I wish there were more disagreement in the world.
Or anyway, I wish there were more disagreements of the kind Larry Elder has with term limits. In a recent column Elder takes issue with Ed Crane. Crane runs the Cato Institute, a think tank in Washington, DC. Elder notes that according to Crane, “term limits, among other things, prevent career politicians from becoming entrenched establishment figures no longer responsive to their constituents. I argue that we already possess term limits elections and that, right or wrong, people deserve to vote for politicians they want.”
But then Elder wonders whether the case of Senator Joseph Lieberman supports Crane’s case or his own. Lieberman recently criticized the President for wanting to “make his tax cut permanent, which would cost $4 trillion. That’s not spending restraint,” says Lieberman. “Tax cuts are spending.”
And Elder says, “To call Lieberman’s definition of ‘tax cut’ doublespeak insults George Orwell. Let’s call it Potomac psychosis.” According to Elder, Lieberman’s thinking “reveals a strange mindset, in which our money magically becomes his. And returning that money, or not taking it in the first place, becomes a ‘cost’ to government.”
Elder asks, “Did Lieberman always think the citizens’ money belonged to government, or, as term-limits proponents believe, did Lieberman’s length of time in Washington change him from normal to Potomac-challenged?”
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.