Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought it would be easy to unravel citizen initiative rights in New York City.

He wants to stand for a third term, when New Yorkers have twice voted in support of a referendum limiting the mayor and city council members to two terms. Bloomberg’s second term ends November 2009.

Solution? Exploit a loophole that lets the city council revise the term limits law unilaterally. Council members had mumbled about doing this before, but Bloomberg always said he would veto any such attempt. We must, he said, respect the decision of the voters.

Once the mayor changed his mind, his task was simple. Just persuade a willing council to lengthen terms from two to three. Which they did. Problem solved.

Except . . . the uproar greeting Bloomberg’s betrayal of the voters has become enormous. And continues. Many voters showed up at the signing ceremony to berate him in person. So he had to squirm for a couple hours before scribbling his soiled John Hancock. There’s also a lawsuit under way to try to undo this undoing of lawful democracy.

And now a Brooklyn resident, Andre Calvert, has set up a Facebook page dedicated to the goal of defeating Bloomberg and the 29 city council members who voted to undermine the voters. Live in New York? Check it out. Maybe even if you don’t. The name of the profile is King Bloomberg III.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Some people have this idea that if the end is good then whatever means they choose must be good, too. But no. Principles matter — they exist to help us choose the right means and oppose the wrong ones.

Politicians tend to think unlimited terms in office is a good thing. I disagree, but forget that for a moment. What is the best way to settle the disagreement? Who should decide how long politicians serve?

The people, that’s who.

New York City’s mayor and City Council have opposed the term limits they live under, term limits voted into law by citizens.

So they got together and legislatively overturned the people’s decision, extending their own terms in office.

But not every politician who may like extended terms thinks that this was the way to obtain them. Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum went on record before the council vote that, if the council overturned the term limits rather than sending it back to the voters again, she would not seek re-election.

“I think it’s wrong,” she said. “It would be wrong for me, feeling as strongly as I do, to run for a third term if [term limits are] overturned in a way that I don’t think is right.”

Immediately her political competitors breathed a sigh of relief. But citizens should sigh in appreciation. It is mighty good to see personal principles trump re-election frenzy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Congressman Randy Kuhl had an idea: Ask his constituents what legislation they would like him to propose to fix Washington. Out of many suggestions, he picked five for constituents to vote on. Whichever proposal got the most support would be submitted to his colleagues as legislation. Over one thousand voters in Kuhl’s district participated.

He called it the “Fix Washington Project.”

While the contest was still underway, I reported that 12-year term limits on Congress was one of the five options. Throwing caution to the wind, I predicted term limits would triumph. Was I right?

Before I answer, let me say how much I like the idea of voters getting involved in proposing legislation. In fact, I think voters should have a way to bypass legislators altogether and pass laws directly. Half the states of the union have a formal process for enabling this. It’s called “citizen initiative.”

Okay, enough suspense. Congressional term limits collected 43 percent of the vote in Kuhl’s contest, winning the greatest support of any of the five alternatives.

I’m no soothsayer. Term limits have always been popular with voters. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows 83 percent support for congressional term limits.

So hats off to Congressman Kuhl. But your term limits legislation is no doubt going to be more popular with your constituents than with your colleagues back in Washington.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

It’s a dirty job, kicking voters in the teeth. But somebody’s gotta do it.

I speak of the craven marionettes of the New York City Council, complaining how tough it is to abet Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s assault on democracy. Bloomberg demanded a third term in office. He pulled strings.

Polls show that voters like the two-term limit that they twice endorsed at the ballot box. So instead of asking voters to change their minds, city politicians connived to ignore them.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn explained that ignoring voters is demanded by these hard times. Weakening term limits is a “vote and a choice” that is “a difficult one,” but you know, the city is now, she says, “facing the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression.” Ergo voters must be treated like chopped liver. Sequitur, meet non. Non sequitur.

Councilman Simcha Felder concurs.

“Before us today is a very difficult decision, and one which we have been elected to make,” Felder told his colleagues.

You see, voters elected Felder to ignore the voters and keep himself in power longer against their wishes. So what else could he do? Why oh why can’t the stupid voters protesting this unilateral overthrow of term limits understand this?

The poor politicians. Nobody understands how tough they have it, serving their narrow political self-interest and sticking it to the citizenry. It is the weight of the world.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Guess what: The disastrous policies that spawned our recent mortgage crisis prove that congressional term limits would be a very bad idea.

Not my opinion, I hasten to add. It’s the view of one Edward Tucker, writing a letter to the Wilmington [DE] News-Journal. Sorry, Ed, about how this Internet thing keeps your communiqué from dropping immediately into the ash heap of history.

Tucker’s view is typical of those who claim term limits would disastrously eject “experience” from the halls of power. He has nothing but praise for the expertise and gab gift of Representative Barney Frank, who has clung to his seat since 1981.

“The ability of only a few elected officials, such as . . . Barney Frank of Massachusetts, to speak intelligently about financial issues…has been impressive and reminds us that elected officials can grow expertise in office.”

Sorry, Mr. Tucker. But Barney was not one of the few congressmen who had been trying to curb the reckless lending policies of the Federal Reserve and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (The three Big Fat F’s that each deserve a Big Fat F.) Frank was, frankly, one of the chief enablers of federal policies that pushed easy credit and shaky mortgage loans.

Long-time incumbents may become expert indeed at spewing plausible-sounding nonsense in front of the cameras. But expertise in con-artistry isn’t quite the cure-all it’s cracked up to be.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.