Categories
Accountability incumbents initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

The Junk Bond State

What a pleasure — comparing notes with Nick Tomboulides, executive director of U.S. Term Limits, my old job.

Speaking on a panel last week at the Young Americans for Liberty National Convention,* Illinois came up. Nick agreed that if the Land of Lincoln had a term-​limited legislature, we would never have heard the end of it: “Term limits are a failure!” 

Illinois, you see, is a failed state, confessing the lowest credit rating in history. 

Only a notch above junk bond status.

The media would have incessantly blamed “inexperience” for the fiscal implosion. 

In reality, though, Illinois is a career politician’s paradise. Speaker Michael Madigan (D‑Chicago) has spent the last 45 years in the legislature and all but two of the last 34 years as the chamber’s top banana.

Oh, it’s been a great ride for this longest-​serving House Speaker in modern history. He’s grown wealthy while “serving” in office — and provided himself with a lucrative (and curiously gamable) state pension. 

On the panel, Mr. Tomboulides highlighted “Ranking the States by Fiscal Condition,” a recent study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Though only 15 of the 50 states have term-​limited legislatures, those term-​limited states represent a majority, eight of the top 15 ranked states. Among the states ranked at the very bottom, none have term limits.

“For years they’ve warned that term limits would lead to inexperience which would produce fiscal ruin,” Tomboulides wrote at the U.S. Term Limits blog. “This report proves the opposite is true — that term limits states do better than those run by prehistoric politicians.”

And yet, somehow, not once have Nick or I seen the state’s financial woes blamed on careerism.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Feel good about the future: Very smart group of young folks at this YAL event.


Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies political challengers too much government U.S. Constitution

Term Limits Trump

Entering his campaign’s homestretch, underdog Donald J. Trump gave an important speech at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. He emphasized his support for term limits in what he called his “100-​day action plan to Make America Great Again.”

“[R]estoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington” is the top item on Trump’s agenda, along with a pledge to begin the drive for “a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress” on his very first day in the Oval Office.

Public disgust with the corrupt status quo in Washington — and the hope that he will shake things up — drove Trump’s victory.

Yet, today, the Elections Committee of Michigan’s House of Representatives hears testimony on several bills to weaken or repeal term limits. Have the limits lost public support? Not on your life.

Politicians simply want to stay ensconced in power, reaping the many benefits they’ve bestowed upon themselves. They want to stay in power longer.

Just look to California. Back in 2012, a dishonest ballot explanation tricked voters into thinking they were tightening their term limits law. But what they were actually doing was voting to weaken it.

Now, Golden State legislators can stay in the same seat for a dozen years. And special interests have noticed. They’re “investing” more heavily than ever before.

The Los Angeles Times summarized the result in its headline: “Longer terms for California’s Legislature mean a flood of cash from interest groups …”

Here’s for enacting real term limits at every level of government. And if the politicians and special interests don’t like it — good!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Donald Trump, term limits, president, first, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

The Big Phony

In 2014, Bruce Rauner won the top job in Illinois politics leading a term limits ballot initiative. The initiative garnered 600,000 voter signatures, more than enough to go to voters.

But House Speaker Michael Madigan, the one man running Illinois (into the ground), recruited a henchman to file suit. After an appellate court struck the issue from the ballot, a cowardly state supreme court refused to even hear the case.

That didn’t stop Rauner. As governor, he tried to force a compromise that would get legislators to put term limits on the ballot for voters. But legislators are not going to budge until they, including Mr. Madigan, feel threatened by voters.

So, what’s Mr. Rauner on to now? He’s working with Turnaround Illinois to blanket the state with television spots about term limits. The ad buy is already over $1 million, much of which may be coming from Rauner, says Capitol Fax’s Rich Miller.

Miller complains that the legislature won’t ever pass term limits and that, even if legislators did miraculously propose a vote, the limits don’t kick in until “House Speaker Madigan will be 86 years old, and he could still run for a state Senate seat.”

True. Madigan, already the longest serving speaker in state history, would get to serve the newly enacted limit, which is prospective, not retroactive. Still, that’s hardly an argument against term limits.

Writing in Joliet’s Herald-​News, Miller dubbed the effort “pretty much solely political and more than a bit phony.”

Political? Sure. What part of politics isn’t?

Phony? Come on. It’s not Gov. Rauner holding legislators accountable that’s phony — it’s our so-​called representatives who crookedly ignore the people.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

term limits, Illinois, Bill Rauner, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability folly government transparency incumbents local leaders responsibility term limits

Incumbent Upon Heaven

Many who pledged to limit their terms in Congress have gotten elected and, then … actually kept their word. Yet, with the temptations of power, combined with the acute narcissism of politicians, not a few have flung their honor aside to break their promise.

