Author: Redactor

Recently a pilot gave a pep talk to his passengers, just before takeoff. He said: Be ready to fight back. We are on our own now. If somebody jumps up out of his seat and waves around something that looks like a weapon and says, “Hi, I’m a terrorist hijacker” don’t submit. Start throwing things at him and at any fellow hijackers. Pillows, blankets, laptops, whatever. Fight back, while we land the plane and call in the cavalry. But don’t do what the terrorists tell you to do. There will be many more of you than there will be of them. FIGHT BACK.

When the pilot finished his pep talk, the passengers broke into applause. You can bet nobody was napping the way we usually do when the oxygen masks are being explained. Now, I ask you: shouldn’t this pilot, in addition to his courage, also be allowed to carry a weapon? A gun that he can point at a terrorist hijacker, if he ever has to face one? Reinforce the cockpit doors, have a marshal program sure. But we’re at war, we say. And the pilot is the first person any hijacker is going to want to control or kill. So give the men at this particular front line an adequate chance to protect themselves if and when they are attacked. They’re certainly a responsible bunch.

Most pilots have military training and, heck, aren’t they already entrusted with hundreds of lives? This is what the pilots union argues: Allow pilots to be armed. And I support them. And I fly.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

In the wake of a terrible blow for his city, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has been a true leader under incredibly difficult circumstances. But he’s making at least one mistake. Some people are so grateful to Mr. Giuliani that they’ve been urging him to find some way to keep his job, even though he is scheduled under term limits to step down soon.

At first, Mayor Giuliani said we shouldn’t let the terrorists win by allowing their attack to disrupt our democracy. Then he said, well, let me think about it. Now he suggests that either his current term be extended or he be allowed to serve a whole additional third term. You don’t have to be a staffer of U.S. Term Limits to be dismayed by this change of heart. Other friends of democracy also recognize the danger here.

For example, the New York Times observes: “Neither New York City nor the nation has ever postponed the transfer of power because the public was convinced it could not get along without the current incumbent.”

The Times goes on to say that, “the very concept goes against the most basic of American convictions, that we live in a nation governed by the rule of law. To suggest that the city would be incapable of getting along without Mr. Giuliani after the end of the year undermines New York’s sense of self-sufficiency and normality, which the mayor himself has worked so hard to restore. While Mr. Giuliani has been a great leader during this crisis, the truth is that no one is indispensable.” Close quote. And time’s up!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

“Don’t cuss a farmer with your mouth full,” says the bumpersticker. Well, would it be okay to cuss a farmer who is also a politician? You might feel like cussing ’em when you learn that some congressmen, eleven, to be exact, are receiving thousands of dollars in federal taxpayer subsidies. Benefits they get to vote for themselves.

Some of these highly paid representatives, like Speaker Denny Hastert, get only a few thousand tax dollars a year. But Rep. Marion Berry of Arkansas has raked-in over $750,000 in the last four years. Three others have harvested over $100,000 each. Congress is voting on a new farm bill, full of sweetheart deals for everyone . . . oh, except the taxpayer.

Congressman Charles Stenholm of Texas, another recipient of farm subsidies, says he won’t sit back and deny subsidies to farmers “at the same time we are throwing money at every problem down the pike.” But Florida Congressman Dan Miller , a term limits supporter, who is stepping down at the end of this term just as he promised has a better idea.

He wants to amend the farm bill to reduce the price supports for sugar, a move that could save Americans as much as $400 million dollars. The sugar subsidies are especially outrageous, enriching a few powerful farmers at the expense of the rest of us. All too many Washington politicians are all too eager to dole out special favors at your expense. Miller, committed to coming back home, is trying to stop it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

America United. America Rising. America Fights Back.

The terrorists expected a response to what they did. But did they expect our spirit?

Who knows whether Taliban and company predicted our defiant solidarity and spirited fellow-feeling in the wake of their attack. Americans have surprised themselves. Despite all our typical and often bitter contentiousness we are united at a certain rock-bottom level. All those disagreements still exist, and should.

