propaganda house, described by critics as a “Ministry of Truth.”

From Senate sponsors Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT), however, it sounds a lot more noble. It seeks to develop “a whole-of-government strategy for countering foreign propaganda and disinformation” as well as “leverage expertise from outside government to create more adaptive and responsive U.S. strategy options.”***

You can see why government insiders would be concerned. After all, information (mis- and dis- and even correct) travels fast these days.

That is the way of memes — “mind viruses,” popularly called**** — in this age of the Internet.

One related meme is the phrase “effrontery propaganda,” repeated in Internet postings, which characterizes the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act’s mission as that of developing and disseminating “‘fact-based narratives” to counter effrontery propaganda.”

Insiders in government and major media do see as “effrontery” the memes that so strongly captured our imaginations in 2016. But is it fakery that really bothers them? Or mere effectiveness?

In any case, effrontery is precisely the right word for any centralized, government-run propaganda outfit.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Titled a “report”!

** This being about propaganda, I hone my philosophical chops and chutzpah by dubbing the infamous F. A. Nietzsche saying as a “law.” On the order of Murphy’s and Parkinson’s so-called laws. Why not? Maybe it’ll catch on.

*** Specifically, the Senate version of the bill would expand “the authority, resources, and mandate of the Global Engagement Center” — an existing institution — to handle state actors (Russia, Russia, Russia, and China) as well as “help train local journalists” and seek to influence (and fund) NGOs and think tanks.

**** Richard Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene (1976; 40th Anniversary Edition, 2016), proposed a new science, memetics. Which has since been developed. See The Meme Machine, for example, by Susan Blackmore (Oxford University Press, 1999).

Printable PDF

fake news, congress, ministry of truth, censorship, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

How to Corrupt Politicians Without Really Trying

politicians, public servants, service,

In a Townhall.com column last January, I argued that politicians weren’t “stupid,” as Mr. Trump had loudly proclaimed — to few objections.

The problem is worse: too many politicians lack honesty and integrity. They’re in the politics biz for their own lucrative ends.

Six weeks ago, I declared — again, to few objections — that “Politicians Must Suffer.” Despite the provocative, sizzling-with-Schadenfreude title, my point was simple: “lavish pay, pensions and other benefits for city councilmen, state legislators and congressmen constitute a serious problem.”

“It breeds,” I added, “bad behavior when politicians line their own pockets. . . .”

Well, I’m right.

At least, I’ve got some academic back-up from a new study by Mitchell Hoffman of the University of Toronto and Elizabeth Lyons of the University of California-San Diego, entitled, “A Time to Make Laws and a Time to Fundraise? On the Relation Between Salaries and Time Use for State Politicians.”

Sounds like a fascinating read, eh?

“Using data on time use and legislator salaries, we show that higher salary is associated with legislators spending more time on fundraising,” the study’s abstract reads. “In contrast, higher salary is also associated with less time spent on legislative activities and has no clear relation to time spent on constituent services.” [Emphasis added]

While their study jives with my experience, the Wall Street Journal reports that others were surprised. Authors Hoffman and Lyons explain: “When salaries are higher, politicians face a greater incentive to get re-elected (as the value of serving in office is greater). Thus, they will optimally respond by increasing the time spent on fundraising.”

Sounds like in addition to lower pay for politicians, we need term limits, too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

politicians, public servants, service,

 

Categories
ballot access ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

The Stupidity of 15

President, Presidential, vote, House of Representatives, tie, illustration

Most Americans think there are only two choices for the presidency. And will thus vote for either Clinton or Trump.

They are wrong. There are two popular minor party contenders, and one will even be on all 50 state ballots.

In other election cycles, one could argue that a “third party” candidate has no reasonable chance to win — so, just ignore.

A self-fulfilling criterion?

Sure. But it works . . . for the major parties.

This cycle, however, it just doesn’t apply. A third party-candidate could indeed become the next president . . . even without capturing 15 percent nationally in the polls . . . or, get this, in the actual voting!

Confused?

Founded and run by Republican and Democrat bigwigs, the private non-profit Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is not an honest broker. The CPD’s 15 percent national polling threshold for inclusion in the debates neglects a crucial fact: presidential electors aren’t won nationally, but by winning states.

According to the latest Washington Post/SurveyMonkey poll, the Libertarian candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, isn’t polling quite 15 percent nationally. But he is polling 25 percent in his home state, where Trump is at 29 and Clinton at 37 percent.

Yes, Johnson is within striking distance to win New Mexico’s five electoral votes.

If Johnson does win there, and Trump keeps it close, winning say Ohio and Florida, no candidate may gain a majority of the Electoral College. The presidential contest would be thrown into the House of Representatives, the first time since 1824! With each state delegation casting one vote, Johnson could serve as the compromise, even consensus, choice.

