From GOP USA

In an age where politicians head to Washington as “citizen legislators” only to become transformed into career Beltway insiders, one candidate is putting his money where his mouth is regarding term limits.

Following the 1994 elections, congressional Republicans held true to their promise in the Contract with America to bring term limits up for a vote and many pledged to follow their own, self-imposed term limits. Some kept their pledges, others did not. But in North Carolina, congressional candidate Will Breazeale has made a $250,000 promise to the voters. In an age where so many people are frustrated with Washington politicians, maybe this is a move that could catch on.

As noted in a report on Carolina Journal Online, Breazeale “became the first candidate in the nation to take a bonded term limits pledge, agreeing to donate $250,000 of his own assets to a private charity if, after being elected, he doesn’t limit himself to three terms in office.”

“I see [bonded term limits] bringing about the largest power shift in this country since we became a country,” Breazeale in a telephone interview shortly after the press conference. “This will be the standard one day. If you don’t put up personal net worth, then you will not be elected.”

Breazeale partnered with the Alliance for Bonded Term Limits, a national nonpartisan group, to sign the pledge. Alliance president and board chairman John Skvarla told Carolina Journal that bonded term limits are about accountability.

According to the Alliance for Bonded Term Limits web site, the organization “seeks to explore and develop a process under which candidates for public office can assure constituents that they will work diligently in the public interest instead of building long careers rife with self-interest.”

This country does not need a Constitutional Amendment or a Federal Law to bring fresh ideas to Washington; we need dedicated citizens who will travel to Congress with a real commitment to return home after a finite time in office. Our nation needs to return to the citizen legislatures expected by our Founders and retire the career politicians and their patrician lifestyles.

As it stands now, only the president of the United States is constitutionally term-limited. Efforts by states to set term limits for federal office holders (representatives and senators) have run into a brick wall. The Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton that “only the U.S. Constitution could impose restrictions on congressional hopefuls.” WiseGeek.com notes that following the 1994 elections, Republicans “brought a constitutional amendment to the House floor. It limited members of the Senate to two six-year terms and members of the House to six two-year terms. Because the Republicans held 230 seats in the House, they were able to get a simple majority. However, constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority, or 290 votes, and the votes to restrict term limits in Congress fell short of that number.”

For me, the best way to ensure term limits is to have an educated electorate. If a candidate becomes corrupt or loses touch with his or her constituents, the voters in that state or district can and should vote for someone else. However, this seldom occurs. Incumbency is powerful. Once elected, an officer holder has a much larger pool of resources to tap. In additions, voters are often lazy! They don’t take time to research, and they often don’t understand the issues. Thus, the person in power stays in power.

When voters don’t take the time to learn about the candidates, they will fall for anything. Charm, wit, or persona trump knowledge, experience, and political philosophy. Just look at these voters from the last election:

Case in point for an educated electorate!

So, outside of educated voters… voters who will look through the media filter, we also need to return to the concept of citizen legislators. We need office holders who care more about the people they represent than the office they hold. Is term limits the key? Is this the time to rally the country to support an amendment to the Constitution? Or perhaps, is it time to have candidates put their money where their mouth is and pledge to limit their own terms?

North Carolina candidate for Congress Will Breazeale may be tapping into the pulse of America at just the right time. Accountability and responsibility are timeless qualities. It would be nice if they were associated more often with our elected officials. Time for term limits? What do you think?

From Examiner.com

Senator DeMint of South Carolina will soon be introducing a constitutional amendment that will limit members of Congress to three terms (six years) in the House of Representatives and two terms ( 12 years) in in the United States Senate. After serving ten years in the Senate, Senator DeMint said he has come to believe that Washington D.C. "has the power to corrupt even those with the most honorable intentions" He further related that, career politicians ended up, "beholden to special interests, lobbyists, and big government policies."

The Senator’s rational for term limits appears to be directed at the need for politicians to start campaigning for the next election shortly after they are elected in the House and following four years in the Senate. By doing so, career politicians spend much of their time campaigning rather than legislating. DeMint believes that by imposing term limits congress will be filled with an ever changing skill set of new ideas and fresh perspectives in congress. Term limits he says, "will keep politicians in-tune with their constituents and less focused on pleasing those who promise to help get them re-elected."

