Author: Redactor

Gosh, it’s tough having to run for office without already being a permanently entrenched incumbent who can just snap his fingers and instantly command vast resources and firepower. These out-of-work career politicians really have my sympathy.

Consider, for example, the plight of former California Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa. He’s running for mayor of Los Angeles after having been termed out of his job in the state legislature. He says it would be a lot easier to campaign if he were still in office. “Would I prefer to be speaker right now?” he asks rhetorically. “Absolutely. . . . If I call a press conference [these days], no one shows up. If you do it as speaker, everyone’s there. . . . And, you can raise money if you’re already in elected office.” Straight from the horse’s mouth, folks. The incumbents themselves admit that incumbency as such confers huge advantages over challengers on the campaign trail. From which fact one can readily deduce that term limits helps even the playing field.

As the Los Angeles Times points out, the benefits of incumbency are “immeasurable.” They include “a battle-tested army of aides, ready attention from the media, and that most important political asset of all, access to money.” The political consultants agree. “The advantage of incumbency is amazing,” says Rick Taylor, a political consultant in LA. Campaign manager Ace Smith says, “If you’re a [known incumbent], you have Rolodexes the size of oil drums of people you’ve helped for decades. You just dial for dollars.” Just dial for dollars? Sounds like fun. Maybe too much fun.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

People are nervous. The stock market has taken a hit. Some folks say that shows how dangerous it would be to allow people like you to control more of your own money so you can better plan your own retirement. Risky scheme, as Al Gore told us. Better to let the politicians manage it. Yes, the politicians are always super-careful with your money. Well, I’m not convinced.

Sure, no private investment is without risk. But how much riskier to let the government plan our retirement for us! We all know that Social Security funds never were set aside for safekeeping as originally promised. There is no lock box, never was. The program is pay-as-you-go. The U.S. economy is basically very strong. Anyone who has invested in the stock market with reasonable prudence over 30 or 40 years has come out ahead. If some folks find stocks too risky, there are always safer investments available.

Today, federal government workers have an excellent retirement program that allows various choices of relatively safe investments. On the other hand, the Social Security program is a financial basket case. If the feds can’t keep their promises when the economy is strong, do you think they’ll be able to give everybody a happy retirement if the economy really tanks? Government can’t create wealth out of thin air. The government gets their money from you and me. Don’t let politicians scare you. The real issue is who gets to control your money you or them?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Okay, Dubya. We get it. You love baseball. We love it too. And we love Mom and apple pie. Now that that’s settled, can we have our money back? President Bush is boosting baseball. He invited baseball players to hobnob with him at the White House and they came. Hey, neato. Well, I guess if you’re the President, and you ask folks to visit you, they will come.

Another baseball-boosting event was a mano-a-mano meeting at Milwaukee’s Miller Park stadium with former baseball commissioner Bud Selig. Bush said, “I like baseball. Do you like baseball?” “Sure, I like baseball,” said Selig. “Me and baseball, we’re like this.” Bush nodded. “Yep, baseball. Love it.” It’s not just about baseball, though. It’s about politics. And taxes.

These days, politicians think it’s A-OK to fund stadiums out the taxpayers’ pockets. Big baseball teams bring in huge revenue. Yet the Milwaukee Brewers paid less than a fourth of the expense of Miller Park, a $400,000,000 venture. Angry Wisconsin residents had to pick up the rest of the tab. There was nothing they could do about it, since Wisconsin voters are denied the right of initiative and referendum. The President is well aware that other places around the country also have taxpayer subsidized sports stadiums. As a former co-partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, Bush pushed for and won a similar stadium subsidy from unwilling taxpayers. The tax-cut President should know that Americanism and baseball still mix, but not when the game is being played on the backs of taxpayers.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

It’s great to have protection. I think you know what I mean. The right of initiative and referendum. The right to directly pass a good law or knock out a bad one. The right to govern your governors.

Maybe you remember Proposition 13, the California law passed in the 1970s that limited property taxes. Prop 13 allowed many homeowners to keep their homes. It was the beginning of a tax revolt that swept the nation. But what if you have a tax revolt and no power of initiative? Well, you’re up the creek without a paddle, basically. The politicians will do whatever they want to you. Take Connecticut, for example.

