Tag: Republicans

Categories
term limits

In the Pudding

Mercatus, map, term limits, Democrats, Republicans

Republicans have made much hay of the Mercatus Center map of our United States, colored by fiscal condition. Why? Well, nine out of the ten least financially stable state governments are run by Democrats.

But there’s another way to look at it.

“Only 15 state legislatures in the U.S. are term limited,” U.S. Term Limits President Philip Blumel writes in a letter to the Mercatus folks. “However, four of your top five fiscally healthy states are term limit states.”

And how many of Mercatus’ bottom five states possess term limits?

Zero.

That’s 80 percent of the top states from a fiscal standpoint coming from just 30 percent of states where legislators are limited. And no state with term limits can be found at the bottom of the heap.*

Now, these impressive results do not prove “that this fiscal outperformance is due primarily to term limits,” Blumel admits. Instead, they do “effectively disprove a common objection to term limits.”

Legislators sans term limits are not “too inexperienced.” Indeed, these state rankings show the suffering, instead, lopsided on the states with no limit on how long legislators can stay in office. 

Blumel points out that term-limitless Illinois, with the “longest speakership in U.S. history under Mike Madigan,” ended up dead last, fiftieth.

“Legislators in term limit legislatures,” he argues, “have a broader range of experience than in non-term limited legislatures.” 

Reasonable. 

No extrapolation necessary, however, for the basic conclusion: State government fiscal health correlates strongly with legislative term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Mercatus’ results are no aberration. “We have seen term limit states crowd the top end of the ALEC rankings as well,” notes Mr. Blumel.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
incumbents insider corruption

The Politics of Exclusion

locks, Republicans, Democrats, democracy, Libertarians, Greens

“The mainstream media screams about Russia stealing elections,” says U.S. senatorial candidate Dale Kerns, “but behind the scenes they pull the strings to keep the duopoly in control.”

Mr. Kerns, who is running in Pennsylvania as a Libertarian in a four-candidate race, has had the rug pulled out from under him. Early on, the League of Women Voters had assured him that he would be able to participate in televised candidate debates in Philadelphia. That opportunity was dashed as the date of the event neared.

“Make no mistake, this is cronyism,” insists Kerns, who notes that “big media corporations collud[e] with big government political parties to keep out competition.”

Eric Boehm covers the scandal/not-a-scandal over at Reason. The early promise of inclusion came from the League, and it was “other organizers” of the event who decided that the Libertarian and Green candidates’ polling numbers were low enough to excuse exclusion.

You might wonder why debate organizers would want to have less interesting debates. But remember: the two entrenched parties’ candidates want to win. Period. The last thing they want are challengers from other parties included, because those challengers can only peel off voters from them.* And though the major-media hosts may wish to seem non-partisan, they almost never refrain from taking a side. 

I do not (and cannot) know which reason contributed more to the Philadelphia renege, so will let you hazard your own guesses. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Which helps explain why the parties tend to “cheat with both hands,” as Nicholas Sarwark, the Libertarian candidate for the mayorship of Phoenix, Arizona, put it.

PDF for printing

 

Photo from Max Pixel

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom ideological culture porkbarrel politics responsibility too much government

Ask the Next Question

next question, socialism, Republicans, Democrats, regimentation, Democracy, Democratic, lies, politicians

Republicans are very reliable. When given our system’s “Mandate of Heaven” — majorities in both houses of Congress and the Presidency — they can be relied upon to do one thing: add debt by piling up huge deficits.

It happened under George W. Bush, and it is happening under Donald J. Trump: “The Trump administration expects annual budget deficits to rise nearly $100 billion more than previously forecast in each of the next three years,” the Wall Street Journal tells us, “pushing the federal deficit above $1 trillion starting next year.”

Republicans should ask themselves why. And while they ask themselves that, everyone else should ask the next question: why do politicians who say they want one thing so often deliver its opposite?

This is not a mere “right-wing” phenomenon. Leftists say they want “democratic socialism,” but, as Irving Kristol noted, at some point not far down their road to Utopia, “democratic socialists” must choose between democracy and socialism.* By promising everybody everything, too quickly everybody gets shanghaied into service to produce that “everything,” finding themselves conscripts in socialism’s army.

The equation of socialism with regimentation and general un-freedom has been clear for over a century, explained carefully by sociologists, economists and even politicians.* And yet, increasingly, today’s Democrats are embracing a philosophy with proven anti-democratic features.

Could some deep principle be at play?

Probably. It is built into the very nature of state governance, of politics itself. It may be why republics metamorphose into empires, conservatives go radical and liberals become serviles.

Which is why effective democracy requires limited government. To minimize that boomerang effect.

We might start by limiting spending.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Herbert Spencer’s writings on socialism include The Man versus the State (1884) and Industrial Institutions (1896, Principles of Sociology, Vol. III, Part VIII); German politician Eugene Richter’s satire Pictures of the Socialist Future (1896) is well worth reading; and economist Yves Guyot preceded Ludwig von Mises’ classic Die Gemeinwirtschaft (1922, translated as Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, 1950) with several books, including The Tyranny of Socialism (1893) and Socialistic Fallacies (1910).

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly government transparency ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

Defiance?

Washington Post, lap dog, lapdog, Department of Justice, FBI, crime, accountability

“Once the party of law and order,” screamed the Washington Post’s top-of-the-front-page Sunday headline, “Republicans are now challenging it.”

