Author: Redactor

Boy, the career-politician establishment in Nebraska is a tough nut to crack. But we did it. By golly, we did it. I hope.

As last November’s election loomed, Nebraska State Senator Dave Landis opined that voters, quote, “ought to have a broad of range of possibilities, the maximum number of qualified people able to run.”

Landis didn’t seem to understand that qualified people often don’t run at all when their district is monopolized by an incumbent. Then again, he’s been in office since 1978, so maybe he does get it.

Guy Curtis, who leads the Nebraska Term Limits Committee, says, “We’ve been trying to get legislators to enact term limits for years. But a hog won’t butcher itself.”

Voters passed term limits in Nebraska in 1992 and in 1994. Each time, judges found some flimsy excuse to declare the vote of the people null and void. Now, however, because of their actions, several of these judges have been chased from office.

And the good citizens of Nebraska just won’t take No for an answer. They did it all over again in the year 2000. Got all the signatures needed to post a ballot question. Crossed every legal “t” and dotted every constitutional “i.” Got it on the ballot. And got it passed. Again.

By a whopping margin Nebraska became the 19th state to term-limit their legislators. Will the courts try to throw out the will of the people a third time? Well . . . that might look a little suspicious.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Is it just me? Am I missing something here?

A while ago I complained about how the White House was vetting the network’s TV scripts for shows like “ER” and “Beverly Hills, 90210.” Under an agreement between the networks and the White House, the networks could get paid for any anti-drug messages in their shows, as a way to reduce their commitment to air public service announcements.

When all this first came to light, there was quite a hullabaloo about whether the federal government should be scanning TV scripts in advance of airing, then compensating folks for politically correct content. It’s a dangerous precedent. It sounds like what they do in dictatorships, where the Ministry of Culture or what-have-you checks everything first to make sure it’s kosher.The Federal Communications Commission looked into the matter. Now they have ruled. They aren’t imposing any fines, but they say the networks violated FCC rules, should have identified the federal government as a sponsor of the TV episodes in question, and must do so from now on.

Am I the only one who doesn’t get this? Isn’t there another and even more culpable party here, the federal government? The FCC says absolutely nothing in its ruling about whether the feds should be functioning as a Ministry of Culture, sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong. Rather than telling TV shows to list the government as a sponsor, let’s tell the feds to get out of the picture.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Remember Bill Clinton’s pledge of eight years ago: that he would supply us with the most ethical presidential administration in U.S. history?

Well, just in case you don’t, let me recall to your memory an early presidential action that was supposed to prove that Mr. Clinton took his own promise seriously. It is the new chief executive’s first day in office, January 21, 1993. According to a White House press release, Clinton has, quote, “called on his White House staff to uphold the highest possible ethical standards and to put the needs of the American people ahead of personal ambitions.” Indeed, less than an hour after assuming office, the President issued an executive order banning government employees from lobbying government agencies for five full years after leaving office. This ban would curb the appearance of improper influence-peddling.

Eight years go by, and the patina of ethical purity has rusted a bit over the past eight years. So Mr. Clinton decides he might as well scrub it off entirely; after all, what’s one more violation of the public trust at this late date? And so, in the last days of his tenure, the President has reversed his own executive order with an unpublicized and furtive stroke of the pen. Of course, right and wrong hasn’t changed in these last eight years. But Mr. Clinton’s ability to appear ethical has changed.

So the Clinton gang need not wait five years to cash in on what they call their government “service.” Oh well. At least the guy is term-limited.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Come on, boys and girls, your country needs you. 2002 is right around the corner. If you’re going to run for office as a Citizen Legislator, you’d better start planning NOW.

You’ve probably never thought about running for office. There are good men and women in all walks of life who feel they could make a valuable contribution as a legislator, but who never throw their hat in the ring. Why? Well, for one thing, you may not have any electoral opportunity to do so. The incumbent may have a lock on your district. But the other thing is this.