And let’s keep talking.

But underneath all that, there is a sense in which all of us Americans are united. In response to the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we feel a sense of kinship and solidarity. Misery, yes, but also a rebellion against the misery. No matter what, we want to live. And America is a place where people can live, better than in a great many other places in the world. We can because of the abundance of material wealth here, which we have because of the abundance of freedom we enjoy, notwithstanding all the roadblocks the busybody bureaucrats and politicians plunk in our path.

In America, we can make ourselves a to-do list and then, for the most part, we can actually go about doing the things that are on the to-do list, crossing them off one by one as we go along.

Try doing that in China or Afghanistan.

Ask an Afghan woman what’s next on her to-do list. The American dream is the dream of life, the chance to pursue what makes us happy. America is for people who want to live.

And can.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

I’m no military expert. But I do know bad spending habits when I sees ’em, and Congress has ’em. And a lot of what they’re spending badly has to do with the military and our national defense. If we want to have the best possible protection against foreign aggression, we need to talk not only about military reform but also about congressional reform.

President Eisenhower used to talk about a “military-industrial complex.” In a new book on Arms, Politics and the National Economy, editor Robert Higgs says that a better name for this establishment would be “military-industrial-congressional complex.”

Higgs says the U.S. is well prepared to fight conventional battles, but that we’ve been behind the curve when it comes to combating a threat like terrorism. The U.S. is the world leader in defense spending. But the problem is not really too much or too little spending as such, but how the money gets allocated. In other words, the problem is politics. Take the issue of base closings, for instance.

You’d think that if military leaders agree that this or that military base is no longer necessary, Congress would rush to close it. So the money can be better spent elsewhere. Instead, congressmen often act as if the point of the base was to provide employment to voters in their district, not to defend the country.

Even when all that was involved was just robbing poor taxpayers, deciding defense issues on the basis of personal politics was wrong. Today it is a matter of life and death. It’s been said, “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.” Let’s add, “Don’t pass the pork!”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

This just in: According to the Los Angeles Times , there’s no more back bench in the California Assembly. Apparently they’ve hauled it away to a garage sale. “New members do not sit meekly and keep quiet while they learn,” says the Times . “Even rookies will rebel.”

Everybody remembers what the leaders pushed five years ago the so-called “deregulation” of the power companies and how it led to disaster. That energy legislation passed without a single dissenting vote. But more than merely historical memory is motivating these frisky freshmen. Little something I like to call: Term Limits.

In California, term limits went into effect in 1997. Since then, rookies have been skating right out into the center of the rink. Of course, there are always complaints that the assembly is both too fast and too slow in passing legislation. Some complain that their colleagues are dragging their feet about a new energy bill. According to Assemblyman Joe Simitian, one of the rookies, “My mom used to say, ‘Honey, if you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.'” The assemblyman goes on to say, “Don’t let our regret of the past or fear of the future rob us of the courage to take action now.”

But other newcomers have good reason to oppose this same energy bill a controversial multi-billion-dollar bailout of a California power company. In the days before term limits, rarely did rookies act so independently of leadership. Now it’s different . . . and good for them! After all, representatives are supposed to represent, not rubber-stamp.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Tensions are high these days all over the world, but even in these trying times politicians can provide some much needed comic relief . . . whether that is their intention or not.

Take Jorge Luis Castaneda, the mayor of Apatzingan, a small town in Mexico. He was a little concerned with reports of possible U.S. military action against his town. The mayor even wrote a letter to President George W. Bush, saying, “Mr. President Bush, I swear by what I hold dearest, which is my political career, that Apatzingan never had any active or moral role in the bloody events at the twin towers and the Pentagon.” Well glory be, in the midst of all the trauma, here is a politician so honest that he even confesses it’s his political career that he holds most dear.