Four years ago, Oklahoma Congressman Markwayne Mullin was a challenger, “who pledged repeatedly … not to serve more than six years in the House.” Okie voters limited their congressional reps to three terms (six years) via a ballot initiative back in 1994. Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down that and 22 other state-​imposed congressional term limits laws just a year later.

NewsOK​.com reporter Chris Casteel asked Rep. Mullin if this coming term would, as Mullin vowed, be his last.

A simple yes or no question, eh?

Well, the incumbent’s response was less than unequivocal, “leaving open the possibility that he may run for a fourth term,” Casteel reported.

“Our position on this has not changed,” read Mullin’s official statement. “However, Christie and I will continue to seek the Lord’s guidance and do what is best for our family and the 2nd District of Oklahoma. The only election I am focused on right now is in 2016.”

Hmmm. Do you recall the Lord ever guiding anyone to break his word to the people?

What a dodge!

Mullin is like a burglar announcing, “I’m not sure if I’m going to rob your home when I get out of jail. That’s too far off in the future. But I’m seeking spiritual advice about it.”

Come to think of it, incumbent politicians and burglars have quite a lot in common.

But not Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Markwayne Mullin, term limits, lies, Oklahoma, politicians, lie

 


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 Common Sense term limits

Coming to Terms with A Logical Fallacy

Good people can disagree about term limits.

It’s not a moral issue, but about practical governance.

I love term limits, while my friend Lew Rockwell, the former Ron Paul aide who started the Mises Institute and runs the popular website LewRockwell​.com, isn’t a fan.

In a brief post to his site, entitled “The Term Limit Hoax,” Rockwell lamented that “Term limits apply only to the institutionally weakest branch of government, the legislature, to further weaken it, and never to the presidential bureaucracy, which actually runs the government, nor to the judges. It’s why neocons, those ultimate presidential supremacists, love term limits.”

This is the classic logical fallacy of guilt by association. Neoconservatives breathe air, too. Should the rest of us turn blue?

Usually if politicians — neocon or otherwise — claim amorous feelings for limits, as the late Bob Novak warned, “They’re lying.” Yet, most regular folks — all races, genders, political parties, levels of neocon-​ness, you-​name-​it — actually do want term limits.

Lew’s correct: Congress is weak. It was designed to be the strongest branch, holding the all-​important purse strings and a law-​making monopoly. Yet, career politicians have shrunk from fulfilling the First Branch’s constitutional role, consistently handing more and more power to the executive branch and the courts.

That’s not the result of term limits, but a lack thereof.

Why is there “never” a push for term limits on the “presidential bureaucracy”? Well, those bureaucrats don’t even have terms as such. And any limits would have to be legislated by Congress. Congress enacted that bureaucracy, every cubicle of it, and the longer congressmen stay in Washington, the more they champion it.

Limit judges? A term-​limited Congress might help there, too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Neocon, Neo Conservative, Photomontage, collage, Paul Jacob, Common Sense, JGill, Jim Gill

 

Categories
term limits

Merry Congressional Term Limits

In the spirit of giving, good will, peace, harmony, and important institutional reform, how about giving ourselves and our posterity a generous helping of congressional term limits?

I mean a maximum lifetime tenure of “three (3) House terms and two (2) Senate terms and no longer limit,” as spelled out in the U.S. Term Limits Amendment Pledge that U.S. Term Limits invites candidates and congressmen to sign.

Alas, don’t expect a stack of 535 signed pledges.

Merry ChristmasAlso, don’t expect a constitutional term limit amendment proposed by Congress to be wrapped up in a bow under our Christmas trees this holiday season … or the next. That gift, which our elected representatives could give to us, is not on the list they check twice.

We the people can only secure this reform by relentless pressure and activism. This very commitment is the gift we can give ourselves right now.

I’ve been fighting for term limits for decades. (Never mind how many!) But at the moment, I’m just echoing the heartwarming sentiment posted at the TermLimitsforUSCongress Facebook page: “The greatest gift that we could give to our children would be to stand together and put an end to the corrupt career politicians in the U.S. Congress.”

Term Limits for U.S. Congress is not to be confused with the nation’s leading grassroots organization fighting for the reform, U.S. Term Limits — especially since the U. S. House term limits proposed by TLUSC is more generous than either I or USTL can sign onto.

But giving ourselves the gift of congressional term limits? On that essential question, we are merrily of one mind.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.