Why Term Limits Lost and Ranked Choice Voting Will Succeed

There have been two major attempts to change the calculus of elections and officeholders since the ‘90s. One is a top-down ‘reform’ that’s currently being imposed on voters a jurisdiction at a time. The other was a bottom–up effort imposed on the politicians. The fate of the two is very instructive.

Bill Schorr, San Clemente, CA

The top-down innovation is ranked–choice voting and the midterm congressional elections in Maine were the first federal contests to be decided by ranked choice.

Ranked choice works this way. In every race with more than two candidates, voters rank the contestants in order of preference like judges at a wet t–shirt contest.

In a multi–candidate field, if no one receives a majority, then all last–place finisher ballots are thrown out and those voter’s second choice becomes their new vote. If no one gets a majority then, the last place finisher’s votes continue to be tossed and second choices used until someone gets a majority or Trump declares martial law.

Boosters of ranked choice voting promote the change with feel–good promises that are mostly immune to verification. As the League of Women Voters demonstrates. According to that hen party ranked choice “promotes majority support…discourages negative campaigning…provides more choice…minimizes strategic voting…[and] saves money”.

What they don’t tell you is many elections are going to be decided by voters who are the worst at judging candidates and the issues that make them electable. The second–place votes of people whose candidate finished dead last are going to be used to determine a winner. That alone will put a spring in the step of Lyndon LaRouche and Deez Nuts voters.

What should disqualify ranked–choice voting from being used is not relying upon the whims of the incompetent to choose the winner. The big problem with the system is it’s unconstitutional.

By comparison, term limits was a bottom–up movement that swept the nation. Twenty–three states imposed term limits on politicians by 1995, compared to ranked choice voting’s tiny foothold in Maine and a handful of cities.

As long as opponents of an entrenched professional political class confined themselves to limiting officeholders in state and local jurisdictions they were initially successful. It was only when voters applied term limits to federal candidates that problems began.

Barnacle–like congressional incumbents knew they could never persuade voters to repeal term limits, so they enlisted the help of our politicians in black robes who really rule the country.

In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the leftist majority on the Supreme Court ruled term limits unconstitutional because they allegedly violated Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution by adding additional qualifications to who was eligible to run. Term limits did no such thing. Legislation that limits duration of service does not change the qualifications for service.

The Constitution is silent as to how many times a congressional candidate may run and how long he can hold office. In his Thornton decision dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress. The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.”

The 10th Amendment also supports Justice Thomas: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Which exactly describes a statewide referendum limiting terms in office.

Compare the court’s opinion of term limits with the obvious unconstitutionality of ranked choice voting. In Reynolds v. Sims, decided in 1964, the Supremes established the principle of one man, one vote.

Ranked choice voting violates this principle because the voters who supported the losing candidate have their votes counted twice. First for the loser and then for their second choice. The voters who had enough sense to vote for a viable candidate in the first place only have their votes counted once. It’s electoral affirmative action for the politically impaired.

The loser of the Maine race intends to challenge the result in court, but I’m not optimistic. For some reason, his lawyers ignore the obvious one man, one vote problem and instead focus on irrelevancies.

It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court accepts the case and if it does, how the court will decide. Ranked choice is supported by all the best people and the Opposition Media. Plus, it’s used in foreign countries! Term limits had the disadvantage of only being supported by majorities of average voters in their respective states and we know how that turned out.

Advertisements

The Constitutional Work–Around for Term Limits

I’ve always wondered why the National Education Association (NEA) and the country club conservatives in the Republican House and Senate leadership aren’t allies, instead of enemies. Both organizations use the same tired talking points to defend inert members from the forces of accountability.

When education reformers urge legislative bodies to adopt merit pay for teachers and thereby reward the best teachers with the most money, the NEA counters that experience is crucial and paying teachers according to seniority rewards that excellent system.

Bill Schorr, San Clemente, CA

In the same fashion, when congressional reformers urge House and Senate leadership to adopt an amendment adding term limits to the Constitution, leadership rejects the proposal out of hand, claiming seniority is crucial to keeping Congress the paragon of competence it is today.

It’s no accident that education, Congress and penal institutions all grant more privileges based solely on how much time you’ve served.

