Category: term limits

Categories
Accountability local leaders national politics & policies term limits

Living on Markwayne Logic

Congressman Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), term limits, lies, integrity, dishonesty

Just months ago, Congressman Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) made headlines by arrogantly — and falsely — telling constituents at a town hall: “You say you pay for me to do this. Bullcrap. I pay for myself. I paid enough taxes before I got there and continue to through my company to pay my own salary. This is a service. No one here pays me to go.”

Even though nearly everyone there pays taxes toward the $174,000 in annual congressional salary paid to and deposited by Congressman Mullin.

Times change. Back in 2012, a more humble Mullin ran for Congress and won pledging to limit his service to three terms, the term-limit Oklahomans had enacted by voter initiative.

Last year, Markwayne won that third term. Before his primary victory, he informed the Associated Press that he would keep his promise. But the day after winning, the congressman conspicuously left the door open by telling a radio audience he was praying about what to do.

This week, the congressman with two first names released an 11-minute fake news interview. In the video, Congressman Mullin and his wife chatter thoughtfully about his self-serving decision to break his word to stay in power. Even in a staged and scripted interview, “I’ve grown a lot” was the best argument Markwayne could muster.

“The last thing we want is to make people think we’re going back on our word,” a reality-resistant Mullin told the Tulsa World. “At the time, we were sincere. But where we’re at today is a different situation.”

“At the time,” he had no power. Today’s “different situation”? He has power — and aims to keep it. Honesty and honor be damned.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall national politics & policies responsibility tax policy term limits U.S. Constitution

Brexit 1776-2017

Independence Day, 1776, July 2, July 4, Brexit, British, freedom

These united States* got their start, officially, on July 2, 1776.

That’s when the Second Continental Congress voted to separate from King George’s government across the water. But it was two days later when that same Congress approved its formal Declaration, and it was the wording of that Declaration that impressed everybody — including folks back in England.

July Fourth, not the Second, became “Independence Day.”

Today, the English are insisting on independence. Last year’s referendum to exit the European Union was a major step in throwing off the abusive relationship from Brussels and the central government there.

The Brits have every right to their “Brexit,” since, as our Congress argued so persuasively, governments “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed,” which entails that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”

Americans have never had more cause for fellow-feeling with the British. Not only are they copying us, we are copying us.

To gain anything like control over what has become a runaway central government in Washington, D.C., Americans in the states will have to continue to (in effect) nullify federal law regarding marijuana and take the lead on criminal justice reforms and improving government ethics and accountability. More work must be done, fighting for free speech and against corruption. And overbearing taxation and regulation and cronyism And insane debt accumulation.

Across the pond, it’s Brexit. Here, it’s just our continuing Revolution.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* For just today I’ll use the odd, old capitalization, just as it was used in the Declaration of July 4, 1776.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders national politics & policies responsibility term limits

Today’s Leaders

democracy, the people, politicians, cowardice, marijuana, asset forfeiture, initiative, term limits, police brutality

We have a new president. Many people put a lot of trust in him — and many more hate him and seek to bring him down. In both cases, presidential politics takes up an inordinate portion of our brain space.

Over the weekend I twice wrote about four heroic senators, standing up to the insiders in their own party. Getting a lot of deserved attention.

But remember: the real leaders are not in Washington, D.C.

Right now, a half dozen issues are undergoing revolution. Legalized gay marriage swept through state after state; meanwhile, Democratic leaders (Clinton, Obama) lent none of their prestige to the cause.*

It was local and state activists who led. And even wide swaths of “the people” were out in front.

Not politicians.

Marijuana legalization has occurred in state after state, mostly by initiative petitioning. It wasn’t the politicians who pushed this through. It was activists.

And, again, the people.

The politicians — including, now, the new Attorney General — largely obstructed the advance of freedom on this issue.

Much the same can be said for improving police-citizen relations with mandatory cop cams and transparency protocols. In the past, much the same pattern could be seen regarding term limits and tax limitation measures. In most cases of progress, politicians have actually represented the rear guard.

Which should give us something to think about. We face a looming sovereign debt crisis, the pension system bubble, and ongoing culture wars regarding campus (and general) free speech.

If you think something should be done, minds should be changed, don’t look for a national figure. Look locally. Look to yourself. Go online.

Master the mechanisms of social change.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

*That is, these politicians “became leaders” on the issue at the point the issue needed no leadership. They remained opposed to change until the last moment, when the direction was firmly set and most of the watershed marks had been made.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability incumbents insider corruption moral hazard national politics & policies term limits too much government

Most Hated

John Tyler, Trump, hated, leverage, elites, Ted Cruz, Paul Jacob, despised, term limits, unpopular

I was once “the most hated man in Washington.”* Why? For my work on term limits.

