Author: Redactor

It’s the second most important election in the country writes Jonathan Rauch in National Journal, because “The race puts a fundamental principle at stake.” It’s the race for Washington State’s 5th congressional district, the crown jewel of the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress.

In 1994, House Speaker Tom Foley sued the voters to overturn a term limits initiative and was defeated by a challenger who pledged to serve no more than three terms in Congress. That challenger was George Nethercutt. Now, three terms later while most who self-imposed term limits are, in fact, keeping their pledges George Nethercutt is playing Pinocchio, breaking his word to the voters and trying to stay in power.

In fact, Nethercutt’s portrayal is so real, that movie posters starring George Nethercutt as Pinocchio, produced by U.S. Term Limits, are going up all over Spokane. (You can get one free at “USTermLimits.org“.)

Rauch writes, “Nethercutt himself has offered all sorts of arguments. Some of them are pathetic . . . Others are irrelevant . . . Some are crass . . . Still others are simply weird.” That nose just keeps growing. Will Nethercutt win? Spokane voters must decide.

The long-nosed Nethercutt does have a big financial advantage in the race gained by breaking another longtime promise never to take more than a third of his campaign funds from PACs. Nethercutt has incumbency going for him, but not character.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

My favorite contrarian is the popular ABC journalist John Stossel. Stossel is never afraid to tackle someone’s sacred cow. Perhaps too that’s why John Stossel adorns the dartboards of so many critics.

They may not share his laissez-faire philosophy, or perhaps they own one of the sacred cows Stossel has carved up. Certainly, critics have a right to oppose Mr. Stossel’s views. But they are wrong to question his integrity because of a human error. And they’re wrong to twist the facts of the case in a dishonest attempt to censor his viewpoint.

The story is this: recently, in a report on organic foods, Stossel made a mistake. Yep, a mistake. Stossel said ABC had tested for pesticide residue on both organic and processed foods. Though no such testing has been done by ABC News, it has in fact been done by outside parties. And the tests do indeed show as Stossel broadcast that there is no special health threat from pesticide residue.

John Stossel didn’t know that ABC had not performed the test. When he found out the truth he went public with the information. Integrity doesn’t mean one never makes any mistakes; it means that when we inevitably do make a mistake, we admit and rectify it. And that’s precisely what John Stossel did.

Television news has a checkered track record, so we need to be vigilant. But holding the media accountable is not advanced by ideological witchhunts. Give me a break! If infallibility is the test, we’re all losers.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

My teenage daughter’s one word description of it was “gross.” She was referring to Vice President Gore’s primetime deep-breathing kiss with his wife Tipper at the Democratic Convention.

Now my daughter isn’t against kissing unfortunately. She just doesn’t care who is the best kisser between Bush and Gore. Frankly, I don’t think she’s too impressed with either one. She also thinks it’s strange that this kind of choreographed spontaneity is the stuff of presidential campaigns.

How did we get to the point where our presidential elections are so devoid of content that a candidate’s big innovation is to slap a smooch on his wife? Oh well, I guess it is kinda nice that he’s kissing his own wife instead of somebody else’s. It would be even nicer if folks running for office were a little more like the rest of us, real people instead of just playing real people on TV.  It requires that our leaders have experience in the real world of business and in our communities, rather than only knowing the political world of favors, phony attacks, half-truths and media spin.

We know President Clinton wears boxers, not briefs. (Or was it the other way around?) We know that Gore can and will kiss his wife with great ardor if enough homes are tuned in on TV. We know far too much drivel and spin about the personal lives of the politicians and not nearly enough about what principles they truly believe in. If any.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Cynics tell us term limits will never work. You can’t fight city hall, they say. The politicians will just run for a different office, play musical chairs and hold onto power regardless.

h really? Let’s take a look at what happened in the recent primaries in Michigan. Michigan’s state legislature has term limits that are sweeping 64 legislators out of office this year and allowing that much new blood in. Now of course some of Michigan’s longtime legislators did seek another office most at the local level. But six of the eight legislators who are leaving due to term limits lost in the August 8th primaries.

Senator Gary Hart of Dearborn lost his second bid for Wayne County treasurer 20 years after his first failed attempt. Senate Minority Leader Virgil Smith of Detroit failed in his third try for Wayne County prosecutor, after serving 24 years in the legislature. State Rep. Gerald Law got knocked out of the race for Plymouth Township treasurer. And after more than 20 years as a state legislator, Senator Bill Bullard of Milford was denied what would have been the crowning achievement of his political career, a nomination for county drain commissioner.

ncumbency is a powerful force. But you can’t take it with you from one office to another. Under term limits, it’s a whole new world a world where people compete on a much more level playing field. Even the post of drain commissioner is up for grabs.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

We’re getting to know Senator Joe Lieberman a little better, now that Al Gore has chosen him to be his vice-presidential running mate.

Lieberman is the first Jewish person to run for President or Vice President. But his religion is not what’s important to voters; instead many are impressed with his commitment to his religion. It’s refreshing to see someone not obsessed with politics to the exclusion of all else. Yet, I’m very troubled by a self-centered decision Lieberman appears set to make.