Regular citizens have little desire to hang around the old boys club for the amount of time it typically takes to have an influence. True, the experience in 19 state legislatures around the country shows how much more quickly new legislators can jump into action when everyone’s terms are limited. But if you want to serve in the U.S. Congress, the feeling is you’ll have to be there for quite a number of years before you can begin to make a dent.

Fortunately, Citizen Legislators like Congressman Matt Salmon, Tom Coburn and Mark Sanford have shown that this isn’t quite true. Even in an encrusted institution like the U.S. Congress, you can still rock the boat as a self-limited congressman, in just three terms or less. And if you get enough people rocking the boat, eventually you’re going to be able to steer a new course altogether. So what are you waiting for? Time’s a-wasting. Order the campaign buttons now!

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Two peas in a pod: Bill Clinton and Dan Rostenkowski. You might not think so at first, but they are.

Their appearance is different Clinton the smooth-talking Rhodes scholar and Rostenkowski the Chicago-tough, deal-cutting politician. But they are both career politicians whose loyalty, in the end, goes not to the country or the people, but to their gang of career politicians. We’ve heard enough blather about Bill Clinton’s narcissistic search for a legacy. Well, for my money he cinched it when he gave a presidential pardon to Dan Rostenkowski. What a powerful statement to the nation that political crime pays! Clinton in addition to his own notorious shortcomings will forever be Rostenkowski’s partner in crime.

Rostenkowski ripped off the public from his lofty 36-year perch on Capitol Hill. He pled guilty to two felony counts of mail fraud to escape from 15 other felony indictments. The judge who sentenced Rosty to prison said, “The guilty pleas don’t reflect the breadth of your crimes.” Don’t get me wrong. Forgiveness is a wonderful thing. Had Dan Rostenkowski shown remorse for his widespread criminal enterprises in Congress, a pardon might have been warranted. But Rosty never apologized. He said, “I don’t think I’m isolated as the only one who did it. I’m not completely convinced that what I did was wrong. Dispensing gifts to some friends and hiring the children of others was my way of life.” Some way of life!

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

We all read the papers. We all know how one violent offender after another, even thugs who victimize children, are getting out of jail to wreck more innocent lives.

Our congressmen always say they’re going to get tough on crime. The scam is that most vicious crimes are state matters, not federal matters. And state legislators have responded poorly. Most of the criminal justice system reform has come about through citizen initiatives. But the feds just have no jurisdiction.

All the same, congressmen campaign as if they do have it, and make all kinds of esoteric crimes against the government punishable by the death penalty. No one’s been hung yet. Well, last year one congressman did find a way for the federal government to make a real difference in fighting real crimes.

When Matt Salmon of Arizona went to Congress in 1994, Washington know-it-alls said he couldn’t do anything especially since he term-limited himself to six years in office. But he introduced legislation called Aimee’s law that denies federal money to states that release violent offenders who go on to commit further crimes in other states. This legislation does the one thing the federal government can do to help prevent the kind of violence that could tear apart your family or mine. It gives the states a financial incentive to get tough on violent crime. Matt Salmon passed it into law. You won’t find him in Washington anymore. He’s back home in Phoenix. And he got something done.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

What with the incredible presidential election, there’s been a lot of talk about democracy lately. I like democracy. As Winston Churchill pointed out, it’s the worst form of government except for all the others. I give it an A minus.

But some listeners tell me, “Hey, America is a republic, not a democracy.” They stress the problems with unfettered majority rule. It’s wrong to have two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner, they say. And they’re right.In America, no majority can tell us how to worship, what we can or cannot say, how to live our lives. We don’t vote on absolutely everything. There are constitutional limits that protect our freedom to make our own personal choices.Maybe there should be even more limits on what can be voted on than there are. But we do vote. We do decide some things democratically.

Thomas Jefferson referred to the United States as a “democratic republic,” and I think that’s right. After the Constitution was crafted in 1789, Ben Franklin was asked what form of government the congress had given the country. “A Republic,” said Franklin, “if you can keep it.” Democracy as such competitive elections, votes that matter, citizens making decisions is not a threat to our Republic. True, many things should not be decided by the government.