It seems to me that the next president ought to be in the debates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

President, Presidential, vote, House of Representatives, tie, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability government transparency national politics & policies responsibility too much government

One at a Time

Mia Love, Rand Paul, congress, bills

A new procedural reform is in the offing.

And just because it is “procedural” doesn’t mean it’s insignificant.

Or boring.

Remember, how something gets done determines, in part, what gets done. The checks and balances that were written into our Constitution are there to regulate the how of government, the better to limit the what.

But it’s obvious our federal government is out of control, and in need of some additional . . . controls.

Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Mia Love have introduced just such legislation. It’s not a constitutional limitation, but a legislative change of procedure. The title of their bills pretty much explains the idea: the “One Subject at a Time Act,” initialized as OSTA.

I first heard rumblings about it from Rand Paul; then, just last week, Mia Love sent out her press release, ballyhooing the House version of OSTA, H.R. 4335.

Rand’s Senate version is S. 1572, and was introduced a little over a year ago.

The idea is not new. I’ve talked about it before. You probably have, too. Anyone with sense realizes that the congressional habit of adding unimportant, controversial programs to unrelated but necessary, uncontroversial bills, is a leading cause of government growth.

And one reason why Congress is so roundly detested.

OSTA, by forcing Congress to deal with subjects one bill at a time, might even save Congress from itself.

The bill is still looking for sponsors. You can help by putting your representative’s and senators’ feet to the fire.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Mia Love, Rand Paul, congress, bills

 

Categories
general freedom ideological culture moral hazard national politics & policies The Draft U.S. Constitution

Equal or Free?

draft, conscription, women, servitude, military, illustration

On Tuesday, the Senate voted to force American women, in their early years, to register for the draft.

Just like men have been required to do since 1980.

The White House threatens to veto the bill, though perhaps on other grounds, since the bill also, in the words of Richard Lardner (AP), “authorizes $602 billion in military spending, bars shuttering the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and denies the Pentagon’s bid to start a new round of military base closings.”

The Senate’s social conservative ranks made the whole process leading up to the vote difficult for the mainliners, like Sen. John “Maverick” McCain, who is enthusiastic about registering women. Sen. Ted Cruz expressed alarm at the direction “sexual equality” is taking, and didn’t want to see “girls drafted onto the front lines.”

Decades ago, the Supreme Court had nixed a challenge to draft registration on discrimination lines, reasoning that since women weren’t allowed onto the front lines, there was no cause to force them to register for military conscription.

But now there are women in combat positions. So the old ruling no longer applies. If draft registration isn’t expanded to women, it’s likely to be struck down for men.

We have no draft, we are reminded, mere registration — which our government keeps in place mainly to remind men that they may be drafted.

In the House version of the bill, there’s no draft registration amendment. So there will be negotiations. Maybe a compromise can be reached where neither young men nor women face a military draft* or, likewise, signing up for one.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* For more on why to oppose the draft, see my essay “The Draft Is Slavery” in J. Neil Schulman, The Rainbow Cadenza, pulpless.com edition (1999).

Printable PDF

draft, conscription, women, servitude, military, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability folly general freedom moral hazard U.S. Constitution

Not Drafting Our Daughters?

draft, selective service, woman, women, magic trick

Sometimes politicians have trouble making up their minds. During election years — with the looming prospect of voters having a say — their decision-making process becomes even more perilous.

Take the idea of forcing young women to register for the draft. Young men must, under threat of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and the loss of government benefits — all the way down to denying a driver’s license to non-registrants in many states. So why not force women to sign up for forced military service?

For equality!

Just days ago, it seemed nearly everyone was for conscripting our daughters — or, at least, registering them for future conscription. Obama’s Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and military leaders enthusiastically endorsed the idea. So did Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

In recent weeks, legislation beginning mandatory draft registration of women, ages 18-26, passed both the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee. Then, all the sudden — poof! — that provision was ripped out of the House bill.

“This is a dead-of-night attempt to take an important issue off the table,” complained the ranking Democrat on House Armed Services, Rep. Adam Smith of Washington.

Timing is everything, in comedy and politics. Congressional leaders don’t want to take any pro-draft action now, not with an election just six short months away.

“We have a choice to make,” Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) argues, “either we continue with Selective Service and have women be a part of it, or we abolish it altogether.” Coffman advocates the latter, having introduced a bipartisan bill with Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), H.R. 4523, to end draft registration and close the superfluous agency.