Cong. Francis Rooney (R–Doomed) wants to remove Congress from that list. Rooney has formulated a brilliant method of implementing term limits that does not require an amendment to the Constitution. Rooney’s Thomas Jefferson Public Service Act would place no limits on how long a member could warm a seat in Congress — that requires an amendment — instead Rooney would reduce a member’s paycheck to $1 per year after they served six terms in the House or two terms in the Senate.

My wife is skeptical. She believes after 12 years our ‘public servants’ have already made themselves millionaires, so the $173,999.00 pay cut won’t bother them. She is not alone.

FedSmith.com downplays Rooney’s bill, too, “…most Congressmen make a career out of remaining in Congress (often moving on to the Senate). Many become millionaires within a few years after their election and, of course, they also receive a pension under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS).”

What both overlook is the loss of status if Rooney’s bill passes.

When Newt Gingrich was running the show, Republicans imposed term limits on committee chairmen. In the House and Senate, Republicans are limited to six years as the jefe of any committee.

At the end of their term as chairman these members must surrender the gavel, without any reduction in salary or benefits. Many retiring chairmen look upon that gavel as the closest thing to Thor’s Hammer they will ever wield. Giving it up is such a personal Ragnarök that they retire from Congress rather than revert to being hammerless rank–and–file member regardless of their salary.

I’m thinking not getting an envelope on payday would have the same effect. It’s one thing to talk about being a ‘public servant.’ Becoming one and working for free is something entirely different.

I’m willing to grasp at Rooney’s straw if there’s even a slim chance of success.

Rooney is so serious he’s prepared to become very unpopular with his colleagues. In an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, Rooney correctly termed arguments against term limits legislation as “elitist paternalism.” He already has seven co–sponsors for his bill and he intends to put the heat on nominal term limits supporters.

“There are 90 co–sponsors on term limit by [constitutional] amendment bills and there’s something called the ‘Term Limit Caucus.’ Let’s see what they want to do,” Rooney explained. This is where Rooney drops off Christmas card lists.

Co–sponsoring a term limits constitutional amendment is exactly like promising to repeal Obamacare. It’s showy and consequence–free.

The chance of the amendment coming up for a vote is exactly the same as the chance of Donald Trump being named Man of the Year by La Raza. If the unthinkable happens — see Obamacare vote — and term limits comes to the floor, co–sponsors will cheerfully betray their voters just as Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins did.

Rooney’s bill will put these poseurs on the spot. There are 26 members of the Term Limits Caucus, yet only two are co–sponsoring his bill. Rooney should have 31 co–sponsors and that’s before he goes after the amendment popinjays.

Baier went to Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell for a comment on Rooney’s bill. In a voice dripping with disdain, McConnell gargled, “I would say we have term limits now, they’re called elections, and it will not be on the agenda in the Senate.”

True and the current system has given us McConnell as an example of what term limits would prevent.

Rooney’s only misstep so far came in his announcement. He quoted former Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (R–Great American) who said Americans “are frustrated with the federal government.” True again. But Coburn is no longer in the Senate, because he imposed term limits on himself.

I fear the time–servers Rooney is trying to persuade will hear that name and ask themselves, “yeah, and when was the last time Coburn was on TV?”

Free Market Term Limits Breakthrough

Serial entrepreneur Norbert Richter claims no relation to the inventor of the Richter Scale, but if his breakthrough idea is successful, he’ll be causing political tremors for decades. Richter has used his failed congressional primary challenge as inspiration for a free market workaround that has the potential to be voter–imposed term limits.

His new organization, FireYourCongressman.com, bypasses the roadblock that has stopped every federal term limits proposal: Incumbent professional politicians who intend to die in office. Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell’s clichéd response to voter’s desire for term limits is always a dismissive ‘that’s what elections are for.’ Knowing the chances of being beaten in a primary are miniscule. In 2016 only six incumbents lost to primary challengers.

And in a delicious bit of irony, Richter intends to shake the incumbent’s world by harnessing the power of money, a resource incumbents always thought was their advantage.

This week he’s launching FYC, a political action committee for the rest of us that’s designed to jump–start challenges to incumbent Members of Congress from both parties.

As the site explains, “Most congressional districts are so gerrymandered that there is no real contest in the general election…This is why it is so important to have good choices in the primaries.” As Richter discovered both parties actively discourage challengers.

FireYourCongressman.com is for voters disenfranchised by political insiders like McConnell. If you’re ready to fight back, Richter is ready to help. He does it by attacking the problem head on. Challengers need money to successfully challenge an incumbent, but it’s almost impossible to raise money for a challenge.

