Author: Redactor

Attention, America. Attention. The long battle is almost over. The Department of Agriculture has proposed to grant American farmers the all-important right to create smaller holes in Swiss cheese. They’ve bowed to pressure from groups like the Wisconsin Cheese Makers, which argued that the eye-size requirements for Swiss cheese are “out of step with the demands of the consumer and the marketer.”

Fans of Swiss cheese are wild with joy. Mary Smith, veteran cheese-eater of Kalamazoo, Michigan says, “I’m tired of all those huge holes. Why the regulators have taken so long to permit smaller Swiss-cheese holes is beyond me. Of course, I don’t want the holes to be too small. Well . . . I guess they know what they’re doing.” Hey, thank you so much, Mary, for your input. That was very valuable. And thank goodness our leaders don’t leave the fate of devoted eaters of cheese to the brutal free market.

Without the regulators in Washington, who knows what size the holes in Swiss cheese would be? Some might be too large for the cheese altogether. And some might be so small you could hardly see them! It’s all too scary to contemplate. One thing’s certain: It must take years of experience for our bureaucrats and career politicians to master the intricacies of cheese regulation.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Ah, those Founding Fathers! Ya gotta love ’em. They were brave men and wise, and their wisdom stands the test of time.

Consider, for example, the Federalist Papers, editorials written early in our history to explain the new American constitution to the public. Consider in particular the famous Federalist Paper Number Ten, about the problem of faction. What James Madison called a faction is what we today call a “special interest.” But let me quote Madison: “By a faction,” says Madison, “I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

You can see the beauty of this definition. Madison’s concept excludes any politically active groups that are fighting for the interests or rights of all of us. But it covers all groups, whether “actuated by passion or interest,” who just want to grab something for themselves at the expense of everyone else, for instance a subsidy or a price support or a regulation against a competitor. Madison’s definition also includes folks you wouldn’t think at first to regard as a special interest: like power-grabbing career politicians, whose factional propensities we would do well to recognize and combat. As usual, good work James.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

What would you expect politicians who claim to be reformers to say about a lobbyist making a $25,000 loan to a politician who then signs on to legislation promoted by the lobbyist? Well, apparently it depends a lot on whether the politician in question is a member of your party or the other party. Welcome to Washington.

The case involves six-term incumbent Congressman Jim Moran and now-defeated congressional candidate Terry Lierman, a drug company lobbyist. Both are Democrats and thus while Republicans are calling for investigations and resignations; Democrats are saying it’s all no big deal. That two men, one in Congress and the other seeking the office, could really be so clueless as to not notice that this type of transaction walks and quacks like a bribe is a sad commentary on the political talent we get to choose from.

Now Republicans are right to investigate this. But why have they given their own Republican Rep. Bud Schuster a free pass? Schuster’s dealings with a lobbyist have violated House rules but resulted in nothing more than a weak slap on the wrist. We can’t know what motivated the very inappropriate financial deal between Moran and Lierman, who are certainly innocent until proven guilty. But as for the double standard of career politicians who believe in one set of laws for you and another for them and their buddies . . . well, let’s just say: guilty as charged.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Remember Jesse Ventura? Sure you do. A movie star and former wrestler, Ventura captured the governor’s seat in Minnesota a couple years back by giving a body slam to politics as usual. Lord knows I don’t agree with all the man’s opinions, nor all his policies neither. But I do like the fact that he is neither intimidated by the usual checklist of political pieties nor afraid to do battle with the powers that be. But those are strikes against Jesse, says Jonah Goldberg, in a recent issue of National Review.

Goldberg says Ventura is a “demagogue” who doesn’t see that, “the faults of the major parties stem from the fact that they are too democratic and too weak, not the reverse. . . . Untethered to any institution, Ventura is free to rant about the corruption of the cleanest political system in American history. . . .”

A demagogue, as you know, is an empty-headed fellow, usually a former wrestler, who rouses the rabble by a lot of deceptive rhetorical bluster. I give Ventura more credit than that. I think he says what he believes. Nor can I agree that thumbing your nose at today’s political establishment is tantamount to original sin. After the last several years of virtually non-stop scandal and corruption at the highest levels of office, I’m sorry, but anyone who thinks the political system is a hymn to integrity needs to pull his head out of the sand. But maybe Goldberg’s piece is really a slick parody of just that Ostrich-like attitude.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

This was the year for politicians, or so they thought. The economy is strong. So politicians hoped the time was right to roll back these pesky term limits laws voters had passed. We voters were supposed to be so fat, dumb and happy that we wouldn’t care how long politicians cling to power.

Threats of repeal were heard in many of the 18 state legislatures and the thousands of local jurisdictions. In Missouri, the State Senate passed a bill to water down term limits and the House was considering it when my group, U.S. Term Limits, began to run ads alerting the people. The South Dakota House tried the same thing until TV ads warned the electorate. Ditto in California. Once awakened, the public nixed all these schemes.

Elsewhere though, politicians required citizens to vote again and again for term limits they have already endorsed by wide margins. In New Mexico, state legislators placed a measure on the ballot to repeal term limits on all county elected officials. Their dastardly effort was crushed by over 71 percent of voters. Politicians in Tampa, Florida hoped a popular mayor would rally support to kill term limits. The voters said, “Thanks Mr. Mayor. We really like you. But now please step aside and give someone else a chance.” Politicians in Prince George’s County, Maryland and Chula Vista, California also tried to dissolve term limits and got clobbered by voters. Ain’t it grand how cockroaches scurry when we shine the flashlight?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Seems everybody has the right to make a deal except the American voter. This election season, some voters wanted to boost Ralph Nader’s vote count without hurting chances for Gore. So they visited web sites that let Nader supporters living in states where the race was tight trade votes with Gore supporters in other states. But California officials ordered one of the “Nader-trader” sites to shut down, saying it engaged in so-called “vote-brokering.”

