Author: Redactor

Do we really have the right to free speech? Our campaign finance laws, and the “burdens” they impose on First Amendment rights of free speech and free association are often justified by the courts because of what the courts call “the compelling state interest” in combating “corruption and the appearance of corruption.” That’s more compelling than freedom or even “the appearance” of freedom, apparently. S

et aside, for the moment, the notion that government may trash our most fundamental political rights if they think they have a “compelling” reason. Let’s consider another awfully strange legal principle, namely, that we can enact laws designed to outlaw the “appearance” of something or other.

What’s next? Laws outlawing the appearance of fraud, robbery, assault, murder? You’re not supposed to go to jail unless you really committed the crime. Of course, if we actually went by appearances, we’d have to lock up most of official Washington. Even the career politicians tell us the system is corrupt, that something must be done. But corruption isn’t so mysterious. It involves politicians shaking down economic interests or doing their bidding to get campaign contributions that will ensure their political careers. Yet congressmen who violate House rules or campaign finance laws are often given a slap on the wrist. They refuse to effectively regulate themselves, but want to regulate the rest of us.

Voters want politicians to change their actual behavior, not their apparent behavior. And we don’t need to pass a law for that one . . . well, maybe term limits.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

I love it when the enemies of term limits make the case for term limits for me. Because then I just have to quote their own words and I can take the rest of the day off. Consider the Portland Press Herald, a newspaper which says the Maine House of Representatives showed “real leadership,” quote-unquote, by calling unsuccessfully for a statewide vote to repeal term limits.

Career politicians who want to repeal term limits? Gee, that’s a profile in courage. The political scientists at the Herald also say that term limits prolong terms rather than limit them, because now challengers wait until the term limit kicks in before daring to compete for the seat. Hoo boy, that’s a good one. As if incumbents never had a lock on their districts prior to term limits. I guess the Herald thinks it would be best if challengers had to wait until incumbents die or retire.

Then, get this, the Herald says Maine needs somebody outside of politics to run the anti-term-limits campaign, the way Maine had somebody outside politics running the pro-term-limits campaign back in the early 1990s. As the Herald puts it, quote, “If the repeal campaign is to succeed, another outsider that the public will trust will have to lead it.” Uh . . . you don’t mean to suggest, do you, Portland Press Herald, that career politicians can’t be trusted? That when you really want something done that has credibility with the public, you need to get an “inexperienced” citizen legislator to do it . . . ? Gosh, that sort of sounds like a point in favor of term limits, doesn’t it? Hey, glad you’re on our side.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Doug Hart is worried. The Michigan state representative is worried that after legislators grabbed a 36 percent pay raise more than 20,000 smackers the voters won’t agree to change Michigan’s term limits law allowing these highly-paid politicians to stay in power twice as long.

Voter and grandmother Pat Endres said, “Every time I think about [the pay raise], I get angry about it all over again. I’d have liked to go in and fire them all . . .” Still, Hart is pushing ahead with a measure to gut term limits. His carrot for voters is to give back about half the money the politicians stole through the pay raise scam. Hart says, “If the public agrees to allow legislators to stick around another six years, it’s only appropriate we do things differently.”

Let me get this straight. What this guy is saying is, “We’ll give back at least some of the money we stole in such an underhanded way through that massive pay raise, but only if you let us kill term limits so we can continue running the government.” What chutzpah! Voter Steven Zolnierek isn’t fooled. He points out, “It doesn’t address the current thievery. What they need to do is give their whole pay raise back.” And he says term limits are a done deal that the politicians should not tamper with. “We don’t need professional politicians,” he states. “They’re the ones ruining everything by protecting their friends and special interests and businesses.” Politician Hart says that under term limits, “Voters are not getting their money’s worth . . .” You can say that again especially after that 36 percent pay raise, eh?

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

class=”medBr”>Well, whoop-de-do. To show how benevolent they are about giving us back a few dollars of our own money, the IRS is sending a letter saying the check is on the way, and ain’t it grand?

They say they must send us this letter to explain how the amount was calculated. What it really sounds like is more taxpayer-funded campaign propaganda, this time for the Bush Administration. Let’s accept for the sake of argument that it’s crucial to tell folks why they’re getting the $300 or $600 rebate check. And that you need to get a separate little check instead of simply being charged a lower tax next time you fill out a 1040.

Can’t the feds just include the explanation with the check itself, maybe on a little slip of paper? Here’s another rhetorical question: What’s the cost of this cheesy self-congratulatory communiqu? Oh, IRS spokesman Frank Keith has no idea. But we’re talking about 91.6 million sheets of paper, 91.6 million envelopes, 91.6 million units of postage. And somebody’s got to stuff all those envelopes, right? I’m sure they had that guy working overtime, at union wages. If you don’t grasp the irony here, let me spell it out.

You the taxpayer are being forced to fund a wasteful mailing to yourself saying that you’re going to get some of your own money back. But in the long run, the only way you can keep more of your own money is if the government stops wasting so much of it on things like this wasteful mailing. Do you see? It is very ironic.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

You know, I consider myself quite the authority when it comes to all the scurvy tricks that the career politicians use to try to thwart and undermine the people. . . . But today I want to turn the podium over to a patriotic citizen out in Gig Harbor, Washington, who is also quite expert on the topic of conniving careerists.

Doug Vandervelde wrote a letter to the editor of the Seattle Times , responding to typical feeble arguments about why the career politicians should be allowed to ride roughshod over the rest of us. Doug said, “The wannabee ruling class includes many judges, bureaucrats, professional politicians, big-business power brokers and their lobbyists, and virtually all the media, who like easy access to . . . ‘safe’ and predictable permanent legislators.