You know that Senator Lieberman is running for Vice President. But did you know he’s also running for the U.S. Senate? Connecticut law allows him to run for both offices, but that doesn’t make it right. Does Lieberman think no one else in his entire state can do the job of a U.S. Senator? Not one of the over 3 million citizens of Connecticut?

And if he wins the vice-presidency, the governor must either call a special election, which costs the taxpayers extra and promises lower turnout, or appoint someone to fill in for the next two years, thus denying the voters a choice. This has all the politicians scheming.

But Senator Lieberman can end all the political calculations by doing the right thing. Run for Vice President. Give it your all. Good luck. But step down and let an election be held fair and square for the Senate seat. It’s simple, Senator Lieberman: Give someone else a chance.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

I’ve worked with people in the Reform Party, good people who want to bring about much needed reform of our political system. That’s why it’s sad to watch the Party split in two, with shouting and shoving matches. I suspect that one catalyst of the crack-up has been the free money that the federal government will bestow on the party’s presidential candidate.

Honey attracts bees and money attracts quite a few different species. The Federal Election Commission will now decide which one of the two sides of the Reform Party gets $12.6 million of our tax dollars as part of the federal matching funds program. But to me that raises the question: is the Reform Party choosing its presidential nominee or is the Federal Election Commission?

Whichever side is “chosen” by the FEC gets all the dough more money than will be raised by Ralph Nader, the Libertarian Party and all other third parties combined. Of course, the Republicans and Democrats get five times as much tax money, which is somehow “fair.” (By the way, hats off to both the Libertarian and Taxpayers Parties for refusing government funding.)

And here’s a perverse twist: The same FEC that allows Republicans and Democrats to break the debate rules and shut out the Reform candidate and other third party nominees, will now decide exactly who is the Reform Party candidate. Let’s even the playing field, but giving away free money isn’t the way. Some cures are worse than the disease.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

One of the reasons Americans are so fond of term limits is that once in office politicians change right before our eyes.

The longer a person stays in Congress, the more they vote for higher taxes and more spending. There’s logic there. The more you, as a congressman, think of taxes as money you get to spend, rather than just something you have to pay, the more apt you are to favor higher taxes.

Every tax dollar increases the political clout of politicians, meaning they can do more for or against various interests and thus ever more people come to them for special favors. Perhaps that’s why, according to a new study by the Cato Institute, the Republicans in control of Congress are increasing non-defense federal spending at the fastest clip in 20 years.

Yes, many of those who campaigned to put the federal government on a diet are now voting to make it dramatically fatter. Congressmen who self-impose term limits remain consistently for lower taxes and less government spending.

But those pursuing a political career, even when they start out as budget-cutters, soon change. When you’re a career politician when, in effect, you become the government big government isn’t such a bad thing. Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute says, “The dirty little secret is that there are two big government parties in Washington.” Moore is right. The only political leaders consistently on the side of smaller government are those who live by term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

The Republican National Convention in Philadelphia was billed as “inclusive.” But there was one issue that was excluded from the gala event and ever so quietly ripped out of the party’s platform: term limits.

It’s not that term limits aren’t popular. They are popular not only with grassroots Republicans, but with 3 of 4 Americans across every demographic group. No, the problem with term limits is that the GOP elite despises them.

Now comfortably in power, they plan to use incumbency to entrench themselves just like the Democrats they replaced. In 1994, Republicans won a House majority for the first time in 40 years by only seven seats. They did so by embracing term limits and winning reform-minded independents as well as energizing their base. But the longtime politicians in Congress were never enthusiastic. As Rep. Mark Sanford points out, “Only when shown polling data . . . on the power of the issue did Republican congressional leaders reluctantly change their minds. The [polls] made clear not only that term limits pulled higher favorable numbers than any other issue in the Contract, but that including a term limit provision could make the difference in as many as 15 House races enough to put the GOP in control of the House for the first time in four decades.” When they won a majority in Congress it was thanks to term limits.

Can Republicans keep that majority with the slogan, “When in Washington do as the career politicians do”?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

President Clinton says he’ll veto the tax cut Congress passed eliminating the marriage penalty. He says such a tax cut is not responsible, that the government can’t afford to lose that money. Sounds like the president is serious about fiscal responsibility, doesn’t it?

Actually, Clinton just wants to make a deal. The deal is this: Clinton will sign off on what he terms a “fiscally irresponsible” tax cut but only if Republicans will agree to Clinton’s new entitlement program on prescription drugs, which they believe is too expensive. In other words, it’s the usual Washington deal: I’ll agree to your reckless fiscal programs if you agree to mine.

Who will fight for a better deal for millions of average taxpayers? Rep. Mark Sanford will. He’s a citizen legislator who has pledged to term-limit himself to six years in Congress. In his new book, The Trust Committed To Me , Mark says gridlock is preferable to the budget agreements of career politicians. “For thirty years lawmakers in Washington were willing to agree on pretty much any budget as long as they got out in time for evening cocktails.”

The result? It takes every single individual tax return filed west of the Mississippi just to pay the interest on the national debt. The career politicians spend money hand over fist to win votes today and let future generations worry about paying the bills tomorrow. Citizen legislators have no career plans that get in the way of doing what’s right. That’s a better deal.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.