Term Limits: Painkiller, Not Cure

January 5, 2017 Thomas L. Knapp Leave a comment

Ballot

US president-elect Donald Trump called for congressional term limits during his campaign. He’s not yet been sworn in, but Congress is already back in session and answering that call. On January 3, US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) — one of Trump’s opponents in last year’s GOP primaries — and US Representative Ron DeSantis (R-FL) proposed a constitutional amendment limiting Senators to two (six-year) terms and Representatives to three (two-year terms).

Term limits are incredibly popular. Voters enact them whenever given the opportunity to do so at the state level. In an October poll conducted by Rasmussen, 74% of likely voters supported congressional term limits, with only 13% opposed, and with super-majority support across party lines and among independents.

Are term limits a good idea? Sure. I personally hope this amendment gets the required 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress and is ratified by 3/4 of the states’ legislatures.

But don’t mistake term limits for a panacea.

As some wags would have it, we already enjoy term limits. They’re called “elections.” Voters are free to send politicians home at the end of any term (provided those politicians have election opponents, which is usually although not always the case). But they seldom do so. US House and Senate re-election rates bottom out at about 80% in a bad year for incumbents.

Two favorite arguments in favor of term limits are that they will replace the corruption and careerism of incumbency with wholesome “citizen legislators” who labor briefly in the political vineyards before returning to private life. But will that really work out?

Sure, a term-limited congressperson can’t leverage the power of seniority to reward backers and cronies with government favors like a “congressperson for life” can. On the other hand, a term-limited congressperson might just sell out more quickly and completely, making as much hay as possible while the sun briefly shines.

And in the face of term limits, the forces of corruption may focus more on the “farm team” strategy of shoveling graft at up-and-coming city council members and state legislators so that they arrive in Washington already primed to play ball after years of doing just that. Pre-corrupted, so to speak, before they even begin their maximum six years in the house and 12 years in the Senate, which is pretty much a career anyway.

Limit terms? OK. But don’t expect miracles. An expiration date may help, but it’s no substitute for sending politicians home for bad behavior.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

“Term Limits: Painkiller, Not Cure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 01/06/17
“Term Limits: Painkiller, Not Cure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 01/06/17
“Term Limits: Painkiller, Not Cure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 01/07/17
“Term Limits: Painkiller, Not Cure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Sonoran News [Arizona], 01/11/17
“Term Limits a Painkiller, But Not the Cure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Forest Hills/Rego Park New York Times [print and web editions], 01/11/17
“Term Limits a Painkiller, But Not the Cure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Long Island City/Astoria Journal [print and web editions], 01/11/17
“Term Limits a Painkiller, But Not the Cure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Queens, New York Ledger [print and web editions], 01/11/17
“Term Limits a Painkiller, But Not the Cure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Brooklyn, New York Downtown Star [print and web editions], 01/11/17
“Term Limits a Painkiller, But Not the Cure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Glendale, New York Register [print and web editions], 01/11/17
“Term Limits a Painkiller, But Not the Cure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Queens, New York Examiner [print and web editions], 01/11/17
“Term Limits a Painkiller, But Not the Cure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Greenpoint, New York Star [print and web editions], 01/11/17
“Term Limits a Painkiller, But Not the Cure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Queens, New York Leader/Observer [print and web editions], 01/11/17
“Term limits are a painkiller, not a cure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Newberry, South Carolina Observer, 01/11/17
“Term limits: painkiller, not a cure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Rio Rancho, New Mexico Observer, 01/22/17

Op-Eds

New Boss(es), Same as The Old Boss(es)

January 3, 2017 Thomas L. Knapp Leave a comment

Donald Trump ran for president in part on a promise to “drain the swamp” that is Washington, DC. He positioned himself as a political outsider, beholden to no one and capable of bringing sweeping changes to a federal government set in its ways. But as Inauguration Day approaches, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the fundamentals aren’t going to change much.

While Trump’s cabinet picks do reflect the usual party line changing of the guard, they’re hardly “outsiders” by any conventional definition.

So far Trump has named three sitting members of Congress to head up executive branch departments: US Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) for Attorney General, US Representative Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) to run the Office of Management and Budget, and US Representative Tom Price (R-GA) for Secretary of Health and Human Services.

His Secretary of State designee, Rex Tillerson, is putatively a private sector type as CEO of ExxonMobil. In reality he’s the consummate political insider. He’s a frequent speaker at Council on Foreign Relations events and sits on the board of the Center for Strategic and International Studies; these are two of the most “establishment” organizations on the block. Over the years he’s donated around half a million dollars to Republican candidates and PACs.

Secretary of Labor nominee Andrew Puzder is national co-chair of the wholeheartedly establishment American Enterprise Institute.

