Author: Redactor

Do term limits help? I mean, do they really, really help our political leaders behave in a more responsible manner?

Well, my goodness they would have to, at least insofar as they show the door to the most corrupt careerists and make way for new people, more idealistic people. If you have some actual electoral competition in your democracy, that’s got to help some, don’t you think?

But is there anything more specific we can point to in the term-​limits track record? Well, yes, there’s plenty. For one thing, it turns out that the state legislatures that have been term-​limited for a while are now more willing to put a lid on out-​of-​control taxing and spending.

In an article for the Cato Institute, Michael New points out that term-​limited legislatures in California, Maine, Colorado and Oregon have each enacted tax cuts that have surprised long-​time observers. And the Montana statehouse, which has just seen a big influx of freshmen legislators, has passed a Tax and Expenditure Limitation bill that will be one of the toughest in the country if it becomes law. In Colorado, taxes were curbed by the same initiative process that brought term limits to that state, forcing the state government to hand back $2.3 billion to taxpayers over the space of just a few years. Colorado’s tax cut of 3.4 percent was the largest among the Rocky Mountain states, just as Maine’s 3.8 percent tax cut was the largest among New England states.

Term limits can’t bring tax limits all by themselves, of course. But gee, they sure do seem to help.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Shocker! This just in from Oklahoma … the career politicians there want to kill term limits!

Oh, I know … big surprise, right? But the anti-​social attitude of the career politicians still appalls me every time I hear tell of it. It seems career politicians are all in favor of electoral competition and suchlike, right up until the minute revitalized democracy threatens to loosen their hammerlock on power.

There is a new twist now in Oklahoma. You see, in virtually all the term-​limited states, citizens have capped service at six or eight years. And when the career politicians in those states realize that they can’t get away with getting rid of term limits altogether, they often talk instead about “strengthening” term limits, as they call it. Often what they mean is extending the limits, say from eight years to twelve years.

Well, anyway, the twist in Oklahoma is that the politicians there already have their twelve years, and that’s still too brief a candle for the careerists. Twelve years is still not enough time to find the bathroom, they say. Oklahoma’s term limits don’t even take effect until 2004, but the careerists want to kill the limits right now, before they have a chance to get off the ground.

The politicians have friends in a group called the Association of County Commissioners. Apparently the county commissioners in Oklahoma would rather deal with the same good old boys they’ve known all along than have to contend with fresh faces and fresh ideas. But I’m betting Oklahoma’s citizens will make clear that the term limits in their state are here to stay. And maybe even could use a little trimming.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Several years ago at a news conference, a reporter got confused and thought I’d advocated term limits for the media, you know, in addition to politicians. I told him we weren’t advocating such limits for the press, but nonetheless he ought not mention the idea above a whisper for fear it would take off.

Today, there are term limits on 19 state legislatures and 38 governors, but, of course, there are no limits for the media and nobody seriously advocating them. Yet, there are self-​limiters in the media. Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot is leaving Washington of his own accord, and sounding a lot like a citizen legislator.

Gigot says about our capitol city, “It is horribly seductive … there is no more parochial place in America. Most of the city’s intrigues, which can seem so compelling, count for little in the end.… I started out trying to cover Washington the way a foreign correspondent would, trying to explain the bizarre native rituals to the rest of America. But the longer one stays here, the harder that is to do. Covering the city can lead to tunnel vision that focuses on political tactics and trivia over substance. I’ve sometimes found myself falling into that trap, a sign that some distance is in order.”

Gigot concludes, “The imperative of the political class is to accumulate even more power. Politicians don’t arrive here corrupt, or at least most don’t, but the attraction of power is corrupting to all but the hardiest souls.”

Paul Gigot, lessons learned, is headed to New York to become editor of the Journal ‘s editorial page. Good luck to him.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

What is left to say about Congressman Gary Condit? How about, “Enough already!”

But no, it’s never enough. Not when a congressman is holding his seat with the ferocious resolve of a professional politician locked in on a lifelong career at $150,000 smackers a year, not to mention the perks and a gold-​plated pension.

No, this guy isn’t planning to give up his job, his position, his power no matter what. Judging by his obtuse stonewalling on TV, Condit is saying, “Go ahead: Drag me, my family and the entire country through this sordid tale: I can stand neck-​deep in open sewage longer than you can.”

Perhaps that’s the new Washington standard. Now, to add insult to injury, the Condit camp is saying that the congressman never denied the affair with Chandra Levy, you know, the one he won’t confirm. You see, it was his taxpayer-​funded staff who told reporters there was no relationship. Mr. Condit, of course, had no idea what his very own staff was telling the media. You just can’t get good help these days.

Condit’s fallen so far that even fellow Democrats in Congress are no longer defending him. In fact, there is talk of removing him from the House Intelligence Committee. (No doubt a very small committee to begin with.) But Condit’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, explains why this scandal just makes Condit an even more effective congressman. Lowell tells us, “He’s probably the only person on the Intelligence Committee who can’t be blackmailed anymore.”

Now there’s a dandy slogan for Mr. Condit’s reelection campaign.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Hey, listen up. You may have heard of voice recognition software. The software is not quite up to Star Trek standards yet, but it can recognize ninety-​plus percent of what you tell it at a normal conversational pace.

Most people can take or leave voice recognition software given its current capabilities. But it turns out that those with dyslexia can enormously benefit. Dyslexia makes it difficult to read and write words correctly. The voice recognition technology allows dyslexics to get a report or letter done cleaner and faster.

And seeing the words appear on the screen as they are spoken actually helps improve reading and writing ability over time. Marshall Raskind, a learning disabilities researcher in Pasadena, says that children often show improvement in decoding skills after just ten hours or so working with the software.

Isn’t the free market great? Not only can something like this be invented to begin with, but it can also be distributed, sold, funded and continually improved. And the people who need the help most have a chance to get it without paying millions of dollars.

So what’s the problem, according to some critics? Raskind says he has discovered that “many people view assistive technologies in general as a crutch, a way of avoiding a problem. It’s weird,” says Raskind. “It’s like seeing someone with a white cane and saying, ‘Rip that cane out of their hands and let them do it themselves.’ ”

Thank goodness folks with dyslexia are now able to show how well they can think, even if they have a little trouble decoding written symbols. Their critics should try it … thinking, that is.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Ever wonder if anybody ever really disagrees about anything on TV?

Oh sure, there are plenty of pitched verbal battles and angry comebacks. And on some shows it seems like a lot is happening because the host keeps interrupting and talks very fast and with a lot of authority, or at least a lot of rudeness. But the TV pundits tend to get mired in the minutiae of current controversies. What about viewpoints that challenge the very terms of the debate? Wouldn’t that be interesting to watch?

Yet, too often, chances for truly challenging discussion are just plain lost. For example, Paul Craig Roberts is a widely published commentator and former Reagan Administration official. He worked with the Secretary of the Treasury to help develop economic policy. In other words, a big name.

Recently, in his syndicated column, Roberts has been saying that sales and excise taxes are more consistent with freedom than the income tax, because sales and excise taxes lay no direct claim to a person’s labor. He also says that the income tax is slavery. And that politicians who try to clamp down on international tax havens are chasing after runaway slaves.

But isn’t this incredible? A former Reagan Administration official claiming that the income tax is the same as slavery! Certainly something to argue about and discuss. I mean, who is this crazy renegade from the establishment, and why is he saying such things?

But is Roberts on all the talk shows, debating this issue with Sam & Cokie? Nah. Let’s just rehash the latest phony battle between the Demopublicans and the Republicrats.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.