Author: Redactor

What good would it do if our inalienable rights, you know “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” were only valid on the Moon?

Our freedoms wouldn’t have much practical effect and of course, that’s how some powerful folks might prefer it. While we have the right to petition our government, increasingly we have no place to exercise this right. One reason is a recent regulation of the U.S. Postal Service that forbids people from petitioning outside post offices.

Wait a second . . . the Post Office is public property! But the Postal Service wants it both ways. They want the benefits of a government guaranteed monopoly so that no one can compete with them, and they want the ability to deny access to normal activity that’s not only allowed on public property, but constitutionally protected.

That’s why U.S. Term Limits and the Initiative and Referendum Institute have sued to overturn this regulation. The idea that citizens can be prohibited from engaging in peaceful political activity on public property is ridiculous AND dangerous.

Meanwhile, the Post Service specifically allows politicians to pass out their literature at post offices. In their defense, the Postal Service says that they received no negative comments when they published this regulation in the Federal Register. Everyone subscribes to the Federal Register, don’t they?

You may have the right to petition, but looks like you can only use it on the Moon. We’ll see if the courts can bring that right back down to Earth.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

The White House will soon project a “huge” budget surplus totaling $1.8 trillion over ten years. By the time you hear this, the projection will have already been made, of course. Just so you know I’m working from a projection of a projection, not the actual projection.

Who knows whether the money will ever show up? Just because the feds say they’ll be able to collect a certain amount in taxes doesn’t mean they’ll do it. Maybe there will be a couple recessions in there bollixing up the works. Maybe another couple of wars or “police actions.” Who knows what could happen.

I guess they can safely project that you and I won’t quit our jobs and go on the dole. But suppose the surplus funds do come in. How to spend them? Clinton wants to expand Medicare. Gore wants to fund all kinds of environmental measures.

Other politicians have other so-called “investments” in mind. By the way, investment is what Washington calls spending your money these days. Just thought you’d want to know that. Everybody’s forgetting that we’ve got a $5 trillion-dollar national debt. If the feds do get a couple extra hundred billion dollars in any particular year, can’t they pay down that debt? They could do that anyway, just by cutting all the useless spending on special interests.

Rather than fighting about how to spend all the excess taxes we’re paying cut spending, cut the debt, cut our taxes. Give the money back. Give it back! You’ve got my mailing address, don’t you?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Technology has had a lot to do with the longest economic expansion in our nation’s history, currently in its ninth consecutive year.

One of the few surveys of congressional voting behavior on technology issues has been done by the Information Technology Industry Council. The council is a consortium of large publicly-traded corporations in the technology sector. Their survey ranks each congressman on seven key votes important to the hi-tech industry. These include issues such as Y2K readiness, trade relations with China, amending U.S. patent laws, and legalization of digital signatures that will make e-commerce transactions more secure.

Fourteen elected members who have voluntarily agreed to limit their terms in office have organized as the Citizen Legislator Caucus. Whether you agree with the hi-tech industry on all these issues or not, it’s interesting to see if there is a difference between citizen legislators and those pursuing a career in Washington.

Citizen legislators ace the survey. Their average score was 87 percent. They even bested the House Internet Caucus. Nearly two-thirds of citizen legislators scored a perfect 100 percent. Among the Internet Caucus only 39 percent of members hit the top ranking.

Perhaps their real-world experience gives our citizen legislators a better understanding of what it takes to succeed in the real world of hi-tech and the real world of business, to the benefit of us all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

No one seems to stick up for the average person anymore. Maybe that’s because like the residents of mythical Lake Wobegon, we all view ourselves as above average.

Recently, a commentator wondered what it might take to get Joe Six-Pack off the couch and to the polls this November. Well, I have news for him. The average person is working, not lying on the couch. Joe Six-Pack is busy taking care of his own life working, taking the kids places, volunteering in the community.

Why should he take time out of his busy day to vote if there isn’t any real choice? If once in office, the politicians won’t listen anyway? Joe Six-Pack is getting a raw deal by the powers that be.

A Pew Research study found that less than a third of Congressmen “think the American public knows enough about the issues . . . to form wise opinions about what should be done.” Among presidential appointees and senior civil servants (bureaucrats) less than 15 percent give the people any credit for their opinions on the issues.

Frankly, most of our leaders don’t think they should pay us any mind oh, except when it comes time to collect taxes. Then we certainly count. The political elite would do well to stop dumping on Joe Six-Pack and start listening. Joe is not only smarter than they think; but he also pays the bills.

And given a chance to make a difference, he’ll be at the polls all right. As the career politician’s worst nightmare.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Nearly everyone says they support “campaign finance reform.” But people don’t agree on what that reform should be. And when you consider that any so-called reform will be written by the career politicians themselves, well, it’s easy to get discouraged.

Moreover, if lightning strikes and a reform is passed that doesn’t just increase the advantages for incumbents, the incumbents could still thwart the reform through the Federal Election Commission. The FEC is very political. It’s comprised by an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. Anytime both parties flagrantly break the laws, as they did in the 1996 campaign, career politicians get a free pass.

Meanwhile, the FEC illegally harasses groups that run issue ads discussing the records of congressmen. A federal judge fined the agency for such conduct. Interesting, isn’t it, that the FEC lawlessly assaults groups that career politicians don’t like, but can’t manage to enforce the laws that are on the books.

But the problem is deeper than one renegade agency. It’s career politicians in Congress who talk reform but seek to block information that might hurt them politically. Why should Congress have any power at all to muzzle groups or individuals, even if they do call for an incumbent to be defeated? The First Amendment that guarantees free speech specifically tells Congress to butt out.