This limits primary challenges to the foolhardy or the personally wealthy.

FYC lets voters fed up with their incumbent contribute in advance to a potential challenger. FYC pools this money and will make it available, in the form of a direct contribution and independent expenditures, when a qualified candidate arises. Instead of lack of money discouraging challengers, now a waiting war chest may attract challengers.

Any donation under $200 is completely anonymous, which is good for the faint of heart. Donations over that amount are reported, but the money is simply listed as going to the PAC, not the campaign where it is spent.

That way donors are insulated from vindictive incumbents bent on revenge.

Richter is aware that he has to establish credibility, since he has zero track record in politics. He states at the beginning he will “have to convince donors” of his organization’s legitimacy and he plans to do it by “being very transparent.” He wants to make sure “a $20 donation becomes a $20 candidate contribution.”

He’s off to a good start. To date he’s paid all FYC expenses out of his own pocket. Richter knows eventually he’ll need to add a professional staff. His goal is to keep overhead expenses to a minimum so more money can be spent on campaigns.

And speaking of campaigns, what if your congressman is a member of the House Freedom Caucus or the Socialism Caucus and has only been in office six years? You’re happy, but there’s this nagging feeling you could do more.

Richter has a fund for you, too. It’s called the Priority Algorithm. This a general fund that’s only spent to defeat really worthless incumbents selected by the Fickle Finger of Algorithm. The algorithm analyzes a number of factors including how long in office (the longer the more negative), attendance record and involvement in scandals. He also includes an overlooked but important factor that brings tears to the eyes of government reformers: The increase in personal wealth since the member has been in office. Like the aforementioned time in office, more is not good.

On the negative side, the algorithm equates bills sponsored or co–sponsored as a positive factor. That’s the Widget Theory of governing. More widgets mean a better member. When the fact is more bills mean bigger government, which is a negative for conservatives. As far as I’m concerned repealing laws is better than passing laws.

But on the plus side, Richter is open to including nepotism and dynasty–building as negative factors in the algorithm.

Once the records are crunched the top ten will be targeted for defeat. Richter guarantees the split will be half Democrat and half Republican for at least the top 20.

If FireYourCongressman.com gets off the ground it will be a genuine, non–partisan, free market, grassroots effort to put accountability back into US politics. If you’re unhappy with our current bloated, complacent, sanctimonious and unaccountable Congress, then Richter is giving you an opportunity to put your money where your disgruntlement is.

Visit the site today and either contribute to fire your specific member of Congress, contribute to the Priority Algorithm to fire the worst of the worst or become a Great American by contributing to both funds.

My Genuine Bipartisan Compromise Offer

The nation just witnessed what the OpMedia and the Commentariat like to call “bipartisan legislation.” The occasion was the two–year spending–palooza that Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell and The Boy Ryan passed.

It was bipartisan in the sense that country club conservatives let Democrats waste $150 billion on social programs, so they could waste an equal amount at the Pentagon Mall. It wasn’t a genuine compromise any more than two addicts agreeing to split stolen money between heroin and crack is a compromise.

What I’m offering is a genuine compromise. Conservatives will agree to the left’s public financing of campaigns, if the left will agree to support federal term limits.

Leftist voters have long supported term limits — see Maryland, for instance — it’s leftist incumbents who fight limits on their chair–warming harder than they ever fight for constituents. While all conservatives intensely dislike publicly financed political campaigns.

The reason is simple. Government takes my coerced tax dollars and uses it to finance candidates I don’t know or support. Yet realistically, is that any worse than the current situation in the Senate where McConnell lets my tax dollars be used to help abort babies I don’t know?

Under my compromise strangers get my money, true, but the clock is ticking on how long they can use it. Term limits is so important to reestablishing government responsiveness that an unequal deal is worth it.

Public finance usually comes with spending limits, which means it’s also an incumbent protection racket. Challengers never have enough public money to overcome the built–in name recognition advantage that goes with holding office.

That’s one reason public finance is attractive to incumbents. It helps them by making wealthy, self–funding challengers look like they’re trying to buy the election. The other reason is incumbents are lazy and don’t like raising money.

The left also likes public finance because candidates who take the king’s shilling are either prohibited from accepting any other money or are prohibited from taking contributions over a certain amount. That’s supposed to remove temptation from our weak–willed officeholders and reduce the outsized influence contributors have.