Perhaps that is the ultimate oath for a politician, to swear on his sacred political career. But anyway, what the heck is he talking about? I mean, surely there is no attack on Apatzingan. (I hope I’m pronouncing that correctly.) Is there? Of course not. And the mayor’s aides were kind enough to inform him that it was Afghanistan not Apatzingan that was a likely target for U.S. military action.

That didn’t faze the good mayor, however, who was still sure he did the right thing in writing his letter to President Bush. “Well, I did send it off,” stated Mayor Castaneda, “just in case.” Politicians say the darnedest things.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

As Americans, we are being asked to make many sacrifices. And where it doesn’t involve changing what makes America . . . well, America, our birthright to freedom, we are more than willing, we’re anxious no we’re inspired to make those sacrifices, come what may. There are some things that to me matter more than my own life: the life of my wife, my children, our freedom itself.

John Stuart Mill once said, “War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free . . .” So I have not one shred of doubt that the people of America will always make the sacrifices and give what Abraham Lincoln called their “last full measure of devotion” for freedom.

But if we are going to make sacrifices, and some that supreme sacrifice, I think our elected representatives have a responsibility, a very solemn duty, to be good and accountable servants of our cause. Slipping out of the news after these horrible terrorist attacks has been Congressman Gary Condit. You remember: the guy who couldn’t find the truth if it bit him, even when a young woman’s life was in the balance.

Well, I would gladly leave him in obscurity, but he’s back he’s just been named to the Subcommittee on Homeland Security. For my money, I only want trustworthy people on that committee. I’m Citizen Jacob saying Congressman Condit has got to go.

It was President Harry Truman — a supporter of term limits — who said that if you want a friend in Washington, buy yourself a dog. I decided to take Truman’s advice and got one.

Actually, it was my 9-year old who snookered the dog out of my wife in exchange for a consistently clean room. We didn’t really get the consistently clean room but we did get the dog: Bugsy, a golden retriever.

He was our very first dog. Bugsy made our crazy, hectic household even more crazy and hectic. He was a real burden. We couldn’t seem to make him behave and there were various carpet-related mishaps, chewed furniture, etc. Maybe the idea of a dog on top of our busy lives was just too much. My wife and I were afraid we might have to find another family for Bugsy. It began to really look dark for the mutt when he devoured some paper of mine that seemed really important at the time. Great, my dog ate it!

But the next morning I climbed on the scale and noticed I’d lost 10 pounds. Hmmm. Maybe those walks with Bugsy were making a difference.

Then, at breakfast, my 9-year-old let slip as to how she knew we would always love her no matter what if we could still love Bugsy after all the things he had destroyed.

Well, to make a long story short, we kept the dang critter. And we love him very much. The moral of the story is this: Sometimes in life when you take on burdens, they don’t weigh you down . . . they lift you up.

This is Common Sense . I’m Paul Jacob.

We keep hearing that letting you manage your Social Security account yourself would be a “risky scheme.” Markets fluctuate. The value of a stock or bond can go down as well as up. Risky. But the key here is what happens in the long run. And the fact is, in any twenty-year period, real return in the stock market averages more than 10 percent.

You don’t have to be an expert investor, either, because as manager of your own funds you can pick relatively conservative investment plans. And there is every reason to believe that an average investor can acquit himself quite nicely over the 45 years or so of a typical career, and earn a lot more than he’s now being promised under Social Security. Find out for yourself by visiting the socialsecurity.org web site. The site has a calculator that lets you compare your promised Social Security benefits with what you could have earned, if only you’d been allowed to invest your social security taxes in the market instead of in politicians.

If you were born in 1948 and now earn $20,000 a year, you can expect to get $903 a month from Social Security. But if you had been investing the same funds in bonds earning 6 percent, you could expect $1,257 a month. And with stocks earning 10 percent, what your retirement income could have been shoots up to $5,930 a month. Or, to $8,895 a month if you’re now earning $30,000 a year. But don’t take my word for it. Go to the socialsecurity.org web site and plug in your own numbers. Find out what you’re missing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.