Author: Redactor

Long ago, America fought a war to throw off the shackles of oppression. Today we don’t have to resort to violence to combat the latest political insanity. But sometimes it does pay to be pushy.

Consider Tennessee. When legislators there tried to impose a personal income tax, Tennesseans had to act. But citizens don’t enjoy the right of initiative and referendum in that state. So they found another way to make their discontent known. Mostly, they drove around the capitol building honking their horns whenever their alleged representatives seemed on the verge of foisting the new tax. They also buttonholed legislators and shouted slogans.

This resistance has paid off. For the third year in a row, attempts to impose a personal income tax in Tennessee one of nine lone states in this great land still without one have been foiled.

Not without counter-​resistance. Indeed, the police were openly partisan when things got heated, according to Phil Valentine, a radio talk show host who led the rebellion. “These were citizens opposing an unconstitutional income tax,” says Valentine. “[But the police were] dragging soccer moms out of their cars and handcuffing them. They gave out tickets to people for blowing their horns.… They tried to keep citizens out of the gallery though when a lobbyist or state employee with a pro-​tax button showed up, they got escorted in.”

Many Tennessee politicians have criticized the vocal protests. Too intimidating, they say. But if they’re so dismayed by honking horns and angry petitioners, why don’t they placate the “mob” with a little more democracy? How about term limits and a citizen initiative process?

his is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

People say to me, “Hey Paul.” You’re always criticizing proposals for campaign finance reform just because they would violate freedom of speech and would even further squash political competition. Got anything positive to suggest? Well, yes, I do.

The way things are now, it’s illegal for any one person to donate more than $1,000 to a federal campaign before a candidate is nominated, and more than another $1,000 after the nomination. Who benefits from these tight restrictions? The gainers would have to be candidates who have a big money-​raising infrastructure already in place. Candidates who have special interest groups already hustling to bundle contributions from their members to the candidate. Candidates who have lots of campaign assets already on hand and pre-​paid, like franking privileges and office staff that double as campaign staff and so on … taxpayer-​funded assets that sure don’t get counted as campaign contributions, no sir. Well, you see where I’m headed.

It’s the incumbents who get away with murder under the present system. If somebody with money wants to give a challenger a chance, he can’t just write a fat check. He must virtually become a professional fundraiser himself. The system helps incumbents, hurts challengers. My reform will solve this. I propose that we each be allowed to give any amount of money to any candidate we choose. It would be a lot easier for challengers to raise cash that way, that’s for sure. Yep. Let Americans contribute just as much as they want to whichever candidate they want, just as if we were living in a free country.

This is Common Sense . I’m Paul Jacob.

It was time for a lesson. There’s so much demagoguery in D.C. about Social Security that The Washington Post decided to spend a whole page answering questions about it. But, in the process, this company-​town newspaper may have clarified a little too much. For instance, they write, “So policymakers will have to decide whether it is more important to worry about people alive 20 years from now or 50 years from now.” Is this any way to run a retirement program?

Workers are each paying 12.4 percent of their income either alone or with half coming from their employers and the best we can hope for is that some other generation gets screwed over instead of us? If we really must pit one generation against another, what kind of society will we descend into? The Post goes on to say, “Some believe future generations will be richer and more productive, and thus able to afford the bill.”

But leaving future generations the bill for our lives is morally bankrupt period. Still, the idea is pretty darn popular among politicians who live by the Keynesian motto: “In the long run, we’ll all be dead.” As long as the collapse happens on someone else’s watch, seems they couldn’t care less. We don’t need to give our grandkids the shaft. If workers could control their own accounts, politicians couldn’t steal the money to pay for more spending on their pet pork projects. We could provide for a better retirement and leave some of the earnings to our kids and grandkids, instead of sticking them with the bill.

This is Common Sense . I’m Paul Jacob.

Sure, sometimes I’m a critic of the state of American democracy. But I’m also a fan. One reason I’m a fan is that I read the papers. Compare our situation with that of, say, Indonesia.

Only a few years ago Indonesians were able to democratically elect their president for the very first time, a fellow named Wahid. But President Wahid quickly got embroiled in charges of corruption. Finally, he was impeached by the Indonesian parliament and asked to step down. The man was reluctant to go, to say the least. In fact, when Parliament first moved against him, Wahid tried to call a state of emergency and stop it from meeting at all. He says he’s all in favor of democracy, but his own actions relay a mixed message at best.

When The New York Times asked him what he was most proud of accomplishing, Wahid said he was proud of “beginning the process of democratization.” Then he added, in virtually the same breath: “I announced several days ago that those who insult the president will be arrested by the police and taken to court.… If you say the right things, okay. But if you utter slander, you will be detained. For me, this is democracy.” Yikes. Kind of sounds like some versions of Campaign Finance Reform, doesn’t it? Anyway, this dictatorial version of democracy did not win the day. The military refused to impose a state of emergency and Wahid finally left the palace, peacefully. