Tag: term limits

Categories
Accountability initiative, referendum, and recall insider corruption

Representative or Reprehensible?

North Dakota, State Auditor,

Seventy-seven million. 

That is the dollar amount of “financial errors” that North Dakota State Auditor Joshua Gallion discovered in the last year, after launching performance audits at twice the rate of his predecessor.* 

So, uncork the champagne! Huzzahs all around! Back slaps.

But the back-slappers in the state legislature took a much different tack. 

In the waning days of this year’s now-adjourned legislative session, in the opacity of a conference committee, a change somehow slipped into a bill. No future audits without legislative approval. 

As news hit of this handcuffing of the elected watchdog, taxpayers turned livid. And legislators started tap-dancing, claiming that “the legislation had nothing to do with the new aggressiveness Gallion brought to the job.”

Finally, Rep. Keith Kempenich, the author of the change, confessed: “A lot of legislators started having some issues with the way things were going and wanted to reel him in.” 

Kempenich added that the auditor’s work “isn’t supposed to embarrass people.” At his Minuteman Blog, Arthur Mason countered that such financial mismanagement is “worthy of embarrassment.”

Governor Doug Burgum, who has “felt the sting of a Gallion audit,” signed the bill; calls for the legislature to reverse their gutting of accountability have fallen on deaf ears.

Concerned citizens were already organizing to defeat the legislature’s proposed constitutional amendment giving themselves a veto on voter-initiated amendments, requiring a re-vote if politicians don’t like the people’s first vote. Now an additional effort is forming to petition a referendum or new initiative onto the ballot to stop the power-mad politicians from neutering the state auditor. 

Who do these legislators think they are? 

Seems North Dakota’s solons are in desperate need of still another reform measure: term limits. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

* Prior to Gallion’s 2016 election, the state auditor post had for 44 years been a hereditary fiefdom, held by Republican Robert Peterson for 20 years and, before that, for 24 years by Peterson’s father.

North Dakota, State Auditor,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
incumbents political challengers Popular term limits

The Incumbency vs. Progressives

democratic party, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, DCCC, Bill Lipinski, primary challenger,

“The Democratic Party leadership is choosing machine politics,” charged Alexandra Rojas, the young executive director of Justice Democrats, “over ushering in a new generation of leaders and the fundamental idea of democracy.”

She specifically assails the DCCC’s blacklist of political professionals working for Democratic Party candidates who dare to challenge Democratic incumbents in next year’s Democratic primaries. 

The Intercept reports that “at least four consultants dropped” challenger Marie Newman’s campaign “under pressure from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s new policy to cut off vendors working with primary challengers.” 

Newman is formidable, having come within 2 percentage points of Rep. Dan Lipinski in the 2018 Illinois Democratic Primary. The National Abortion Rights Action League, Democracy for America and other progressive groups are decrying a DCCC “blacklist policy that protects anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ, corporate Democrats like Dan Lipinski.”

And progressives have reason for disgust. Lipinski is a protected insider.

For the last 36 years, there has been a Lipinski in Congress. Bill Lipinski, the current congressman’s father, held the seat for 22 years before giving it to his son. And yes, “giving” is correct. 

In 2004, two months before the November election, while running unopposed for a 12th term, the incumbent resigned — too late to trigger a special election wherein voters could make a choice. Instead, Bill’s replacement was hand-picked by the Illinois district’s Democratic Party Committee.

Controlled by — you guessed it! — Bill Lipinski. 

That insider group chose Bill’s son, Daniel, who was then living in Kentucky.

“It was an open process,” claimed the father. 

Today, per the blacklist, “[t]he DCCC says the policy doesn’t discourage primary challengers.”

Well, I guess no one expects truth from a political machine.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

democratic party, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, DCCC, Bill Lipinski, primary challenger,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

Catnip for Arrogant Politicians

Alan Clark, Arkansas, term limits,

Arkansas Sen. Alan Clark pretends that his bill, Senate Joint Resolution 15, would toughen the term limits that apply to him.

Clark’s masterpiece, which sailed through the Senate 27–3 on Tuesday, most certainly does not. While it purports to toughen term limits from 16 years to 12 years, read the fine print.*

First, these legislators are grandfathering themselves in at 16 years. 

Second, Clark’s amendment removes the current lifetime limit, allowing politicians to return to office after just four years out.

For another 12 years.

And then perhaps an additional dozen years.**

What is going on here, you ask?

Well, in 2014, Arkansas legislators had tricked voters, referring a dishonestly worded measure onto the ballot. It claimed to establish term limits and ban gifts from lobbyists to legislators. The amendment accomplished neither; lobbyists continue to ply legislators with food and drink while existing term limits were weakened.

Last year, a citizens group turned in 135,000 voter signatures to place the strict limits citizens had originally enacted (1992) onto the ballot. But a lobbyist lawsuit with technical signature challenges won a 4-3 state supreme court decision blocking the initiative. 

Nonetheless, it was too late to remove the measure from the ballot. Votes were cast, just not counted. Fortunately, the Arkansas Times’ Max Brantley released vote totals in three large counties showing that the citizen-sponsored term limits had won big.

Which scared Arkansas’ prima-donna careerists, Clark especially, to create the current exercise in representing themselves, not the citizens of Arkansas.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Clark’s constitutional amendment originally contained a provision taking term limits for state legislators out of voters’ hands by banning use of the initiative process to propose changes. Thereafter, only legislators could address the length of their own careers. That bit of self-interested boss-rule was jettisoned, apparently, as too obviously and arrogantly anti-voter.

** Those additional years — which, depending upon longevity, could extend past three decades — come with additional pension benefits, too.

PDF for printing

Alan Clark, Arkansas, term limits,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
term limits

Democratic-Republican Day

Thomas Jefferson, term limits, democracy, Democratic-Republican,

“We live in a republic,” I often hear, “not a democracy!”

Sometimes it seems like we live in neither.

Today is the first National Term Limits Day. Its proponents aim to style February 27th as an annual event. 

It’s a new thing. 

But term limits themselves are not new.

For instance, 68 years ago today, the 22nd Amendment was ratified, limiting the president to two lifetime terms.

Long, long before that, ancient Athens — often called a democracy — term-limited elected offices, as was done in Rome — which was called a republic.*

The idea being that, if the people are to rule, in even a loose sense, those who hold office must not be permanently perched, able to acquire increasing amounts of power and privilege.

To accomplish this, elections serve as ways to rotate people into and out of power. Unlike in hereditary monarchy or military rule, elections of “rulers” to positions of power require the establishment of terms in office, a set period of time that limits those in power by requiring elections to renew their service for another term, or peaceably to oust them.

A term limit takes the next step, disallowing an individual from staying in office for life by limiting the number of terms legally available.

Thomas Jefferson was upset that the new Constitution, devised in convention in 1787, did not have provisions ensuring “rotation in office,” via term limits. He was what was then called a “democratic republican.”**

Whether you call it “democracy” or “republic,” or something else, citizens being in charge of government is something we could use more of. The United States has term limits for the presidency, for 15 state legislatures, for elected officials in eight of the ten largest cities. We need them for Congress most of all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* O’Keefe, Eric (2008), “Term Limits,” in Ronald Hamowy, The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, Thousand Oaks: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 504–06. “Political scientist Mark Petracca has outlined the importance of rotation in the ancient Republics of Athens, Rome, Venice, and Florence.”

** Alexander Hamilton, infamously, leaned the other direction: in his first speech at that first constitutional convention he argued to elect a national king to serve for life. He was a nationalist, in those days called a “Federalist.”

PDF for printing

Thomas Jefferson, term limits, democracy, Democratic-Republican,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
Accountability general freedom national politics & policies term limits

The Soul of Citizen Government

President's Day, George Wahington, term limits, power

Today’s federal holiday represents a truly spectacular feat of modern public administration: actual downsizing.

By our federal government, no less.

Where once there were two federal holidays, Washington’s Birthday and Lincoln’s Birthday, now there is just one: Presidents’ Day.

There is no equal in public sector simplicity, frugality, efficiency. Stand in awe, fair citizens.*

In that spirit of brevity (the soul of citizen government?) I’ll cut out the middle-man, moi, and let presidents speak to a classic example of less being more, term limits.

“If our American society or the United States Government are overthrown,” Abraham Lincoln wrote, “it will come from the voracious desire for office, this wriggle to live without toil, work, or labor — from which I am not free myself.”