The story’s lede: “Republican leaders’ open defiance last week of the FBI over the release of a hotly disputed memo revealed how the GOP, which has long positioned itself as the party of law and order, has become an adversary of federal law enforcement as the party continues its quest to protect President Trump from the Russia investigation.”

Huh?

Defiance,* by definition, is “bold disobedience.” But the Constitution tasks Congress with control (by oversight and purse string) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice. Because subservient, it is the FBI and DoJ that can disobey. Not Congress.

While some Republicans seemingly switched sides on the appropriateness of criticizing the FBI over the Nunes memo release — congratulations are in order! — the same point, reversed, can be made (even humorously) about some on the Left now condemning such criticism.

Criticizing the government — including law enforcement agencies — has always been as American as apple pie.

The Post supports an ever-increasing role for the federal government, favoring Democrats. But now, Trump Derangement Syndrome has apparently pushed the company-town paper over the edge . . . to Media Madness (the title of Howard Kurtz’s new book, which the paper sophomorically savaged).

How ridiculous to characterize Republicans as enemies of “federal law enforcement” because they believe some within the FBI acted improperly, perhaps unlawfully.**

The Post should remember that its journalistic street cred didn’t come from reporting partisan spin as fact, but from what some saw as “defying” the president and publishing “national secrets” in search of the truth

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* The Post wasn’t alone. Politico echoed the message in its story, “GOP defies FBI, releases secret Russia memo to partisan fury,” and so did other media outlets.

** Moreover, Republican leaders have been clear that the memo does not impact Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
general freedom incumbents local leaders moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Democracy — or Too Much Government?

Democrats, Republicans, reform, democracy, primary, primaries, presidential

The Democratic Party’s Unity Reform Commission met last week to concoct measures to pull the party from the brink of madness and oblivion.

The commission’s main recommendation? Limit the role of “superdelegates” in the nomination process.

Great — a first step I’ve long advocated. But the whole system needs more serious reform.

Jay Cost covered some of the problems associated with the parties’ candidate selection processes, yesterday, in the online pages of the National Review. Unfortunately, he went off the rails about an alleged “trend toward an unadulterated democratic nomination process,” which he regarded as a “major mistake.”

He misdiagnosed both the problem and the Democrats’ proposed cure. Neither is “too much democracy.”

America’s partisan voters keep selecting bad candidates because the major party duopoly is a rigged game — designed and regulated by incumbents for incumbents to solidify a protected class of insiders.

Which voters understandably seek to overthrow on a regular basis.

The problem is the whole primary process, which is faux-democratic, a clever ruse to prevent real challengers from emerging, forcing effective politicians through the two-party mill.

To make things more democratic — to add effective citizen checks on power and privilege — the parties need to be completely divorced from official elections. That is, junk the whole primary system, making the parties bear fully the costs of their own selection processes. Further, the general elections should be thrown open to a wider variety of parties and candidates, with the voting system itself reformed to avoid the sub-optimal results of our first-past-the-post system.

The problem with our politics isn’t “too much democracy” so much as “too much partisan government.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability ideological culture local leaders national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

Crazy Like a … Spoiler

spoiler, GOP, incumbents, Republicans, Pro-Trump

Seven Republican members of Congress — three in the last two weeks — have announced their retirement.* The Democrats, needing 24 additional seats to gain a majority, see an opening.

Steve Kornacki, MSNBC’s national political correspondent, calls these seven “pure retirements.” That is, these politicians aren’t seeking another office, they suffer from no scandal, and are “pretty good at getting re-elected”; they’re “just deciding to leave.” Kornacki notes that the GOP had eight pure retirements in 2006 when they lost the House, and the Democrats had eleven when their majority was destroyed in 2010.

On his MSNBC program, The 11th Hour, an exasperated Brian Williams complained, “On top of all that, since down is up and up is down, Bannon [is] threatening to — to use the verb of the moment — primary incumbent Republicans! Which is crazy.”

Williams refers to Steve Bannon, late of the Trump administration and now back at the helm of Breitbart News. Bannon is now working, as CNN reported, with “conservative mega-donor Robert Mercer, who is prepared to pour millions of dollars into attacks on GOP incumbents.” Incumbent Republicans thwarting Trump, that is.

“I don’t think anyone should be surprised,” remarked Ned Ryun, American Majority’s CEO. “It’s a natural reaction by the base to what they’ve perceived as a perhaps intentional inability to pass any Trump agenda items.”**  

Ah, more spoilers! This week we’ve talked about Libertarian spoilers; now, pro-Trump spoilers. And, for years, non-profit groups such as the Club for Growth and U.S. Term Limits have helped a challenger against an incumbent, and been dubbed dangerous to Republican hegemony for their trouble.

Seems what connects all these anti-establishment folks is a commitment to principle over power.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

*  The retiring Republicans are Rep. Sam Johnson (R, TX-3), Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R, KS-2), Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R, FL-27), Rep. John Duncan Jr. (R, TN-2), Rep. Dave Reichert (R, WA-9), Rep. Charlie Dent (R, PA-15), and Rep. Dave Trott (R, MI-11).

** Steve Kornacki responded to Brian Williams: “Absolutely unheard of for a nominee in either party to have that complete lack of support from Capitol Hill and then go out there and win the nomination [for president]. . . . You have this element where all these members of Congress, even though it’s a president of their party on paper, don’t really feel they’re part of this presidency.”

PDF for printing