According to US Term Limits (USTL) Term limits have been placed on 15 state legislatures, eight of the ten largest cities in America adopted term limits for their city councils and/or mayor, and 36 states place term limits on their constitutional officers. USTL states, “We are the voice of the American citizen. We want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, not a tyrannical ruling class who care more about deals to benefit themselves, than their constituents.”

Term Limits are already in place for the chief executive of the United States. The President is limited to two terms by the twenty-second amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1947. The Governors of thirty-six states also have various term limits in place. The rational for limiting the chief executive to two terms was to prevent a possible dictatorship. Back in 1776, Thomas Jefferson stated at the Continental Congress that term limits were necessary, "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress.”

Those against a term limit amendment argue that term limits are already in place, they are called elections. They relate that a term limit amendment limits a voters first amendment rights of free speech by limiting the ability to elect anyone they choose. But sitting Senators out-raise challengers by eight to one. This contrast in finances probably accounts for the high re-election rate (nearly ninety-two percent) for incumbents. Many of these contributions are from special interest groups. Others say that rather than imposing congressional term limits there should be legislation that requires a legislator to recuse themselves from voting on any legislation that deals with a major contributor. By doing so, special interest contributions would evaporate.

Voters appear to agree with DeMint as a poll related that eighty-two percent want congressional term limits. DeMint said, "people deserve congressmen who fight to give them a voice rather than fight for their personal power and success. If the people want new policies and real reform, it’s not enough to change the congressmen — we must change Congress itself", He said.

From Fox News, CNN, MSNBC or News Channel 8, the president hears his own words thrown in his face. “We’re losing several generations of kids, and something has to be done,” Mr. Obama says in the commercials.

The something that the president has done is cut off a scholarship program helping hundreds of students from the city’s failing schools go to better private schools – a choice Washington’s powerful and well-off liberal politicians often make for their own kids.

Kevin Chavous, a prominent black D.C. lawyer and board member of D.C. Children First, is the guy making the president so uncomfortable. In the advertisement, Mr. Chavous says, “President Obama is ending a program that helps low-income kids go to better schools, refusing to let any new children in. I’m a lifelong Democrat, and I support our president. But it’s wrong that he won’t support an education program that helps our kids learn.”

That’s when America’s first black attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., stepped in to tell the lawyer to shut up, Mr. Chavous revealed on a local radio talk show. Mr. Chavous said the attorney general – in front of witnesses – asked him to pull the ad.

That won’t happen. In fact, Mr. Chavous says the ads will expand. “We will probably go on bus stops and on metro trains. … Additionally, we will probably run an ad with a parent making a direct plea to the president. As I said to [Mr. Holder], when Obama agrees to support these kids, I will pull the ads, and maybe even run one thanking him.”

Thank him? At the moment, Mr. Obama puts the political needs of the powerful teachers union ahead of the needs of children. Nobody should have to thank him if he wakes up and does the right thing.

From The Contra Costa Times

Empowering parents to take control of their children’s education, the Los Angeles Unified board voted Tuesday to expand a controversial reform plan and potentially allow the outside takeover of any underperforming school in the district.

The move comes just weeks before the launch of the School Choice Resolution program, which allows teachers, nonprofit groups and charter operators to bid to run new and underperforming district campuses.

While three dozen campuses had been identified, the board decided that a simple majority of parents could vote to nominate a school for inclusion in the reform plan if they are dissatisfied with student performance.

"We need change, we need change fast and we hope parents will be right alongside us with a dual steering wheel," said school board member Richard Vladovic.

Board member Yolie Flores-Aguilar, who authored the reform plan, said the parents would be able to nominate their children’s school for the reform plan if it failed to meet state and federal benchmarks on standardized tests for at least three years.

And Superintendent Ramon Cortines said that it’s important for parents whose children currently or will eventually attend an underperforming school have some way of voicing their dissatisfaction.

"Parents will play an essential role in initiating this process at schools," said Cortines, who would have final say on whether the school would be included in the reform program.

However, board member Steve Zimmer said he believes that only parents whose children are currently enrolled or would be enrolled the following year should have a say in whether the campus is included in the district’s reform plan.

District officials said they did not expect many schools to be added this year to the list of 36 because of the tight timeline. Still the lack of details on such a controversial element of the reform plan frustrated board member Margueritte LaMotte.

"It’s always the same," she said. "We never have all the answers before we jump into these processes."