“We want to see new voices and new ideas emerge,” explained President Barack Obama. “That’s part of the reason why I think that term limits are a really useful thing,”

‘Actions speak louder than words’ could have been George Washington’s motto. His greatness may spring more from giving up power than from wielding it. He could have been president for life, but he stepped down after two terms, eight years.

In his second term, President Thomas Jefferson expressed hope that his retirement would help establish that two-term tradition for presidents, ultimately leading to a constitutional requirement.**

Success! This February 27th marks the 68th anniversary of the 1951 ratification of the 22nd Amendment: presidential term limits. 

And having declared the 27th to be Term Limits Day, U.S. Term Limits and supporters are rallying all around the country next Wednesday.

Join in celebrating term limits and help push for limits on Congress.

It’s Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* That’s what it seems like, anyway. The true story? Much more complicated. Officially, the U.S. Government still considers Presidents’ Day to be Washington’s Birthday, believe it or not.

** Jefferson had harshly critiqued the new Constitution for its “abandonment in every instance of the necessity of rotation in office, and most particularly in the case of the President.”

Contact U.S. Term Limits:
termlimitsday@termlimits.com

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

What’s Love Got to Do With It?

term limits, democracy, representative, congressman, Senate, House of Representatives

“One of the great myths in official Washington,” writes pollster and pundit Scott Rasmussen at Ballotpedia.org, “is that voters hate Congress but love their own representative.”

Working for term limits, boy have I heard this assertion a lot.

Oh, voters do hate Congress; this we know. Less than one in eight Americans approve of the job being done (or not) by Congress, according to a brand new The Economist/YouGov poll. 

The remaining question, however, is whether we really like our own congressperson. The correct answer appears to be: Not so much.

A recent ScottRasmussen.com national survey, conducted Feb. 1-2, 2019, found that less than one in four voters, only 23 percent, “actually think their own representative is the best person for the job.” A far larger percentage, 38 percent, believe “others in the District are more qualified.” 

It is certainly possible, of course, that folks could think there is someone better than their sitting congressperson and, nonetheless, still love their Rep.

Though, doesn’t “love” seem like way too strong a word?

The notion that we are consumed with amorous urges toward our own federal representative is evidenced only by the high re-election rate for incumbent congressmen. But those rates are more likely the result of the powerful advantages of incumbency.

Not gleeful adoration of “our” career politicians.

There is one way to test our level of devotion: Let us vote on term limits and see what happens.

It would lead to a new question: Where did our love go?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

term limits, democracy, representative, congressman, Senate, House of Representatives

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
term limits too much government

Beautiful Canary

term limits, Venezuela, socialism, canary

New hope for Venezuela: A direct constitutional challenge against the horrific reign of socialist strongman Nicolás Maduro enjoys massive popular support and has quickly gained international recognition.

If 35-year-old National Assembly President Juan Guaidó, who launched the campaign, succeeds in restoring a democratic government, he should also restore term limits on the president, the National Assembly and other offices. 

Those limits were repealed through a 2009 constitutional referendum that paved the way for then-President Hugo Chavez to continue in power. With government domination of the media and a slanted ballot question, it was less than a fair election. Still, 54 percent voted to end the limits.

Today, I’m certain the majority would vote differently.

Venezuela makes me think of Nicaragua, likewise being looted and brutalized by a socialist thug. Hundreds have been killed in protests demanding that Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega step down. I have friends with relatives in harm’s way.

Nicaragua is similar to Venezuela in another respect: The care and maintenance of dangerous concentrations of power ran smack into an established constitutional restraint known as term limits. 

In a widely condemned 2011 decision, the country’s supreme court “declared the constitution unconstitutional,” as the leader of the Nicaraguan Center for Defense of Human Rights put it. This permitted Ortega to run again. Three years later, the National Assembly jettisoned the limits from the constitution — without any vote of the people.

Term limits are needed everywhere, every city, state and nation across the globe. Even when a powerful despot breaks the limit, the violation at least serves as the coal miners’ dead canary, demonstrating that the political air has become too dirty for liberty to breathe.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

term limits, Venezuela, socialism, canary

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
term limits

The World Wants Term Limits

Armenia, term limits, freedom, progress, The Economist

The Economist magazine has announced its “Country of the Year.” 

