Author: Redactor

Categories
local leaders term limits

Putting Principles First

Some people have this idea that if the end is good then whatever means they choose must be good, too. But no. Principles matter — they exist to help us choose the right means and oppose the wrong ones.

Politicians tend to think unlimited terms in office is a good thing. I disagree, but forget that for a moment. What is the best way to settle the disagreement? Who should decide how long politicians serve?

The people, that’s who.

New York City’s mayor and City Council have opposed the term limits they live under, term limits voted into law by citizens.

So they got together and legislatively overturned the people’s decision, extending their own terms in office.

But not every politician who may like extended terms thinks that this was the way to obtain them. Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum went on record before the council vote that, if the council overturned the term limits rather than sending it back to the voters again, she would not seek re-election.

“I think it’s wrong,” she said. “It would be wrong for me, feeling as strongly as I do, to run for a third term if [term limits are] overturned in a way that I don’t think is right.”

Immediately her political competitors breathed a sigh of relief. But citizens should sigh in appreciation. It is mighty good to see personal principles trump re-​election frenzy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
government transparency local leaders

Transparency versus Stupidity

The Sunshine Review newsletter from the Sam Adams Alliance reports an amazing instance of bureaucratic dimwittery.

It seems that the county clerk in the county I grew up in — Pulaski County, Arkansas — also likes the idea of sunshine or “transparency,” or some distorted notion of it. Apparently, he is the kind of person who thinks that if people have “nothing to hide,” it’s okay to go traipsing door to door ripping curtains off living-​room windows.

According to the Sunshine Review, this troublemaker “posted [to the Web] tens of thousands of circuit court records containing Social Security numbers and other personal data including bank account numbers, birth dates and check images.”

An outraged resident of the county, Bill Phillips, used the Freedom of Information act to obtain email records from the county clerk’s office. Bill has posted them at his own website, PulaskiWatch​.com. In one of the posted emails, county clerk employees are advised to make sure to synchronize their “docuclocks.” Okay. In another email, we learn that someone named Ben is late because of a doctor’s appointment.

PulaskiWatch​.com announces that it will remove these silly emails from public view just as soon as the county clerk’s office removes all the personal information from the Internet that is placing so many persons at risk of identity theft.

Good luck, people of Pulaski County. When your public servants don’t see why the personal should be kept private and the public realm open, you’ve got an uphill battle.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets insider corruption nannyism too much government

The Boomers’ Bust

Remember when Bill Clinton ascended to the presidency? There were hurrahs. At last the Baby Boom generation had its own president!

We’ve gone through another Baby Boom president, and now we — and I’m talkin’ ’bout my generation, here — have our very own economic bust. Call it the Boomers’ Bust.

John Kass, writing in the Chicago Tribune, notes how different things look for Boomers, now. “In the ’70s,” Kass writes, “the slogan was ‘Do your own thing.” But today’s slogan might be ‘Washington, please save us.’”

Kass attributes some of the difference merely to age. When we were young, we took risks. Now that we’re older, we simply want to keep our houses and our cars and our TV sets, and our retirement plans.

The ominous marker in all this is the transfer of power. In our desires, demands, for security, we’ve given up a lot. Kass says we are giving up “liberty for all” and exchanging it with “power in the hands of a few.”

We can see it is who gains most: people and corporations on the inside track. But, as Kass points out, look who loses: “The casualty will be the entrepreneurs, those on the outside.… Such men and women will be on the outside for decades now.”

Since it was entrepreneurs who accomplished the most enduring good during the last 40 years, this will be tragic.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

The Fix Is In

Congressman Randy Kuhl had an idea: Ask his constituents what legislation they would like him to propose to fix Washington. Out of many suggestions, he picked five for constituents to vote on. Whichever proposal got the most support would be submitted to his colleagues as legislation. Over one thousand voters in Kuhl’s district participated.

He called it the “Fix Washington Project.”

While the contest was still underway, I reported that 12-​year term limits on Congress was one of the five options. Throwing caution to the wind, I predicted term limits would triumph. Was I right?

Before I answer, let me say how much I like the idea of voters getting involved in proposing legislation. In fact, I think voters should have a way to bypass legislators altogether and pass laws directly. Half the states of the union have a formal process for enabling this. It’s called “citizen initiative.”

Okay, enough suspense. Congressional term limits collected 43 percent of the vote in Kuhl’s contest, winning the greatest support of any of the five alternatives.

I’m no soothsayer. Term limits have always been popular with voters. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows 83 percent support for congressional term limits.

So hats off to Congressman Kuhl. But your term limits legislation is no doubt going to be more popular with your constituents than with your colleagues back in Washington.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies Tenth Amendment federalism too much government

Unbefreakinlievable

Now what?

Well, now the governors are going to Washington to beg for bailouts. New York Governor Paterson and New Jersey Governor Corzine have schlepped their way up to the Hill to explain that they are “cutting all [they] can” from their bloated budgets, and to demand some “relief.”

I don’t believe that the notoriously corrupt governments of New York and New Jersey have pared their budgets to the bone. Or that the only way to cut another dollar is to throw some little old lady out onto the street.

I also don’t believe that the federal government has some magical way of getting money that state governments don’t have. It all comes from the same group of us taxpayers. Unless these governors are talking about taking cash from other states, where else would the money come from? Where but out of thin air — borrowing plus the trusty old printing press?

The feds are wearing the same blinkers as these gubernatorial guys. For example, the wizards at the Federal Reserve are struggling to bring interest rates to zero — as if cheap credit in the past had nothing to do with all the misbegotten easy mortgage loans spawning the present crisis.

Now, I put it to you: If fiscal irresponsibility can be increased from mammoth to infinity, will that, at last, solve the problem? If the Fed were to drop-​ship crates of cash and credit cards onto every neighborhood in America, will that, at last, solve the problem?

Unbefreakinlievable.

We need some Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights

An Unfair Doctrine

What is the “Fairness Doctrine”? And would it be fair to bring it back?

The Fairness Doctrine is a kind of assault on broadcast speech that has not been enforced since the 1980s. It compelled broadcasters to give so-​called “equal time” to the so-​called “opposing viewpoint” … as if there were only one. We may have a two-​party system in this country, but we don’t have a two-opinion system.

Of course, the doctrine is nothing but a club for clobbering freedom of speech, not expanding it.

At National Review Online, Barbara Comstock and Lanny Davis note that all manner of absurdity erupts when equal time to somebody else’s podium is guaranteed by law. In 1978, NBC aired a program about the Holocaust, then spent three years in court dealing with a lawsuit brought by a group which believed the Holocaust is a myth and wanted NBC to give it “equal time.” Only “fair,” right?

Today, many believe that the Fairness Doctrine would be used against conservative talk radio, which happens to be a lot more popular than liberal talk radio, and that this is why some on the political left are talking about restoring the rule. But nobody who talks in public for a living, or even as just a hobby, would be safe from harassment if this monstrosity comes back to life. Comstock and Davis say Congress should bury the Fairness Doctrine for good.

Yes, with a stake through its evil heart.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.