Author: Redactor

People say to me, “Hey Paul.” You’re always criticizing proposals for campaign finance reform just because they would violate freedom of speech and would even further squash political competition. Got anything positive to suggest? Well, yes, I do.

The way things are now, it’s illegal for any one person to donate more than $1,000 to a federal campaign before a candidate is nominated, and more than another $1,000 after the nomination. Who benefits from these tight restrictions? The gainers would have to be candidates who have a big money-raising infrastructure already in place. Candidates who have special interest groups already hustling to bundle contributions from their members to the candidate. Candidates who have lots of campaign assets already on hand and pre-paid, like franking privileges and office staff that double as campaign staff and so on . . . taxpayer-funded assets that sure don’t get counted as campaign contributions, no sir. Well, you see where I’m headed.

It’s the incumbents who get away with murder under the present system. If somebody with money wants to give a challenger a chance, he can’t just write a fat check. He must virtually become a professional fundraiser himself. The system helps incumbents, hurts challengers. My reform will solve this. I propose that we each be allowed to give any amount of money to any candidate we choose. It would be a lot easier for challengers to raise cash that way, that’s for sure. Yep. Let Americans contribute just as much as they want to whichever candidate they want, just as if we were living in a free country.

This is Common Sense . I’m Paul Jacob.

It was time for a lesson. There’s so much demagoguery in D.C. about Social Security that The Washington Post decided to spend a whole page answering questions about it. But, in the process, this company-town newspaper may have clarified a little too much. For instance, they write, “So policymakers will have to decide whether it is more important to worry about people alive 20 years from now or 50 years from now.” Is this any way to run a retirement program?

Workers are each paying 12.4 percent of their income either alone or with half coming from their employers and the best we can hope for is that some other generation gets screwed over instead of us? If we really must pit one generation against another, what kind of society will we descend into? The Post goes on to say, “Some believe future generations will be richer and more productive, and thus able to afford the bill.”

But leaving future generations the bill for our lives is morally bankrupt period. Still, the idea is pretty darn popular among politicians who live by the Keynesian motto: “In the long run, we’ll all be dead.” As long as the collapse happens on someone else’s watch, seems they couldn’t care less. We don’t need to give our grandkids the shaft. If workers could control their own accounts, politicians couldn’t steal the money to pay for more spending on their pet pork projects. We could provide for a better retirement and leave some of the earnings to our kids and grandkids, instead of sticking them with the bill.

This is Common Sense . I’m Paul Jacob.

Sure, sometimes I’m a critic of the state of American democracy. But I’m also a fan. One reason I’m a fan is that I read the papers. Compare our situation with that of, say, Indonesia.

Only a few years ago Indonesians were able to democratically elect their president for the very first time, a fellow named Wahid. But President Wahid quickly got embroiled in charges of corruption. Finally, he was impeached by the Indonesian parliament and asked to step down. The man was reluctant to go, to say the least. In fact, when Parliament first moved against him, Wahid tried to call a state of emergency and stop it from meeting at all. He says he’s all in favor of democracy, but his own actions relay a mixed message at best.

When The New York Times asked him what he was most proud of accomplishing, Wahid said he was proud of “beginning the process of democratization.” Then he added, in virtually the same breath: “I announced several days ago that those who insult the president will be arrested by the police and taken to court. . . . If you say the right things, okay. But if you utter slander, you will be detained. For me, this is democracy.” Yikes. Kind of sounds like some versions of Campaign Finance Reform, doesn’t it? Anyway, this dictatorial version of democracy did not win the day. The military refused to impose a state of emergency and Wahid finally left the palace, peacefully. Thus, despite all the setbacks, Indonesian democracy seems to be muddling through, may even flourish. As shall we.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Hey. Got a violin? Seems poor old Michigan lobbyist Craig Ruff president of something called Public Sector Consulting, if you can believe that has made a boo-boo. And now he’s banging his head against the wall. Yeah, Mr. Ruff has got it rough all right.