My compromise won’t limit the total amount a donor can contribute in any year. That’s because the Supremes ruled political contributions are a form of speech, so limiting contributions limits speech. But it has not escaped my attention that the only families we seem to be hearing from these days are the Soros and the Kochs.

That’s why the public finance compromise will limit what candidates can accept and spend. To keep the program from becoming food stamps for exhibitionists, the compromise will require candidates to raise a threshold amount from small donors before public financing begins.

The weakness of public finance, as we’ve seen in presidential races, is candidates can opt out of the system without any penalty. A rich candidate can far outspend the public welfare candidate who stays within the public finance system.

My solution to that is in the general election if one of the candidates opts out of the public finance system, the candidate who stays in gets his public money AND the opt–out candidate’s money, plus he can also solicit donors. A triple whammy for those who don’t play by the rules.

Equally important I’m going to insist the new public finance system apply to primaries. This is crucial. Primaries are where the incumbent advantage is the greatest. Why do you think a pustule like McConnell, whose polling numbers in Kentucky are under water, remains in office?

How can these Congressional crony conservatives routinely ignore the conservative base? Easy, they don’t fear primary opponents, because in most instances they don’t exist. Big donors won’t give to a primary opponent because they fear retribution from the incumbent. And the party apparatus attacks challengers. You have to have a large fortune you’re willing to turn into a small fortune if you decide to file against an incumbent.

News coverage focuses on how many seats change hands, but the ideological direction of a party is determined in the primary. Public financing there would encourage challengers and make incumbents more fearful of the voters they are allegedly ‘fighting for.’ If I had to choose only one, I would take primary public campaign financing over the general election.

In return for public finance, conservatives want a hard 12–year, cumulative limit on federal office and once an incumbent terms out, there’s a lifetime prohibition on paid lobbying of Congress or any federal agency.

A nation that puts a sell–by date on bottled water can certainly put a discard date on politicians. Incumbents will fight this tooth–and–nail, so it’s going to take a genuine bipartisan effort at the grassroots level to force action. What do you say leftists, are you ready for a grand compromise?

Let’s Revive Extreme Vetting for Politicians

It’s amazing the American public can be so right in general and so wrong in particular when it comes to evaluating Congress. The Gallup survey found the approval rating for Congress as a whole is currently a dismal 20 percent. This means our DC swamp denizens are tied with members of the opposition media, lawyers and car salesmen when it comes to the public’s general distaste.

But at the same time, when rating their individual member of Congress, the public gives that representative a much better grade of nearly 50 percent. Somehow the fact their representative is part and parcel of the entire wretched institution escapes voters.

On Election Day the situation is even worse.

We’re told in most cases familiarity breeds contempt. In politics familiarity evidently stupefies, because an absolutely stunning 98 percent of the incumbents up for re–election in 2016 were returned to office.

Members of Congress are evidently as hard to fire as employees of the Veterans Administration.

Re–elect numbers at the sure thing level only serve to make Republican cowardice when faced with the daunting prospect of keeping their promises that much more repugnant. Sending the same people back election after election only guarantees voters will get the same lack of results election after election.

What’s the solution? Strange as it may seem Mexico may have a suggestion and I don’t mean revolution or cartel government. Find out by clicking the link below and finish the column at Newsmax:

https://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/constitution-military-tlaxcallan/2017/08/15/id/807832/

 

McConnell & Ryan Join Trump Troika Under Duress

It appears the Trump, McConnell, Ryan honeymoon is over before the marriage was consummated.

term-limits-adSure Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan made the right noises just after Trump’s astonishing victory. On the Senate floor McConnell said, “Speaker Ryan and I have had productive discussions with the president-elect last week and we’re both looking forward to working with him.”

McConnell was even ready to take on Obamacare, “It’s pretty high on our agenda, as you know. I would be shocked if we didn’t move forward and keep our commitment to the American people.”

Yes it’s been on Mitch’s “honey–do” list for almost a decade, just under “defund National Endowment for the Arts,” “zero out PBS” and declare war on North Viet Nam.

I always had my doubts as to the durability of this menagerie of three. As 1 Corinthians 14:8 advices: “For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?”

And as McConnell has proven over the years his whoopee cushion call–to–action inspires neither his troops nor the voters. (For complete details on McConnell’s reluctance to fight for conservative principles see my earlier column here.)