But when it is appropriate for ‘We the People’ to act, we should be allowed to act. That means democracy.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Ever notice what dictators have in common? I mean, aside from trampling everybody’s rights, jailing their critics, piling up money in Swiss bank accounts, chopping off the heads of ex-wives, that sort of thing?

Yes, that’s right. Your run-of-the-mill tyrant doesn’t like handing power over to others. They want to hang around as long as possible. Julius Caesar. Augustus Caesar. Genghis Khan. King Henry the Eighth. Hitler. Lenin. Stalin. Idi Amin. Pol Pot. Ferdinand Marcos. Slobodan Milosevic. When there’s somebody new, you know the other guy is either dead or applying for asylum. And in this country? Outright dictators, maybe not. Powerful people who like to stick around forever and get their every whim catered to? That’s another story.

In his new book about his years in Washington, self-limiter Congressman Mark Sanford gives an example. Seems this 98-year-old Senator from South Carolinian (who shall remain nameless) was attending a public event when he suddenly decided he wanted his lemonade without ice. But a powerful eight-term senator can’t be expected to scoop the cubes himself, can he? So a bunch of full colonels also in attendance got their military sleeves wet as they completed the mission for him. As Sanford remarks, if the Senator “hadn’t been slated…to be the next chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, he might have been instructed to strain his own lemonade.” Gee. Maybe so.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

These days we are so used to seeing politicians treat our trust with contempt, we almost think it’s wrong to expect otherwise. “What do you mean so-and-so is lying and cheating and breaking promises for the sake of perpetuating power?” we tell each other. “He’s a politician! Of course he’s lying and cheating etc. etc. Get real.”But that makes it sound like political leaders don’t have the same control over their actions as the rest of us do. It just ain’t so. I

f you want a nifty antidote to such cynicism, let me recommend a wonderful little book, hot off the press, by Representative Mark Sanford, called The Trust Committed to Me . Mark is a Citizen Legislator who has limited his own terms in office. He tells all about how he took on the career politicians to win his seat, then how he and other citizen legislators fought the good fight against the career politicians once he got to Washington. There are some great stories here. I’ll make you a deal. My outfit, U.S. Term Limits Foundation, will give you this book absolutely free if you contact us right now (until April 1, 2001). That’s right: F-R-E-E. Just call 800-733-6440, give us your name and mailing address, you must mention you heard this offer on Common Sense, and we will mail you a free copy of Representative Sanford’s book. Or click into our web site at www.termlimits.org. (Offer good through April 1, 2001.)

Hey, it’s a little late for a Christmas present, but what the heck? You deserve the best.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Merry Christmas, folks.  Boy, I’m telling you, this is getting to be a rough time of year. I just got a letter complaining about the entrenched incumbency of a certain office-holder in the North Pole.

“Dear Paul,” writes Virginia Grinch of Whoville, New York. “Should Santa Claus be term-limited? He has held the same office since the 19th century. He stays in power by bribing pint-sized lobbyists who annually demand free goodies. Furthermore, many elves in his workshop have complained that Claus is arrogant in exercising his authority, and that he is even becoming excessive in his attentions toward some of the intern elves. It is time for Santa Claus to go. Sincerely, Virginia Grinch.”

Well, Virginia, I haven’t heard these charges about abuse of authority. I tend to doubt them though. I think Santa is a very merry, jolly, all-around nice guy. It is true that many private organizations could benefit from term-limiting their top officers. But even if a private group fails to organize itself in the best way, the damage it can do is limited.

By contrast, when it comes to government the whole citizenry suffers from the excesses of endless incumbency. Now, Kris Kringle deals with people on a completely voluntary basis. Taxpayers are not forced to pay for the gifts that Santa distributes. All he does is spread joy and happiness, and that should go on forever. So, no, Virginia, there should be no term limit on Santa Claus.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.