term limits

...now browsing by category

 

Mass Corruption

Monday, June 29th, 2009

Ah, these United States — which is most corrupt?

New Jersey’s a traditional favorite. Chris Christie, the Republican candidate for governor this year, built his reputation as a federal prosecutor convicting 130 state and local politicians of corruption.

But Illinois is a contender: Think ousted Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Now, make room for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Recently, former House Speaker Sal DiMasi was indicted — along with several associates — for allegedly helping a software company obtain $20 million in state contracts in return for lots of cold, hard cash.

The previous speaker left office just before he was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. The speaker before that had been pushed out after pleading guilty to federal income tax evasion.

This rather consistent level of corruption is a sign of too much power and not enough accountability. Frank Hynes, a Democrat who served in the legislature for 26 years, agrees. He says, “The speaker controls, basically, everything — where you sit, where you stand, how many aides you get, whether you get a good parking space.”

Obviously the Bay State needs term limits — DiMasi had been in office for 30 years. But years ago legislators blocked a term limits amendment just as they’ve blocked all but three citizen petitions for constitutional amendments during the last 90 years.

Massachusetts needs a new revolution, one that puts citizens in charge with an initiative process that politicians cannot ignore.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Minnesota Common Sense

Monday, June 15th, 2009

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is a stepping down after two terms.

At a news conference to announce his decision, Pawlenty said, “I still have a lot of ideas and energy left, but being governor should not be a permanent position for anyone. . . . It’s time to give someone else a chance.”

Partisan Democrats are quick to charge that Pawlenty doesn’t think he can win a third term. They point to a poll wherein 57 percent of Minnesota respondents think the governor should not run for a third term.

But hey: That poll may show more about the public’s thinking on term limits than on Pawlenty. A Rasmussen Reports poll shows the governor with a 53 percent approval rating.

Pawlenty told

Sean Hannity on Fox News: “In Minnesota, we don’t have term limits, but we do have common sense and good judgment and we’re also good about taking turns. . . . [L]ike with everything else, there’s a season in life and eight years is enough. . . . I think we’ve got a lot done and now it’s time to pass the baton to someone else.”

Pawlenty was on John McCain’s short-list for Vice President and is now being talked about as a likely GOP presidential contender come 2012.

Asked to speculate on his next position,

Pawlenty offered, “My dream job is to be an NHL defenseman, but at 48 and having no skill, it’s tough.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Replacing Souter

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009

Supreme Court Justice David Souter is retiring. Apparently, Washington life doesn’t suit Souter, and, frankly, that’s the best thing I’ve heard in his favor.

A lot of people now speculate on whom our president will nominate, and how it will impact our country’s future. What will Congress do with the candidate? Will the ugly maw of politics sully the whole process . . . again?

One insight to glean from the second-guessing, speculation, and rumination is how sad it is that so much power rests on one selection.

When our leaders select a Supreme Court justice, they are selecting someone for life, really. Very few justices do as Souter has done, retire early, before their grasp on law and philosophy and politics might have dimmed a bit.

And that means that the job — already strategically important — becomes the Pearl of Great Price around which a lot of ugly politics scrambles.

How much better it would be were the Constitution amended to set terms for the justices, and limits to those terms!

Why not set terms to something like, say, eight years, and limit them to two? Sixteen years is plenty enough time in this office, way too much in most others.

Such a limit would make the position a little less crucial, and the turnover in the Court more evenly rotating.

And, thus, the appointment process a little less hysterical and ugly.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Unexpected Analogy

Monday, May 4th, 2009

Senator Arlen Specter has been around a long time. When he changed his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat last week, he referenced his early public service on the Warren Commission. Mobbed by enthusiasts, he said, “I don’t think Lee Harvey Oswald had this big a crowd trailing him.”

That wasn’t a parting shot — Specter aims to stay in office. He only switched after polls showed that challenger Pat Toomey — about whose candidacy I reported the week before — would best him in the Republican primary.

Yup. Arlen Specter wants to stay in office so badly that he’s willing to carry on even after he has been effectively repudiated by his party of over 40 years.

Most of the commentary has been about how small a tent the GOP has become. Most pundits say this is bad for Republicans.

I’m not so sure. If the Democrats fail to usher in Nirvana in the next two years — if things, say, get even worse — a narrowed oppositional GOP could turn the electoral climate around pretty fast.

What most interests me, now, is that Specter’s affiliation-change shows how difficult it is to change currents in government. The old guard can flip, stay in power, and the power brokers switch chairs from friend to foe and vice versa.

If senators served under term limits, this whole issue — and the problem it reveals — would not even come up.

With term limits, a metaphorical Jack Ruby isn’t even necessary.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

The Untold Story of the Oklahoma Three

Friday, May 1st, 2009

Receiving an award is a lot nicer than ten years in prison.

As regular listeners know, Rick Carpenter, Susan Johnson, and I were indicted by Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson on trumped-up, politically-motivated charges stemming from a petition drive to cap state government spending.

For almost two years this indictment hung over our heads. In all that time, the AG never even completed our preliminary hearing. Finally, all charges were dropped.

That vindication came in January. The next month, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, I received the Charlton Heston “Courage Under Fire” Award. And just weeks ago, I was honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Sam Adams Alliance for my Oklahoma fight as well as decades of work for term limits and citizen initiative rights.

The recognition is nice . . . for my whole family, who suffered alongside me these past two years. But let’s also remember my co-defendants, Rick and Susan.

At one point Edmondson offered Susan Johnson a deal. If she would only plead guilty — saving face for the Attorney General — she would be charged with a misdemeanor, and her record would quickly be expunged.

With her legal bills mounting and her business hammered by the prosecution, she didn’t blink. Instead, she told the AG: “No way.”

Her commitment to doing the right thing led to an important legal victory. She gets my Award for Quiet Courage.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.