In a recent op-ed Ruff testifies that long ago and far away about 9 years ago, while he was helping pound out policy in the governor’s mansion, as a matter of fact he made the mistake of voting for term limits on state and federal officials. The federal limits did not survive the Supreme Court. But the state limits did. And now the results are coming in, and Ruff is regretful. Because it turns out that term limits actually limit terms. Oops. In Mr. Ruff’s eyes, Michigan voters are being denied an “opportunity” to re-elect Governor Engler, as well as dozens of state senators and representatives who must soon make way for others. This could lead to a disturbing trend of electoral contests actually meaning something in Michigan.

Why is that so tragic, in Mr. Ruff’s view? Well, for one thing, more empowerment of average citizens means that the lobbyists will take control of the legislature. Huh? Funny how so many lobbyists are so eager to give up the loads of extra power term limits supposedly gives them. There must be quite an outbreak of public-spirited altruism in the centers of power these days. Well, I could make a case against Lobbyist Ruff. But I think I’ll just let him make it against himself.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Someone once said, “No man’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” Now the people of Oregon are beginning to see just how far their politicians will go to serve themselves at public expense.

Top of the list: Kill term limits. But these honorables know that 70 percent of their voters want term limits. They don’t want to appear too self-serving. So, Oregon’s career politicians are trying what they think is a brilliant idea: use the courts to overturn the law. You see, Oregon judges have recently been rewriting the initiative laws to block measures opposed by politicians but passed by voters. These rulings have made it possible for Oregon judges to strike down almost any constitutional amendment.

Legislators, who could have clarified the judicial haze, are instead exploiting it. They suspended their usual legislative business to pass a new bill designed for only one purpose: to allow an immediate lawsuit against the voters of Oregon over term limits. Just recently, a judge played along, striking down the term limits amendment, saying that congressional term limits and state legislative term limits were not, “closely related” enough to pass muster. Just one problem: that same ex post facto legal reasoning would also scuttle as many as 40 other constitutional amendments. Let’s hope the Oregon Supreme Court will end the insanity.

But, at least now we know that career politicians are happy to legislate their state governments into chaos, if that’s what it takes for them to stay in power. Quite a case for term limits, eh?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Are you a fan of the ancient Greek and Roman gods? No doubt lots of folks think they’re nifty . . . even Hephaestus, the fire god, known to the Romans as Vulcan.

But does your affection for the god of fire mean that we should want the nation’s taxpayers to spend $3.5 million to clean up a statue of Vulcan out in Birmingham, Alabama? I mean, couldn’t the folks out in Birmingham handle it themselves with a bucket of water and some good rust remover? Okay if it’s a large statue, maybe lots of water and rust remover? It just seems to me this is a local job.

I’m not the biggest fan of Senator John McCain and his idea of campaign finance reform. His idea of making electoral politics more equitable is to hobble free speech and hamper electoral competition. The Senator has the wrong solution for a very real problem . . . the problem of pork.

But, he’s right about the pork. It was McCain who tried to stop federal funding to scrub down the statue of Vulcan. His effort has been dubbed “symbolic” because “only” a few million dollars were in play. McCain’s staff had identified some 24 pages of alleged pork in the appropriations for the Department of Interior alone. But even the amendment to stop this one symbolic slice of bacon got clobbered by a vote of 87 to 12. So, that’s at least 87 mutually back-scratching senators who think they’re entitled to splurge taxpayer dollars on their district, at your expense and mine. Vulcan, have I got a job for you.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Ah, freedom . . . In his great pamphlet, Common Sense , published in 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “Freedom hath been hunted ’round the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.” It was Tom Paine’s dream that America would be a home for all those throughout the world who loved freedom. And Paine’s dream has come true.

In fact, it came true again recently for Chinese citizen Gao Zhan. She’s a scholar and a permanent resident of the U.S. She, her husband and their five-year-old son were detained in China in February after visiting their parents. Her husband and son are U.S. citizens and were soon released. But Gao was held for five months, ultimately convicted by a Chinese court and sentenced to 10 years in prison for espionage. Finally, due to pressure from the U.S. she was released.