Incoming Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao is a former Deputy Secretary of Transportation, a former Secretary of Labor, and the spouse of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Speaking of McConnell, even if Trump wanted to clean house he would have to deal with Congress. McConnell remains Senate Majority Leader; the Democrats have a new Senate Minority Leader (New York’s Charles Schumer), but only because Nevada’s Harry Reid retired. On January 3, Republicans in the US House of Representatives were nearly unanimous in re-electing Paul Ryan as Speaker, as were Democrats in retaining Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

So far, the incoming Trump administration looks a lot like George W. Bush’s fifth term (the third and fourth were served by the supposedly “transformative,” hope-y, change-y Barack Obama, who gave us eight years of business as usual), with a Congress to match.

That might actually be the best outcome we can hope for. But I suspect Trump’s most devoted supporters will be sorely disappointed.

If 2016 was The Year of Trump The Outsider, 2017 looks set to be The Year of Sorry, Trump Was Only Kidding.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

“New Boss(es), Same as The Old Boss(es),” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 01/04/17
“New Boss(es), Same as The Old Boss(es),” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 01/04/17
“New Boss(es), Same as The Old Boss(es),” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 01/05/17
“New boss(es), same as The old boss(es),” by Thomas L. Knapp, Fayette, West Virginia Tribune, 01/05/17
“New Boss(es), Same as The Old Boss(es),” by Thomas L. Knapp, South Florida Times, 01/05/17
“New boss same as old boss,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Orangeburg, South Carolina Times & Democrat, 01/06/17
“New Boss(es), Same as The Old Boss(es),” by Thomas L. Knapp, Key West: The Newspaper, 01/06/17
“Knapp: New boss(es), same as the old boss(es),” by Thomas L. Knapp, Pahrump Valley, Nevada Times, 01/06/17
“New boss(es), same as the old boss(es),” by Thomas L. Knapp, Newberry, South Carolina Observer, 01/13/17

Op-Eds

Russian Hacking Report: All Hat, No Cattle

December 30, 2016 Thomas L. Knapp 3 Comments

In early 2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell took the stage at the UN “to share with you what the United States knows about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” Powell justified the impending US invasion of Iraq on the claim that Saddam Hussein’s regime continued to produce and stockpile chemical and biological weapons in violation of UN resolutions. He dazzled his audience with audio recordings and surveillance photographs that he claimed constituted evidence of Iraq’s perfidy.

Two years later Powell called the presentation a “blot” on his record, admitting that he had deceived the UN. The “weapons of mass destruction” didn’t exist. All the Saddam-era chemical weapons recovered in Iraq since 2003 are of pre-1991 manufacture with no evidence linking them to the regime since the 1991 war.

How long can we expect to wait for the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center to admit that its report, “GRIZZLY STEPPE — Russian Malicious Cyber Activity” — pre- hyped as providing “evidence” of Russian government interference in the 2016 US presidential election — is a reprise of Powell’s UN speech?

Marcello Truzzi, a skeptic of paranormal claims, once said “an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.”

The claim of Russian interference in the election is certainly extraordinary (“beyond what is ordinary or usual; highly unusual or exceptional or remarkable”). So is US president Barack Obama‘s response, including the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats and closure of two diplomatic compounds in the US.

The “evidence” in the report, however, is not extraordinary. It’s not even ordinary. It’s non-existent. The report is just a list of cyber warfare methods accompanied by some pretty diagrams. No IP or MAC addresses. No chain of verifiable records showing suspect packets coming from, or going to, Russian machines. The report’s “evidence” for Russian government involvement is the same “evidence” we’ve been offered before: “It’s so because we say it’s so. Trust us.”

Did the Russians conduct cyber attacks for the purpose of influencing the election’s outcome? It wouldn’t surprise me, but I don’t know. You probably don’t know either. The US government continues to state it as fact while declining to prove it.

It seems silly to go to these lengths for no higher purpose than to shift blame away from the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton for their poor nomination decision-making and her mediocre campaign. And dangerous to do so at the risk of further queering already tense US relations with a nuclear power.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

“Russian Hacking Report: All Hat, No Cattle,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 01/01/17
“Russian Hacking Report: All Hat, No Cattle,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 01/02/17
“Russian Hacking Report: All Hat, No Cattle,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 01/02/17
“Is Russian hacking report an example of ‘all hat, no cattle’: more hype than fact?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Virgin Islands Daily News, 01/03/17
“Russian Hacking Report: All Hat, No Cattle,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Uintah Basin, Utah Standard, 01/03/17
“Russian Hacking Report: All Hat, No Cattle,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Muscatine, Iowa Journal, 01/03/17
“Russian Hacking Report: All Hat, No Cattle,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Davenport, Iowa Quad-City Times, 01/03/17
“Russian Hack: All Hat, No Cattle,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Florence, Alabama Courier Journal, 01/03/17
“Russian Hacking Report: All Hat, No Cattle,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Seoul, Republic of Korea Times, 01/03/17
“Hacking report: All hat, no cattle,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Newberry, South Carolina Observer, 01/04/17
“Russian hacking report: All hat, no cattle,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Kingston, Jamaica Observer, 01/04/17
“Russian Hacking Report: All Hat, No Cattle,” by Thomas L. Knapp, River Cities’ Reader [Iowa], 01/04/17
“Russian Hacking Report: All Hat, No Cattle,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Sonoran News [Arizona], 01/05/17