Now that Trump is serious about “draining the swamp” and the denizens thereof, not only is a divorce in prospect — the fight over who gets custody of the GOP is going to be nasty. In a post–election interview with “60 Minutes” Trump declared, “We’re going to put on term limits, which a lot of people aren’t happy about, but we’re putting on term limits. We’re doing a lot of things to clean up the system.”

That choking noise you just heard was McConnell gagging on his Senate Bean Soup.

So what’s the time–server’s response and the Trumpista solution? You can find out by clicking the link below and traveling to my Newsmax.com column:

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/president-elect-trump-mcconnell-paul-ryan-term-limits/2016/11/22/id/760234/

 

Missing the Connection Between Politicians and Consequences

Today we have two widely separated instances of voters unable to grasp the connection between the people they elect to office and the policies and taxes that make them angry.

diapers-term-limitsIn Montgomery County, MD — a bastion of Democrat Leftist compassion and social justice — incumbent members of the county council are contributing funds from their campaign accounts to defeat a referendum designed to impose term limits.

What, you thought they’d use their own money? These are incumbent politicians, they use other people’s money to affect social change.

Just like vampires use other people’s blood for sustenance.

The term limit referendum is a voter–led response to a council that boosted it’s salary to $135,000 a year, for a job that’s supposed to be part–time, and increased property taxes 9 percent. The prime mover behind the referendum is a local activist, Republican and, if truth be told, jerk named Robin Ficker.

Ficker, on the side of the angels here, calls the incumbents “self–serving tax increase specialists” in coverage by the Washington Post. And he claims “44 percent of the signatures [on the referendum petitions] came from registered Democrats.

If passed, the referendum would limit council members to three consecutive terms for a total of 12 years in office. That might be long enough for the government to indoctrinate your child, but for a politician it’s barely enough time to settle in at the government trough.

Politicians and the interest groups that control them really hate term limits. The politicians because they’ll have to find honest work and the interest groups because they’ll have to go to the trouble to capture new politicians when the old ones were already house trained.

That’s why the “No on B” campaign attracted the politician’s donations and support of the Montgomery Education Association (putting teachers first since its founding), Casa in Action (an illegal alien, sanctuary city support group), the African–American, Latino and Muslim Democrat clubs (racial bean counters) and the Democrat party as a whole.

Ficker is unimpressed, “Quite frankly, I hope they all put in a million dollars. I hope they spend all their money fighting this. We need change in Montgomery County.”

Strangely enough, the situation is somewhat similar in Gaza. There the incumbents are from Hamas and they never tire of talking about their compassion for the Arab people and corresponding hatred for Jews.

The difference is in Gaza term limits initiatives are of a more kinetic nature and typically originate in Israel. Since being voted into power in 2007, Hamas has been responsible for starting and losing three wars against the Little Satan.

Gaza was in the news when the Post covered an outing of senior citizens allowed to visit Jerusalem: “A few hundred older Palestinians may now exit the coastal strip on Fridays and take the 90-minute bus trip to Jerusalem to pray at al–Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest site in Islam.”

Residents of Montgomery County who want to visit a free land have only to get in the car and drive a few miles to Virginia. In Gaza visitors must run a “security” gauntlet. The first stop is the Hamas checkpoint where green-uniformed thugs give travelers the stink eye. The next stop is the Palestinian Authority checkpoint where the thugs Hamas ousted do their own rousting. Here the seniors were arbitrarily told they could not bring food or water into Israel lest it fall into the hands of the Jews.

Final stop is the Israeli checkpoint where bags are x–rayed for bombs, — the PA takes food from travelers, but explosives are waived right through — passengers are scanned and papers examined.

Once In Israel the Arabs were amazed at how green the country is, how smooth the roads are and how the basic infrastructure functions. Back home they live in squalor because the damage from three wars is mostly unrepaired because Hamas steals construction material to build missile–firing bunkers and more tunnels to invade Israel.

Hamas has outsourced any government functions that don’t involve explosions to “humanitarian groups” and as a result 70 percent of the population lives on handouts.

In the end though, neither population is capable of understanding the type of government they support is responsible for their woes. There’s an excellent chance the term limits question will pass in Montgomery.

The old sullen Democrats will be forced out of office by an unrelenting calendar only to be replaced by newly elected Democrats that will continue the tax and spend policies that generated the initial outrage.

