Yes, we can term-limit the Congress.

I’m not saying it will be easy. It won’t be easy. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

That’s why I applaud U.S. Senator Jim DeMint for introducing a constitutional amendment to term limit Congress. Three two-year terms maximum for House members, two six-year terms for senators. Says DeMint, “term limits are not enough, of course. . . . But term limits are a good start. Because if we really want reform, we all know it’s not enough just to change the congressmen — we have to change Congress itself.”

DeMint knows that most congressmen are not eager to restrict their own power. But he’s not giving up.

Should he? In his Best of the Web e-letter, James Taranto asks whether DeMint’s proposed amendment will “include a provision stipulating that any senator who reaches the limit automatically becomes president? Because that’s the only way that two thirds of them would ever vote for it.”

Maybe, James. It is easy to be negative about the prospects for implementing major political reforms. One will be right most of the time. But I say it’s better to be an optimistic warrior pushing for the hard-to-accomplish but important-to-accomplish reform. Someday we’ll find the tipping point; someday we’ll see our “representatives” realize they have no choice but to accept term limits.

DeMint’s amendment moves us closer to that day.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Remember the Alliance for Bonded Term Limits?

I talked about the group last summer, when ABTL was little more than an idea. They were looking for candidates who would not only vow to limit their terms in office, but also agree to forfeit a big chunk of their assets if they break their word.

Sounds like a good idea — some vote-getters are quite skilled at sounding honest and sincere and rock-solid about principles they couldn’t care less about. Let them put their money where their mouths are if they’re truly serious about limiting their tenure in office.

And now someone has done just that: Will Breazeale, a North Carolina Republican. He’s seeking votes in next year’s election, hoping to represent the state’s seventh congressional district. In October, Mr. Breazeale formally executed a bond for $250,000 in a ceremony before the Board of Elections Office in New Hanover. If he tries to serve more than three consecutive terms, the money goes to charity.

At his website, Breazeale tells voters, “When I say that I will only serve three terms as your Congressman, I mean it; and I hope this promissory note will make my intentions clear.”

Breazeale is the first candidate in the country to commit himself to limiting his own terms in office with a bonded pledge. Let us hope he’s the first of many.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Big spending by candidates doesn’t always win elections. For instance, New Jersey Governor — soon to be ex-Governor — Jon Corzine outspent his opponent, Chris Christie, more than three to one . . . and still lost.

Of course, spending more money usually works better than spending less.

Michael Bloomberg won his race for mayor of New York City. But barely. Bloomberg spent 16 times more than his challenger — over $100 million dollars to get just 50 percent. It cost him more than $150 for every vote. Ouch.

So, why did the mayor have to spend so much to eke out a win?  Two words: term limits.

Bloomberg’s deal with the council to gut the city’s two-term limit and allow them all to run for a third term didn’t cost him his powerful perch. But it did cost him millions of dollars. And his reputation.

There were also a number of initiatives on the ballot. Before Tuesday’s election, at Townhall.com, I highlighted Maine and Washington State measures to put a cap on state spending growth. Both measures were defeated, but it was educational to take note of the spending.

In the final months, Maine’s measure was outspent by about ten to one. Washington’s? $3.5 million to nothing. Predictably, the big money came  from groups already wealthy from standing in the receiving line for government spending.

Spending money to make money . . . spending money to take money.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

“We have term limits; they’re called elections.” That’s the beloved mantra of term limits’ opponents.

For all their professed love of elections, though, these politicians don’t care much for the elections in which voters have enacted term limits. They regularly try any and every trick in the book to overturn such votes — anything to stay longer in office.

Take New York City. Voters passed term limits in one election; years later they smashed a term-limit weakening measure put on the ballot by the city council. But then Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the city council found a legal loophole, allowing themselves an extra term.

And they refused to permit the people any vote on their power grab.

But just weeks ago there was an election. Seventeen council members who had voted to weaken their own term limits faced primary opponents. Three were defeated. Two more are in races too close to call — with re-counts now underway. Another six won in very, very close contests.

The New York Times called the results “the greatest repudiation of incumbents in a generation.”

According to David Birdsell, dean of Baruch College’s School of Public Affairs, “Public frustration with what seems to be self-serving government officials is at a fever pitch right now.”

Call it “the revenge of the mantra”: Take away term limits, and voters will take away future terms the old-fashioned way . . . with elections.

This is . . . wonderful! This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Plastics: yesterday’s future, today’s convenience.

Reading a report from Jefferson City, Missouri, I learned that I already knew something that the politicians in Missouri didn’t: The difference between polystyrene and polypropylene.

Polystyrene, when expanded, makes that wonderful white stuff we usually call “Styrofoam.” Polypropylene makes dishwasher-safe stuff like Tupperware.

Anyway, the solons of the great state of Missouri, concerned about floating debris from abandoned foam coolers on the state’s waterways, banned the wrong plastic. Instead of polystyrene, they banned polypropylene.

So now, slobs who leave their beer coolers out on the river still run free (along with responsible styrofoam users), while tidy folk who take Tupperware to the river could be nabbed and put in jail for a year.

It appears an innocent mistake. Lawmakers, trying to avoid brand names, wanted to get technical. They were just incompetent. Opponents of term limits might blame Missouri’s term-limited, less-than-exhaustively experienced reps. But everyone knows that this happens as much or more with the most calcified legislators.

Anyone could make the mistake, really. For the life of me, it’s simply a fluke that I remember the difference between the two poly-substances. Maybe it was because I once knew a girl named Polly.

In any case, the goofy law will not be enforced. It will almost certainly be amended in the next session.

And Missourians will remain free to pop and seal their Tupperware lids even at the river.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.