Upon her arrival back in America, Gao told reporters: “Before I departed Beijing, I was warned not to talk about anything. Not to talk about my time, my experience in China, in any form . . . But with America standing behind me . . . I’m not scared. Here,” she said, “I can breathe freely, and now speak freely.” I hope America will always welcome those who, like Gao, love freedom. As it says on the Statue of Liberty: “Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Yes, that’s our land, our country! And let’s keep it that way.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Even the IRS can make mistakes. Just look at the historical record. Sometimes the IRS confiscates property they really should not have confiscated. Sometimes the IRS deprives people of constitutional rights they really should not have deprived people of. Sometimes the IRS intimidates and terrifies people they really should not have intimidated and terrified. But hey, everybody’s human. Even out-of-control government agencies exempt from the constitutional constraints that are supposed to guide everybody else in government can make mistakes. So don’t blame the IRS for periodically trampling the rights of innocent taxpayers. That’s their job. And it’s easy to screw up when you don’t have to worry about being held accountable for your screw-ups. The IRS has finally gone too far, though.

Instructed by Congress to send tax rebates to some 112 million Americans, the agency decided it would be good to mail notices in advance of the checks, to explain that a check is on the way. Many have wondered why the explanation could not have been sent with the check. Yet, how else could the IRS have gratuitously spent millions of taxpayer dollars on an unnecessary mailing? But now it turns out that 523,000 of those unnecessary notices gave the wrong information, telling 523,000 taxpayers that they’ll get back more money than they actually will get. The check itself is accurate, but the announcement about the check is not. So now 523,000 corrections must be distributed. But don’t worry if you happen to be one of those misinformed people. The announcement about the announcement is in the mail.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Here’s a question they could use on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” See how you do with it. The question is: What are the chances that a congressional incumbent, who has been in office for more than two terms, will be reelected if he runs again for office? A) Not a chance, B) Fifty-fifty, C) Between 80 and 90 percent, or D) Between 99 and 100 percent. If you have to use a lifeline, you haven’t been paying attention to the last four hundred installments of “Common Sense.”

The answer is D, between 99 and 100 percent. Sure, once in a while an incumbent Senator might get knocked out of office. But it’s rare indeed for a member of the House to lose in his district. And it is especially rare after the incumbent has survived his freshman and sophomore terms in office. The advantages of incumbency are just too great. Some of us have argued that because of Congressman Gary Condit’s tap dancing with the police during the Chandra Levy missing-person investigation, the congressman should resign. So far, he shows no signs of doing that. If he does run again, he might or might not win. But the whole sordid mess reminds us once again that it really does take a big scandal to rattle the cage of congressional incumbency. Unless a representative retires, dies, gets squeezed out of power by redistricting, or lies to police about a missing person who might be dead, he has a permanent lock on power. If what we want is a healthy and competitive democracy, that’s not a situation we should accept.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

One of my favorite political leaders, former Kansas Governor Joan Finney, passed away recently. She was the first woman to be governor of Kansas. Though she had quite of a career in politics 16 years as Kansas state treasurer, 4 years as governor, Governor Finney believed in the people and always seemed much more comfortable among regular folks than among the state’s political elite.

In 1990, she surprised the entire political establishment by knocking off the incumbent governor in the Democratic primary. Then she bested the Republican in a strong Republican state. When asked why most of the state’s politicians and media didn’t see her upset victory coming, Finney said with her usual candor, “Legislators talk to each other and forget the people. The press, they talk to legislators.”

Joan Finney had a unique commitment to citizen-led government. She was a tireless champion of the initiative rights of citizens: the ability of voters to bypass their servants in the legislature and enact laws or constitutional amendments directly. Unfortunately, she wasn’t able to convince enough legislators to go along with her and actually establish that right in Kansas. Joan, a co-chair of the U.S. Term Limits Council, was one of the first political leaders to embrace term limits.

I was lucky to know Joan Finney personally. She was down-to-earth, genuine, not just another plastic politician. She had strong beliefs and she fought for those beliefs. She was a woman of her word and someone who trusted and respected the people. Thanks, Joan. We’ll miss you.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.