Connecticut used to be one of a handful of states that did not impose a personal income tax. People moved to Connecticut to take advantage of the more favorable tax climate. It was good thing. In 1990 a Republican named Lowell Weicker ran for governor in Connecticut. He promised he would never impose a state income tax if he were governor. Then, as soon as he became governor, he pushed the legislature to adopt a state income tax.

People were angry, people were upset. A public rally was attended by 65,000 furious residents. But Connecticut voters do not have the legal power to repeal measures or put a referendum on the ballot. No protection. Sure, Weicker paid a political price, choosing (wisely) not to face the voters for reelection. But the income tax remains. In 24 states, citizens have the right of initiative and referendum. Twenty-four down, 26 to go.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

If you don’t live in Youngstown or Warren, Ohio, you’ve may have missed two very well, let’s just call ’em “colorful” figures. First is radio talk show host, Louie Free “the intelligent alternative, brain-food from the heartland.”

Free hosts programs on three stations, er, well . . . he used to. Second is 17-year incumbent Congressman Jim Traficant. Traficant has been the subject of several criminal probes and an indictment for accepting bribes back in 1980. Traficant is persuasive and was acquitted. But in a twist that would be funny if it weren’t so sad, the U.S. Tax Court ruled he owed more than $100,000 in unpaid taxes. Taxes on what, you ask? On the huge bribes he got from the mobsters! Aw shucks.

Traficant may hold what most political analysts call a safe seat, but he’s been catching a lot of flak on Free’s popular talk show. Until the other day, that is, when Free was fired. The reason is in dispute. Free told reporters: “[Management] asked me what I thought about Traficant. I told them Jim Traficant, I believe, is the No. 1 threat to this area’s success. Three days later, I was out of a job.”‘

Now we find out that a partner in the company that bought Free’s radio station is a major contributor to Congressman Traficant. Was Free fired to silence his attacks on the congressman? We may never know that for sure. What we do know is that Louie Free won’t be easy to silence “the intelligent alternative, brain-food from the heartland.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

“Vote for the Crook: It’s Important.” Years ago, a citizen-led campaign used that slogan. The point was to support Edwin Edwards for governor of Louisiana over David Duke Edwards, seemingly always under indictment for corruption; Duke, the former Ku Klux Klansman. Not much of a choice. That’s why it may surprise some folks that Louisiana is the only state without the citizen initiative process where legislators passed term limits on themselves. Of course, it came on the heels of numerous prosecutions of legislators and some ferocious lobbying by citizens.

Now, six years after 76 percent of Louisianans voted for term limits, there is legislation to repeal them even before they’ve affected a single legislator. The governor, previously a term limits supporter, wonders if the legislators might repeal his limits the state really needs him for another term, or two. In New Orleans, there are term limits on the mayor and council. But now comes Mayor Marc Morial. No, he’s not against term limits. Not at all. He supports term limits, well, for other lesser human beings, anyway. For himself, he wants an exception to the two-term limit, so he can seek a third term. He says it’s because the schools are slowly deteriorating.

Hmmmm. Wasn’t he supposed to prevent that during the eight years he’s already been in charge? Mayor Morial is calling his effort: “Just Three.” Opponents are calling it: “Just Me.” That’s the slogan for career politicians everywhere.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Maybe it’s not too late this time. But we have to act fast. We have to rise up as one united people and shout from the rooftops: “Hey, we want to be able to buy TOP-loading washing machines! Viva la revolution!”

Yeah, that’s right. The Department of Energy wants to outlaw washing machines that you load from the top . . . you know: the easy way. Of course, front-loading washing machines cost a lot more. And front-loading washing machines don’t have that agitator gizmo that churns up the clothing the way top-loading washing machines do. So the front-loading machines aren’t as good at cleaning your clothes.

Nine out of ten consumers prefer top-loaders. But somehow the front-loading washing machines are supposed to be environmentally superior. Just like the new toilets that don’t flush as well as the old toilets are supposed to be environmentally superior to the old toilets that are now illegal. What environment are the policymakers talking about? Obviously, not the environment right inside your home.