There won’t be another election in Gaza anytime soon, but residents will continue to blame the Jews and not Hamas for all their problems.

How long until either realizes its the ideology and not the implementors that must change.

 

Two Words that Would Seal Trump’s Deal for Me

Term Limits photoI am well aware Donald Trump isn’t a conservative. What’s more, I’ve seen no indication that he’s interested in adopting a consistent constitutionally conservative philosophy. He’s the personification of the “random walk” brought to politics.

But none of that matters.

For our purposes we don’t need James Madison. The fact that Trump’s background is closer to that of Ashley Madison is entirely irrelevant to the tremendous service he can perform for conservatives.

What Donald Trump understands is winning and winning’s corollary: Getting even. And that’s why he’s the perfect candidate to give conservatives a real chance of achieving our greatest victory in the last 50 years.

And that’s where two words become crucial for my vote: Term limits.

If Trump adds term limits to his signature issue of immigration then I’m instantly a Trumpista. Term limits is another perfect issue for Trump and his eclectic assembly of voters who are fed up with a self–serving, unresponsive and corrupt political establishment.

Marco Rubio (R–Amnesty) might claim to be a unifier, but Trump really is. Republican and Democrat leadership in both the House and the Senate are completely united in their hatred and utter contempt for Trump and his supporters.

They would sooner get in a hot tub with Mullah Omar than invite the average Trumpista to a townhall meeting.

This week Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Weasel) said Republicans will drop Trump “like a hot rock” if he’s the nominee and the gopher–like McConnell gave them permission to run negative ads attacking their own presidential candidate! For the first time in history instead of fleeing a sinking ship, establishment rats are advocating mutiny.

President Trump will owe these cravens absolutely nothing except retribution.

That’s why he’s the ideal candidate to make term limits an integral part of his campaign. Term limits is an issue with overwhelming support in the electorate that’s been blocked by chair–warming incumbents for decades. If his first two fights with the beaten establishment are ending illegal immigration and turning incumbents into refugees his popularity will skyrocket.

Conservatives have never had an advocate for term limits in the Oval Office. Past presidents were more concerned with making nice with Congress so it would pass their legislative initiatives. Trump would have a better chance asking Iran for a tour of its nuclear bomb plant than he would have getting cooperation from this Congress, so he loses nothing by advocating term limits.

The amendment would be perfect if it included a three–year lobby ban on retired officeholders or any member of their staff. In a single stroke Trump will have ended the incestuous Congress–to–crony pipeline on Capitol Hill. But I’ll settle for just term limits. A maximum of 12 years in the House and Senate combined.

In a single stroke, being elected to Congress will stop being the first step toward a lifetime of sucking the public teat. Instead those 12 years can be the capstone to a career spent in business or some other occupation outside politics.

Please spare me the crocodile anguish over “losing all those years of experience.” Here are the top three longest–serving Republican members of the House and Senate.

Rep. Don Young 43 years

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner 37 years

Rep. Harold Rogers 36 years

Sen. Orrin Hatch 39 years

Sen. Thad Cochran 38 years

Sen. Charles Grassley 39 years

Two hundred and thirty two years of spending and expanding government wrapped up in six eminently forgettable politicians who all happen to hate Trump.

Just imagine the splash Trump would make with these two issues. Republicans at all levels would finally see how using a vigorous, consistent message can bring incredible pressure to bear. Trump can simply point out to voters that if eight years are enough for him, why are McConnell and his ilk so angry about getting 50 percent more time?

Once the amendment hits the states it’s all over for perpetual incumbency. Voters in many states already have term limits and the one’s who don’t still hold Congress in contempt.

Please, Donald, make my dream come true. Just say the words.

Tom Coburn Will Be Missed By Conservatives

This is Sen. Tom Coburn’s last year in the Senate. It would have been his last term anyway, because he’s an honorable man and adheres to his term limits promise.

He first ran for the congressional seat held by a buddy of mine from college: Mike Synar. I would not have supported Coburn because at that time I was a deluded Democrat. Fortunately I changed and he didn’t.

Complete details are in my latest Newsmax Insider column, link below.

Remember you don’t have to fall in love with the column to post a link on your Facebook page, like it or tweet about it. I can use the readers and Newsmax doesn’t make it easy to find me.

(Sometimes I’m just happy if readers don’t want to enter Ebola quarantine after finishing it.)

Here’s the link: http://tinyurl.com/ows3wob