The board also finalized the 11-step process to apply to operate one or more of the 36 schools, which includes San Fernando Middle School and five elementary schools planned for the San Fernando Valley.

Applicants must have nonprofit status, as well as the financial capability and skills to successfully operate a school.

Plans call for LAUSD to begin receiving applications by Nov. 15. The applications will be reviewed by two review panels that Cortines said will consist of district and external staff.

The schools chief will then make his recommendations, and the decision will be made by the school board in February.

Applicants will also have to guarantee that they will take all students who live within the attendance boundaries of that campus – an issue that has sparked serious concern among operators of charter schools, which are independent public campuses that enroll students via an application process.

In addition, United Teachers Los Angeles and other employee unions are also exploring whether to file suit in an effort to block the reform effort. The unions maintain the district is breaking promises it made to voters, who approved the bonds that funded the construction of the schools that will now be up for bid.

The unions also want to see more guarantees of employment for their members since traditionally charter operators do not hire union workers.

“Competition is as American as apple pie.”

That’s the premise behind a new ad from MoveOn.org, the left-leaning grassroots group that’s pushing President Barack Obama’s socialized medicine plan. If it sounds familiar to supporters of free market reform, it should.

Competition is as American as apple pie, but there’s just one small problem with this group’s definition of the term.

By adding (or rather re-adding) a so-called “public option” to the latest trillion-dollar health care plan, Obama and his allies in Congress are not promoting competition – they’re squashing it. Simply put, by injecting the government directly into a market that it has the power to regulate, “Obamacare” would place the health care industry in America on an irreversible path toward nationalization – not to mention raise health care costs on the typical American family by as much as $4,000 per year.

Government doesn’t want to “compete” in the marketplace – it wants to artificially manipulate the marketplace to force millions of Americans out of private plans and into government-run plans, which they ludicrously claim will save taxpayers money.

At the heart of this bastardized notion of “competition” is the demonstrably false belief that government-run programs have lower administrative costs than private plans.

“Medicare has lower administrative costs than any private plan on the market,” U.S. Rep. Pete Stark wrote years ago as the government-run health care movement started picking up steam.

This is simply not true. Medicaid plans have significantly high per person costs than private plans, even though Medicaid is exempt from state health insurance premium taxes that private providers must pay.

“In recent years, Medicare administrative costs per beneficiary have substantially exceeded those costs for the private sector,” writes Dr. Robert A. Book for the Heritage Foundation. “This (is) despite the fact that, as critics note, private insurance is subject to many expenses not incurred by Medicare. Contrary to the claims of public plan advocates, moving millions of Americans from private insurance to a Medicare-like program will result in program administrative costs that are higher per person and higher, not lower, for the nation as a whole.”

Additionally, Medicaid is riddled with fraud and abuse – an epidemic problem that the U.S. government has shown little interest in “reforming.”

In fact, according to a CBS 60 Minutes report that aired last weekend, an estimated $60 billion out of $430 billion in annual Medicaid disbursements goes to fund fraudulent Medicaid claims.

That means one out of every seven dollars spent on Medicaid goes toward fraud – one reason why the program has seen skyrocketing annual premium increases in recent years, and one reason why its hospital trust fund is forecast to run out of money within the coming decade.

In South Florida, CBS found that Medicaid fraud had replaced cocaine traffic as the most lucrative criminal enterprise.

Why would a program that’s ostensibly so vital to the health of the nation be allowed to pour so much money down the drain?

“Our oversight budget has been extremely limited,” the government’s top anti-fraud bureaucrat complained to CBS, revealing another flaw of the “public option.”

Whenever these government-run monstrosities break down – and they always break down – every American taxpayer is suddenly on the hook for the “bailout.”

Is this really the sort of system we want to expand – perhaps to include as many as 100 million new Americans? Of course not. But that’s exactly what would happen under the plan currently being debated in Washington.

Obviously, proponents of Obama’s socialized medicine proposal are very well aware of the public’s skepticism when it comes to supporting unsustainable entitlement programs – which is why they are hiding the greatest government power grab since the “Great Society” beneath a cloak of capitalist-sounding terms like “market principles,” “choice” and “competition.”

Don’t be fooled. The only “choice” Americans will receive in this “market” will be left exclusively to government bureaucrats, whose definition of “competition” is racking up exorbitant costs to provide substandard service – and then sticking you with an ever-expanding bill.