Anyway, the Department of Energy had almost succeeded in imposing this dirty business on us, but thanks to the efforts of one lone congressman, self-limited Michigan Congressman Joe Knollenberg, the period for public comment is being extended. So click into energy.gov and send the Department your comment. And send a copy to your congressional representative while you’re at it. Tell them you don’t need the government’s help to clean your dirty laundry. Tell them the government should worry about its own dirty laundry. After all, they’ve got plenty.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Got a problem? Blame term limits. At least, that’s how many critics of term limits think. Take Ohio, for example. After term limits kicked into gear there, politicians being forced out of office are often deciding to take their leave early. Why?

Well, in Ohio they don’t hold special elections to replace representatives who quit before their term is over. Instead, a temporary appointment is made. And guess who makes the appointment? By law, the party of the exiting legislator has that privilege. The Akron Beacon Journal reports that as things stand now, almost half of the 33 state senators currently serving started out as appointees. Twenty-five out of 99 House members started out as appointees. These partisan appointments impose an unfair disadvantage not only against candidates from other parties, but also against candidates of the same party who will now have a harder time pursuing their party’s nomination come the next election.

But critics of term limits like the Beacon Journal are saying that this kind of partisan end run around term limits is caused by term limits itself! Incredible, isn’t it? All these partisan appointments are indeed a problem. But the appointment law was in place long before term limits came along. And term limits are hardly to blame for the last-gasp power lust of the career politicians. Solution? Change the law to put an end to these politically motivated special appointments. Use your brain. Or do citizens have to mandate that by law as well?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

We wouldn’t let the criminals decide our nation’s policies on law enforcement, would we? So why are we letting incumbent politicians in the Congress decide the campaign finance rules? Needless to say, there’s more than a little conflict of interest there.

Some in the media are applauding the Senate’s passage of McCain-Feingold, the so-called overhaul of campaign finance. But there was one clear yardstick used by the Senate in considering the various issues of their “reform”: what’s best for the continued reelection of us poor little ole career politicians? That’s why the first thing they did was to give themselves added advantages against any challengers who spend lots of their own money.

In recent years, multi-millionaire challengers have sometimes been able to defeat incumbents. Next, they went after groups that run issue ads. This legislation would ban term limits groups and others from running ads that dare to mention an incumbent’s name within 60 days of an election. Of course, incumbents don’t like being criticized; so they want to outlaw our speech. Our Congressmen are split on raising the contribution limits with some incumbents thinking it helps them and others thinking it helps challengers more. Gee, who thinks the goal of campaign finance reform should be to make it easier for incumbents to get reelected? Raise your hand.

Senator McCain says of himself and others in Congress, “We are all corrupt.” Why then should we have campaign rules written of, by, and for the corrupted?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Don’t worry. They were just talking. The House Administration Committee has been discussing just discussing, mind you a little scheme called per-diem reimbursement, which would allow congressman who live more than two blocks down the street to collect $165 a day in “expenses” whenever they show up for work. Up to $25,000 in extra tax-free cash a year.

A spokesman for the Committee, Jim Forbes, is upset that Congress has been criticized for plotting this nefarious maneuver, which would be imposed by a House rule rather than legislation. Forbes says, “It’s a pay raise but…not an expenditure to taxpayers. If [Congress] would have done it, which won’t happen now, but if they would have, it would have been at the expense of their own budget. It was also a voluntary thing . . . if it had passed [members] would not have been mandated to take it. It was on a voluntary basis.”

Did you get all that? According to Forbes, congressional budgets somehow don’t come out of taxpayer pockets. So the pay raise is not something taxpayers have to worry about. Also hey, relax it would have been completely voluntary. Have you ever turned downed a salary increase? No? Well, it’s completely voluntary, you know. I’m sure your boss would be very happy to let you work for less money, or maybe even for free. Just something they were talking about. It’s not going to happen. Not right now, anyway. Well, I have a suggestion: Stop talking about it!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.