Voters continued to Nader-trade offline, though and what’s wrong with that? It’s simply practical politics. Elections are supposed to work for the voters. Yet we’re often afraid to vote for who we really want, for fear of “throwing our vote away.” This election demonstrates the problem. Nader votes were the margin for a Bush win in five states. Buchanan was the margin that gave Gore two states. Probably not what these voters wanted.

There’s an easy electronic solution, though: instant runoffs. Say you want Nader to win but if Nader loses, you’d rather have Gore than Bush. Under instant runoff, you’d vote for Nader as First Choice, Gore as Second Choice. If no one gets a majority and your First Choice loses, the system instantly gives your vote to your Second Choice. It’s a new idea. You can find out more about it at www.fairvote.org. Instant runoffs would do a lot for democracy. Shouldn’t every one of our votes count as much as possible?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Perhaps it’s no longer news that lobbyists and politicians have become rip-off artists. But the extent to which our political culture has been corrupted, and the arrogance with which these folks including judges tolerate the sleaze still makes me see red.

Gerard Evans is a “million-dollar-a-year super-lobbyist” in Maryland. But after being convicted of nine counts of mail and wire fraud for tricking his own clients into believing there was pending legislation that could wreck their businesses, his lobbying practice is on hold for the 30 months he’ll spend in federal prison. That is, unless he conducts it from a prison yard pay phone, as did a previously convicted high-priced lobbyist.

Judge Motz said Evans took advantage of “a culture of corruption created and tolerated by legislators and lobbyists in the state of Maryland.” But here is the problem. Motz went on to say it was “tragic” that federal sentencing guidelines required him to sentence Evans to prison and that “Mr. Evans has accomplished much and helped many people.”

So, okay, not only is corruption rampant, but when powerful lobbyists and politicians are caught red-handed ripping people off, they are pampered like spoiled children by the courts. Would some poor kid without political connections be treated with the same teary-eyed compassion?

After his sentencing, Gerard Evans, newly appointed corruption expert said, “Clearly, there need to be some adjustments in [the capital].” He’s right, and putting him in jail is a good start.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Well, the election has finally happened and looks like we’re gonna be stuck with what’s-his-face as our President for the next four years. Pundits say this has been the closest presidential race since the Stone Age.

Of course, it’s not a bad thing to have close contests in a system that is supposed to be competitive. Still, this contest could have been lots more competitive. Only the two major candidates were allowed to participate in the nationally televised presidential debates. Third party candidates with a different view to offer were shut out of the conversation. Candidates like the Green Party’s Ralph Nader. The Reform Party’s Pat Buchanan. The Libertarian Party’s Harry Browne.

Things weren’t quite as rigged in previous years. Remember John Anderson? Well, okay, that was a while back. How about Ross Perot? Folks like him add something to the conversation. Didn’t all his nattering about the national debt have an impact? A recent poll by Rasmussen Research and the Appleseed Electoral Reform Project found that much of the voting public agrees. About half of likely voters think Buchanan or Nader should have been in the debates. Looks like the pollsters forgot to ask about Harry Browne, though he has been about even with Buchanan in recent opinion polls. Oh well. Even pollsters aren’t perfect.

My point is, the career politicians want to run a closed shop, and they keep finding new ways to shut people out. Whatever happened to the politics of inclusion?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Look, most of us recognize that politicians are not way up high on the honesty list. But the awful truth about career politicians and the party bosses is that even when what they say is technically accurate, they say it in as misleading and hypocritical a way as is humanly possible. The Republican and Democratic parties call it political advertising.

One of the best tricks is to attack someone for an obscure vote that is stretched completely out of perspective. Like the Democratic Party ad saying Minnesota Senator Rod Grams voted against a gun-free school zone bill because he’s fond of guns at school. Then there’s the Republican Party ad accusing Florida candidate Linda Chapin of being “soft on convicts” because criminals watched cable TV until, that is, Chapin had it removed, a fact the ad forgets to mention. And the Republican ad attacking Democrat Calvin Dooley as soft on crime for voting the same way as House Republican campaign chairman Tom Davis, whose group made the ad.

Dooley says, “The Republican Party has a criminal case of hypocrisy. Do Republicans think their own chairman is soft on crime too?” But Dooley knows that members of the incumbency Republicans and Democrats couldn’t care less what anyone is for or against. Just use whatever you must use, twist whatever you must twist, smear whomever you must smear to win. And why is winning so important? Why? To lead a crusade for truth, justice and the American way, of course!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Sometimes people say to me, “Hey Paul, if term limits are so great, how come they’re not already in the Constitution?” Weren’t the Founding Fathers just as concerned about how power corrupts, and absolute power corrupting absolutely? Absolutely, yes, the Founders were concerned. And they did believe in term limits. They called it “Rotation in Office.”

In those days, folks would remain in office for only one or two terms before moving on. Nobody had to tell George Washington to decline the job of President for Life. They followed the honor system. Several state constitutions did provide for term limits, however. For example, the Virginia Constitution of 1776 declared that officeholders, quote, “should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, [and] return . . . into that body from which they were originally taken.”

And the Articles of Confederation, the national law of the land prior to the U.S. Constitution, also required rotation in office. The articles said that no person should remain in office for more than 3 years out of any term of 6 years. That’s pretty tough. Yes, the Revolutionaries wanted Citizen Legislators, not Career Politicians.

Indeed, Madison’s original plan for the U.S. Constitution required term limits. But in the end, the drafters decided limits were unnecessary, since the rewards of serving in Congress were few and the privations many. And in those days, it was more plausible to have faith in the good will of the politicians than it is today.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.