I wore the appellation as a badge of honor.

Last year I noted that Ted Cruz had taken up the mantle, but now, certainly, it’s President Donald Trump’s.

Has ever a president been as hated?

Thomas Jefferson was characterized as the Antichrist. Andrew Jackson made many enemies in overthrowing the Second National Bank. But John Tyler is the most interesting case.

President Tyler was a Jeffersonian democrat who took up the office from William Henry Harrison, who died several weeks after being sworn in. Tyler was never accepted as legitimate by — get this — the Whig Party that nominated him. He was dubbed “His Accidency.” After opposing a revival of the national bank notion, there were riots, and his party expelled him. He received hundreds of death threats in the mail. Later he was almost impeached.

Admittedly, Republicans haven’t abandoned Trump — yet. But the Democrats have opposed him from the beginning. And the Entertainment Industrial Complex never ceases to wage a culture war against him. What should the most hated man do?

Make the most of it.

One of his promises was to put congressional term limits into the Constitution. Congress is reluctant. But Trump can do what I couldn’t: use all the powers of the presidency — from the bully pulpit to the veto pen — to leverage those in Congress into proposing a constitutional amendment.

It won’t make President Trump any less hated in Washington, but will win support everywhere else.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* That was in days of yore, the 1990s, and it was Bob Novak who gave me the appellation. Politicians, lobbyists and other government insiders hate term limits.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment incumbents local leaders national politics & policies term limits

One Incumbent Falls

U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, corruption, term limits

When former U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) was indicted last July on 24 felony counts of fraud and obstruction, she suggested that if the FBI hadn’t wasted time investigating her for milking a charity for personal gain, they might have prevented the Orlando massacre.

“These are the same agents that was not able to do a thorough investigation of [Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen],” Brown screeched at reporters, “and we ended up with 50 people dead.”

Last week, the former congresswoman* was convicted of 18 felonies related to fraudulently raising $800,000 for the One Door for Education Foundation, which only spent $1,200 on two small college scholarships — 0.0015 of what was raised . . . for college scholarships.

As the Feds put it, Congresswoman Brown and her congressional chief of staff “used the vast majority of One Door donations for their personal and professional benefit, including tens of thousands of dollars in cash deposits that [her chief of staff] made to Brown’s personal bank accounts.”

Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on “events hosted by Brown or held in her honor, including a golf tournament in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida; lavish receptions during an annual conference in Washington, D.C.; the use of a luxury box during a concert in Washington, D.C.; and the use of a luxury box during an NFL game in the Washington, D.C., area.”

The 70-year-old Brown spent nearly a quarter of a century in Congress. Now she awaits sentencing to as many as 277 years in prison — a quarter of a millennia.

It’s yet another good argument for term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* As I explained in greater detail at Townhall, out of 435 congressional seats up for election in 2016, Congresswoman Brown was one of only five incumbents defeated in the 2016 primary elections. Two of the five defeated — Brown and Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Penn.) — faced multiple-count felony indictments. Two others were victims of redistricting that pushed them into new districts. Only one incumbent who was un-indicted and running in an incumbent district was defeated.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility term limits too much government

Ida-Heave-Ho

Gov. Butch Otter, Idaho, veto, asset forfeiture, term limits,

“Is there any chance the vetoes can be overridden?” asked a reader in response to yesterday’s commentary on Idaho Gov. Butch Otter’s veto of two pieces of common-sense legislation.

It’s a good question, because the bill reforming civil asset forfeiture and the bill easing regulations that block employment in cosmetology both passed by wide margins. Unfortunately, the answer is NO. 

According to the Gem State’s constitution, the governor has ten days after legislation reaches his desk or, at the session’s end, ten days after the legislature adjourns to decide whether to sign or veto a bill. If he vetoes after adjournment, it cannot be overridden — unless the legislature comes back into session.*

Only the governor can call legislators back into session, which is exceedingly unlikely if a new session would entail a veto override.

It turns out that Idaho is one of only six states where legislators are unable after adjournment to override a veto. Still, the problem’s simple enough to solve: legislators could propose a constitutional amendment changing the process.

Senator Steve Vick did just that, in 2014 and again in 2016. But though his amendment garnered the two-thirds majority needed in the Senate, the House never took it up. He plans to reintroduce it next year.

There’s another constitutional change needed: term limits for the governor. A 2015 poll found a whopping 84 percent of Idahoans favor such limits. Yet, legislators may be squeamish, knowing that those same voters (by that same margin) also want legislators term-limited.

“Sometimes it is amazing,” Idaho Politics Weekly’s Bob Bernick explained, “how elected officials can just ignore the will of voters.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Gov. Otter also vetoed the legislature’s repeal of the state sales tax on groceries, the timing of which legislators are challenging in court.

Printable PDF