Tag: exit

Categories
Accountability folly ideological culture local leaders media and media people national politics & policies

Where Have You Gone, Al Franken?

Al Franken, apology, resignation, exit, sexual, misconduct, disgrace, excuse, guilt

Today, finally, is the day. Barring some last-minute hijinks in the extended resignation ritual announced almost four weeks ago by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), the comedian turned cad turned politician turned pervert leaves his U.S. Senate seat.

And hopefully keeps his mitts off other people’s seats to boot.

Even without deadline hijinks, the Franken saga has been strange. After hearing Franken’s resignation statement on the Senate floor, CNN’s Chris Cizzilla wrote, “He didn’t believe he had done anything for which he should have been forced to resign.”

But note: No one “forced” Senator Franken to step down. As my Sunday Townhall.com column reminded, he did so voluntarily. 

Why?

Peer pressure. Three-quarters of fellow Democratic Party senators demanded Franken leave, to clear the way for election-year attacks on Republican sexual sleaze-balls without partisan distraction.

And now some cry crocodile tears. They want the no-longer-amusing Franken out. Sure. But they also wish to continue the pretense that Franken is a wonderful fellow just the same.

“His voice will be stronger than ever,” argued fellow Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar—ridiculously. A Vox article was headlined, “Al Franken resigned amid sexual misconduct allegations, but Democrats aren’t making him leave in disgrace.”

Is it a paraphrase of the old joke: “Don’t go away in disgrace, Senator, just go away”?

But Franken is leaving in disgrace. Should be.

Eight women have come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct. The senator’s response has been to publicly apologize, profusely, and then, later, claim that “some of the allegations” are “not true.”

Others he remembers “differently.”

Not good enough, ex-senator.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability folly general freedom insider corruption local leaders moral hazard nannyism porkbarrel politics too much government

The Biggest Loser

Illinois, corruption, exit, vote with your feet, taxes

Government is supposed to serve everybody . . . according to good, old-fashioned republican theory. But most governments serve some more than others. We can define as “corruption” any attempt to make government serve a few at the expense of the many — or the many at the expense of the few.

Illinois is corrupt, and most of us can only watch it get worse. But what can we say about those who live under the Prairie State’s thumb? When citizens see an institution slipping out of control, they can remain passive or take charge. Illinois citizens have petitioned for term limits, redistricting reform and a more transparent legislature only to be blocked again and again by the state supreme court.

What more can conscientious citizens, folks I like to call “liberty initiators” do? Well, they can

  • express themselves in criticism as well as offer alternatives;
  • vote thoughtfully and be well informed;
  • consider running for office or work for good candidates;
  • donate money to reform projects.

Alas, these and other expressions of “voice” have not exactly forestalled disaster.

The last resort is to “exit,” leave — vote with your feet.

The population of Illinois has declined. Many have pulled up stakes and fled across the border to Indiana and elsewhere. In the most recent year for which we have data, Illinois lost nearly 34,000 people, more than any other state.*

Unfortunately, this population loss is only an indicator of how bad Illinois State Government is doing. It offers no solution.

Except, of course, for the people who leave.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Idaho has experienced the biggest population increase. See Reason’s reportage.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability incumbents insider corruption local leaders moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility term limits

Our Experience with Experience

exit, term limits, experience, Congress, oversight, Senators Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Bob Corker

It seems exceedingly plausible that the longer one serves as a legislator, the better legislator one would become.

Yet voters back home have noticed something: the longer in office, the less representative their so-called representative tends to become.

No wonder that in those states where Americans have been permitted to vote on congressional terms limits, that vote has been a resounding, “Let’s limit ’em!”

In a Washington Post op-ed, Greg Weiner, associate professor of political science at Assumption College, praised Senators Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) as “voices for congressional power” and “defenders of congressional prerogative.” He worries their departure weakens Congress as an institution, further eroding a critical check on the president and the executive branch.

“The problem pertains far less to opposition to this president,” Weiner points out, “than to the long-range erosion of congressional resistance to the presidency as an institution.”

This caught my attention because we desperately need Congress to function as a co-equal branch of government and because opponents of state legislative limits* often assert a similar argument: term-limited legislatures are less able to check the power of the governor and executive branch agencies.

“Congress has been in decline for generations,” Weiner acknowledges. What else has been happening over this time? Politicians have been loitering in Congress longer and longer, term after term after term. 

Hmmm. The correlation is between a weakened Congress and more experience, not less.

Let’s further note that Flake is only in his first Senate term and Corker his second.

After nearly four decades in office, is, say, doddering Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), providing better oversight?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* The 15 states that have them — Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota — contain 37 percent of us.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
general freedom ideological culture initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders national politics & policies political challengers

Not a Joke

Washington, secession, division, exit, legislature, legislation, city, country, representation, initiative, ballot

Yesterday, the chief sponsor of a Washington State legislative bill withdrew it. He said it was “a joke.” His co-sponsor wasn’t laughing, however . . . even proclaimed an intent to introduce the bill again next year.

The legislation’s purpose? Split the state into two.

The eastern, drier half of the State is much less populated, and the wet, western half gets its way almost all the time. The bill’s sponsor mentioned his intent: to call attention to the persistent lack of effective representation.

It was not a funny* joke. What he meant, surely, was “a stunt.”

This is just one of many ongoing secessionist movements in the United States. Most represent the eternal struggle between more self-reliant, community-centered and less statist country folk and the more atomized, fearful statists of the cities. But also present is the problem of representation. There is not enough of it. Many people do not have a voice. Hence the desire for exit.

“Voice” vs. “exit” are two crucial aspects of constitutional politics, particularly relating to different kinds of “freedom.”

Many states could use splitting, California, especially.

But exit is not the only option. Representation itself could increase in sheer numbers; California, anyway, has (astoundingly!) too few politicians, er, representatives . . . per residents.

Another key constitutional change would be to set the bar higher to passing new legislation, especially regarding adding tax burdens.

But not for the people. We are best represented by our own votes, which means initiative and referendum rights extended to all states. Citizens of Washington State (still intact) lack the ability to change their constitution by initiative — an important process for future state shape shifts.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Originally, the new state’s name was to be Liberty, much better than the states of Tyranny, Servitude and Denial. Now I read that the proposed name is Lincoln, awkwardly tied to our union’s most determined anti-secessionist. That is a bit funny.

Printable PDF