by Paul Jacob
Tired of election analysis? Think there should be some kind of limit, rather than allowing it all to drone on and on and on?
Well, here’s some analysis you’ll like. It’s about a limit. An article by Andrew Cline, titled “Finally Term Limited,” recently ran in American Spectator.
Cline argues, “Republicans might have saved their majority by keeping a single signature promise from 1994. More than any other point in the Contract With America, the promise of term limits showed how serious these reformers were about changing the culture in Washington.” And he calls it a “fateful decision” that most Republican reps who came to Washington believing in limits “chose to stay put rather than step down.”
Cline points to scandals that rocked the GOP congressional majority and concludes, “Term limits likely would have prevented each of these scandals.”
And he believes that “Term limits also would have prevented or mitigated other Republican apostasies, such as the massive expansion of Medicare, the federalization of public education, the gross abuse of the pork barrel process, and the irresponsibly large increases in non-defense discretionary spending.”
Who am I to argue? I agree 100 percent. Cline gets it.
He writes, “Each of these violations of principle occurred for one reason: to maintain power. Yet the GOP went down to electoral defeat precisely because of the leadership's decision to trade ideals for longevity.”
Paul Jacob's "Common Sense" is published by Americans for Limited Government. Their website can be visited at www.limitedgov.org.