That’s Common Sense, especially in an election year. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

draft, selective service, woman, women, magic trick

 

 

Categories
Accountability initiative, referendum, and recall insider corruption responsibility

Four Powers on the Chopping Block

Ohio, initiative, lawmakers, congress, pay,

A group of Ohio citizens isn’t leaving the maintenance of ethical standards in government to the politicians. Smart. Forming a political committee, “Ethics First — You Decide Ohio,” the group filed an initiative to amend the state constitution unsurprisingly called, “Ethics First.”

What does the ballot measure do?

“Ethics proposal would cut state lawmaker’s pay and power,” said the segment on Cleveland’s NBC affiliate, WKYC-TV 3.

The initiative limits base pay for the state’s part-time legislators to the median household income of full-time Ohioans. Because Ohio is one of only six states in which legislators pay themselves more than median household income, the measure, if in effect today, would mandate cutting legislators’ base pay from $60,584 annually to $49,644.

“The purpose is not to cut their pay,” explained spokesman Jack Boyle. “The purpose is to make their pay related to what happens to all of us in Ohio. If we’re doing well, their pay will go up. If not, it will go down.”

What legislative “power” will be cut?

The amendment takes away four powers:

  1. The power of legislators to exempt themselves from laws and taxes other Ohioans must follow and pay,
  2. The currently unlimited power of legislators to raise their own pay,
  3. The power to be a paid lobbyist before the legislature within two years of leaving office as a state legislator, and
  4. The power of legislators to destroy legislative records, including electronic records, within four years.

All the other powers of the legislature remain completely intact.

How would you vote: Yes or No?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Ohio, initiative, lawmakers, congress, pay,

 

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money.

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

 

Categories
Accountability government transparency national politics & policies responsibility

That Bright, Shining, Responsible Congress

congress, responsibility, budget, balanced, fiscal, debt, pay, paycheck, illustration

The latest Gallup public approval rating for our so-called “representatives” on Capitol Hill stands at 11 percent — two whole percentage points higher than 2013’s worst-ever 9 percent measure.

But what if Congress changed? What if our representatives did something dramatic? You know, to show Americans that they get it, that they’ll start representing us, that they’re about doing the job and not just riding the gravy train of power, high pay, lavish pensions, special exemption from Obamacare, etc.?

No, I don’t envision a majority of the 535 House and Senate members jumping into a phone booth and coming out with Super Solon capes. My fantasy actually has its roots in reality.

Neither Obama nor congressional Democrats dare stop Republicans in Congress from passing The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2016, introduced by Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa). The legislation presents a straightforward incentive: do your job, balance the budget or . . . your pay will be cut.

Okay, disincentive.

Until the deficit is closed, and budget balanced, Blum’s law would reduce each congressman’s salary by 5 percent the first year, then 10 percent each year thereafter. Once Congress balances the budget, their full pay will be restored.

“For the sake of our children and grandchildren who will be stuck paying off our $19 trillion debt,” Rep. Blum argues, “it’s time we make our politicians face the reality of our fiscal crisis by hitting them where it counts: their own pocketbook.”

If the Republican-controlled Congress passed The Fiscal Responsibility Act, cutting their own pay until they get our country’s finances in order, the elections this November would be a rout.

Just a dream?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

congress, responsibility, fiscal, debt, pay, paycheck, illustration

 

Common Sense Needs Your Help!
If you enjoyed this article, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

 

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture individual achievement judiciary media and media people national politics & policies obituary

Life After Scalia

Antonin Scalia, Justice, Supreme Court, battle, death, Common Sense

President Reagan appointed Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to the nation’s highest court in 1986. Scalia served for 29 years before passing away over the weekend at age 79. May he rest in peace.

None of the rest of us will get any.

Why? An often conservative 5-4 majority is gone. The court is now tied, deadlocked, at 4-4.

“With the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, President Barack Obama will make another nomination to the Supreme Court,” explained an email from the very liberal Democracy for America (I’m on a lot of lists). “It is critically important that President Obama choose a strongly progressive person who can lead the Supreme Court and our country in a new direction.”

That’s Obama’s prerogative, of course. But the president’s nominee must be approved by the United States Senate — controlled 54 to 46 by Republicans.

And guess what?

Almost as fast, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued this statement: “The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Now, our Democratic president could negotiate with the Republican Senate majority, come up with a consensus (yeah, right) or compromise choice (watch out).

But don’t hold your breath.

You may also want to plug your ears. There will be shouting. The media will overwhelmingly take Obama’s side — surprise, surprise— and berate Republicans for obstructing.

Republican Senators have a constitutional duty to provide advice and consent to the president’s pick. Unless Mr. Obama’s choice will improve the High Court, those senators should withhold their consent.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Antonin Scalia, Justice, Supreme Court, battle, death, Common Sense