Freedom of speech means the freedom to say even those things that the people in power don’t like. This is America.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Money is not the root of all evil. I like it. Everyone I know likes it.

Money can be very helpful. They charge money at the movies, the cleaners, the grocery store. Of course, some of the things folks do to get money aren’t too kosher. Most Americans believe their representative in Congress has traded votes for money. Now that’s evil. It’s why people want to regulate money in politics. But the regulations haven’t worked.

Now enemies of the initiative process claim money is corrupting the people’s lawmaking and seek severe restrictions. That’s just silly. Unlike candidates, who can be bribed by contributions, initiatives are written down in black-and-white. Initiatives can’t change their legal wording after passage the way politicians discard campaign promises once in office.

Compare the initiative process to candidates. Even when initiative proponents outspend opponents by a two-to-one margin or more, most initiatives lose at the ballot box. Money doesn’t dictate the outcome.

But in candidate races, the bigger spenders win 96 percent of the time. Money’s an inanimate object. Money isn’t the problem, but power corrupting the individual. It’s when money buys our elected officials that we have a problem.

So, hands off the initiative process and let’s break up the power that corrupts our representatives with term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

For years Syria has been on America’s official list of terrorist nations. Recently the Syrian dictator, Hafez Assad, died after three decades of a brutal reign of power. His government allowed no political freedom whatsoever. Dissent was a crime.

“I always respected him,” said Clinton, praising Assad for taking part in peace talks. Respected Hafez Assad? A dictator? A sponsor of terrorism? Does Mr. Clinton know something that the State Department doesn’t know?

Oh sure, Assad sometimes cooperated with the U.S. on the public scene, when he wasn’t befriending terrorists behind the scenes. Maybe he did want to improve his standing in the eyes of the international community.

But that’s what manipulative dictators do. They play the power game. But does that make them heroes of freedom, peace and democracy? Well, maybe Clinton just admires the guy’s staying power; Clinton would love another 30 years in power himself.

I guess it would have been a terrible shock to international diplomacy if our President had simply said, “Another thug bites the dust. Hooray!” But can’t we have a little respect for the men and women and children who have been maimed or killed, in body and in spirit, over the past thirty years: the victims of Hafez Assad?

Some argue we have to deal with dictators as we try to achieve piece in a war-torn part of the world. But we don’t have to send roses to their funerals.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

How much should our opinion matter? I think my opinion should count a lot, especially when it’s well informed, which is usually.

No doubt you feel the same way. When it comes to representative government, our opinions certainly should be important. Not all-important, of course. We want representatives who share our values, but we want them to rule by principles, not just by polls.

But sometimes public opinion should carry a great deal of weight, even if our representatives have a different opinion.

Foreign policy is one example. Should our congressmen be making life-and-death commitments for us around the world, against our will, without the support of the very people who will have to pay the ultimate price for the policy?

According to a recent survey by Rasmussen Research, most Americans think the U.S. should commit to the military defense of just four nations Canada and Mexico on this side of the globe, and across the pond, Great Britain and France.

Yet for one reason or another, the United States currently has troops in more than 100 countries. And we are committed to defend scores of allies. A lot of us were very skeptical of the bombing in Kosovo. But our doubts didn’t stop our representatives from giving a green light to the action. When troops are sent abroad, life and limb is at stake.

In a situation like that, our representatives had better listen to what the people have to tell them. Don’t you think? That’s my opinion, anyway.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

I got a call the other day from a woman who wanted to know why I liked President Clinton so much. Huh? It was news to me.

In her view, if I can’t give Republican George Nethercutt a free pass for breaking his word to step down this year, I must be a Clinton-lover. Weird logic.

We may be terrible, but the other party is even worse. George Nethercutt is the guy who defeated House Speaker Tom Foley in 1994. Nethercutt is now breaking his commitment to serve no more than three terms.

When the President admitted he had lied to the country about Monica what’s-her-name, Nethercutt called for Clinton’s resignation saying, “Your word is your bond, whether it’s your public life or private life. The honorable thing for him to do is resign.”

Republicans braved negative public opinion to impeach Mr. Clinton for lying under oath. Was it just because he was a Democrat? These same Republicans are rushing to the defense of Mr. Nethercutt, who broke his oath. National Republicans are funding a $200,000 ad blitz attacking, well . . . us! U.S. Term Limits. My group.

What did we do? Well, we put the issue of term limits and the issue of integrity dare I say it? Above party, either party, any party. I’d rather be right than be Republican or Democrat. As Rep. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma says, “I don’t want to be associated with people that tell Americans one thing and do another.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

When money was tight the career politicians in Washington were spending it like there was no tomorrow.

Now with a surplus watch out!

There are lots of “good ideas” in this world. Of course, since every good idea costs money except maybe one we can’t afford to do everything for everyone.

But sometimes government thinks it can. Who can be against a new hospital? More money for the needy? Higher pay for soldiers, and teachers, and policemen? Shouldn’t we fund NASA and reach for the stars? Find cures for diseases! A chicken in every pot. A computer for every child! End poverty! Abolish unemployment and mandate eternal happiness for all! Swell ideas, each of them.

But we have to ask ourselves a question: Do we have the right, constitutional or moral right, to spend our neighbor’s money to fund our dreams? If we do, so do the millionaire ball club owners who want their stadiums built at taxpayer expense.

Jeff Flake, a congressional candidates who has signed the term limits pledge, says that, “If anybody can conclude that spending public money on a football stadium is OK at the local level, then heaven knows what they would do at the federal level in that candy store.” Those, like Flake, who don’t want a political career sure are a lot better at saying NO to demands for more candy.

Here’s another idea: maybe folks should pay their own way in life and not be dependent on government. Hmmm, I like that one.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.