Term limits are indeed a ‘distinct threat’ to these power elites.” Doug goes on to point out that the power grabbers do their best to ignore the people whenever the people fail to support something that’s demanded by the power grabbers. That might be public funding of a sports stadium, yet another tax hike, even the destruction of term limits.

If ‘We the People’ vote no, the politicians try to push us to keep voting the same question over and over again until we’re just too tired to resist the power grab. That’s their game plan, anyway. Too often, instead of seeking to represent their constituents, the politicians plot to outmaneuver them. And term limits make that tougher. That’s why Doug and you and me love term limits, but the politicians want to bury them.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Hey, I used to think Representative Bud Schuster was the master of bribing his colleagues with the promise of pork or blackmailing them with the threat of its removal in order to get the high spending, high-taxing legislative action that he wanted.

Well, move over, Bud. Bob Byrd wants a shot at the title. Yeah, turns out the senior senator from West Virginia tried to put the squeeze on fellow Democrats when it looked like some of them might vote yes to the Bush tax cut plan. Byrd told them in so many words, look you . . . you . . . you craven bipartisan bums . . . don’t you dare give the taxpayers of this country any kind of break!! If you vote for the Bush tax-trim plan so as to let your constituents keep a tiny bit more of their take-home pay, I will make darn sure that you don’t get all the pork you want for your district!!! Your pet spending projects will be hacked and slashed!! Lions and tigers and bears and Byrds, oh my!

First, Byrd delivered his threat behind closed doors. Then the Senator proved he really meant what he said by repeating his threat on the Senate floor. Here’s what he said (this is a direct quote now): “‘Let me say to my colleagues, if you vote for this budget conference report, don’t come to the watering hole.” Watering hole. Charming metaphor, that. But fortunately for the American taxpayer, the five or six colleagues in question ignored Senator Byrd’s twittering . . . and voted to give us back some more of our own money anyway.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

I’m talking about the St. Louis Declaration, a joint communiqu of 33 pro-taxpayer organizations from all over the world. The declaration endorses the right of every human being to flee political and economic oppression. And it opposes recent anti-taxpayer notions floated by such global political organizations as the European Union and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. These groups want the countries of the world to join hands and tax everybody at the same rate, the same way. Form a kind of global tax cartel. It’s a blatant bid to eliminate tax competition between nations.

If the goal were ever accomplished or even roughly approximated it would be a disaster for the world’s taxpayers. As things are now, citizens can at least vote with their feet when taxes are too punitive in their home country. And the danger of losing productive citizens does motivate at least some governments to try to improve their economic policies.

Without that competitive pressure, governments would be off the hook and citizens would be in the soup. We’d have to move to Mars to get a better deal. As the St. Louis Declaration puts it, quote, “It is a fundamental human right for individuals to move themselves and their property to nations with levels of taxation and public services compatible with their individual tastes and preferences. . . . Tax competition and diversity have been an engine for human economic progress that must continue.” Sounds good to me. Got a pen I can borrow?

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Pass the pork please. Thank you. Don’t ever forget to say thank you. It’s just good manners. Besides, you wouldn’t want to be punished the way the people of southern Arkansas were. They weren’t very appreciative of the pork they were getting.

Here’s the deal: Congressman Jay Dickey was in a tough reelection battle. He promised a mountain of pork if the voters would only send him back to Washington for yet another term. And he brought in lots of high-powered Washington politicians with tax money bulging out of their pockets to say that if Dickey were reelected the roads would indeed be paved in gold or, at least paved. But then those uppity folks in Dickey’s district didn’t reelect the incumbent as they were instructed.

My goodness, they voted instead for a term-limited state representative. That’s when $4 million federal dollars dangled before the voters were rescinded. And then the Office of Management and Budget removed proposed spending on Interstate 49. As one congressional big wig put it, “It might have been that people down there were not appreciative of the money they received.” Of course, now spending is back in for I-49. After all, there’s a tough Senate race in Arkansas next year and a little dough might provide some leverage.

We taxpayers must always remember to be grateful to our honorable and benevolent rulers for the few pennies they kindly return to us from our many tax dollars. Maybe right after Mother’s and Father’s Day, there could be a new national holiday: Politician Appreciation Day. Please pass the pork . . . and the gravy.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

What’s the price we pay for all those federal regulations the government keeps churning out?

Clyde Crews, a scholar with the Cato Institute, estimates that our economy loses $788 billion a year because of regulations. He figures that a typical two-income family loses about 18 percent of its after-tax budget to hidden regulatory costs. Things cost us almost 20 percent more to buy than they would have without all the regulation-run-wild. Ouch. But not all of the cost is so hidden and generalized.

All these regulations also mean a lot of arbitrary power for bureaucrats. And very specific pain and suffering for the hapless individuals who become their target. Consider the case of the Manganas Painting Company.In the early 1990s Manganas was hit with the second largest fine in the history of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration: four million dollars. Levied, of course, the very day new safety laws went into effect. And even though another agency, the EPA, had required a bridge enclosure that actually increased respiratory health risks. And even though John Manganas had bought hundreds of thousands of dollars of safety equipment.

The case has taken a while to make its way through the courts. But Manganas has already suffered a huge cost in lost business and lost reputation. He says he was always willing to meet OSHA’s requirements, but wasn’t given a chance. They painted him into a corner. Congress hands agencies the power to regulate, then washes its hands of the mess. There must be a better way.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.