It’s Armenia.

The idea behind the award is to recognize the nation that has “improved the most” during the past year. The honorific implies no rosy assumptions about the future. Obviously, a country can backslide. The Economist’s editors admit that this proved to be the case with prior winners France and Myanmar.

This year, Malaysia and Ethiopia were in the running. Malaysians managed to oust a corrupt prime minister, and the new leader of Ethiopia has sought to encourage freedom of speech and liberalize the economy. But, all things considered, the magazine regards the advances in these countries to be too contradictory or uncertain to merit the Most Improved designation.

Progress seems more definitive in Armenia, where former President Serzh Sargsyan did his darnedest to escape presidential term limits — as is attempted by so many heads of state around the world.

Sometimes the power-grabbers succeed and sometimes they don’t. But everywhere, most voters oppose such shenanigans. They know how easy it is for an incumbent to shove his way to perpetual power no matter how unhappy they may be with him. Citizens know the value of term limits.

Armenia’s good news is that Sargysan’s attack on term limits failed — dramatically. He resigned after massive demonstrations. An opposition figure, Nikol Pashinyan, won power “on a wave of revulsion against corruption and incompetence. . . . A Putinesque potentate was rejected.”

Just what the world needs to see — a lot more often.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Armenia, term limits, freedom, progress, The Economist

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability national politics & policies term limits

Mrs. Term Limits?

Nancy Pelosi, term limits

Do politicians oppose term limits on principle?

For the answer to be yes, we would first have to explain to them what principles are.

Sure, politicians adamantly oppose term limits that cut against their self-interest, i.e. apply to them. But they are often for term limits . . . when the limitation applies to others.

The exception to this rule? When limiting one’s own terms — or pledging to do so in the future — is absolutely essential in order to win an election.

Take the case of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who wishes to be elected Speaker in January by the new Democratic House majority.

Mrs. Pelosi is an unlikely candidate . . . for Mrs. Term Limits. And yet, she has agreed to support a new rule imposing term limits on leadership positions — even her own speakership.

What gives?

A number of newly elected congresspeople won their seats on a promise to change Washington. And to gain votes, they had pledged not to support the exceedingly unpopular, long-serving Swamp Creature for speaker.

Or should that be Mrs. Swamp Creature?

Now with Democrats comprising a narrow 17-seat majority in the new Congress, these young upstarts wield enough votes to deny Pelosi the position she covets.

So, against the objections of her longtime lieutenants, Pelosi has promised these “rebels” that she will not merely bring before her caucus a new rule imposing limits of three terms for leadership positions, including her own, but she also insists that even if that rule fails to win the support of the Democratic caucus, she will personally, voluntarily, abide by those limits.

Meet the Missus. Don’t ask about her previous status.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Nancy Pelosi, term limits

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall national politics & policies term limits

Trump Should Look to Peru

Peru, term limits, Trump

Democracy can degrade into other things, even strong-man rule. To avoid such degradation, we have a ready prophylactic. Term limits. Which hamper would-be dictators-for-life, including entrenched oligarchs in the legislature.

Many countries illustrate the point. But take Peru, where the new head of state, Martin Vizcarra, has been combatting political corruption by supporting a referendum to impose term limits and other reforms on Peru’s Congress. Voters weigh in on December 9. 

The congressional term limit would be a ban on consecutive terms. Peru’s presidency itself is limited, too weakly in my judgment, by a ban on consecutive terms. A former president may run again after a term out of office. But this is much better than having no presidential term limits.

Vizcarra got the top job early this year when his predecessor resigned because of corruption charges. The former vice president wasn’t very popular at first. But Vizcarra’s fight against corruption and for legislative term limits has changed things. The new guy now enjoys a 61 percent approval rating.

May I offer a suggestion to our own head of state? 

Americans, too, are heartily sick of corrupt incumbents. 

We, too, would love to see congressional term limits. 

Instead of voicing only occasional strong support for efforts to impose them, President Trump could make it a crusade. Push for the idea as loudly and eloquently as he can, day in, day out. The future of the country is at stake. 

And it would boost his approval ratings.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

» See popular posts from Common Sense with Paul Jacob HERE.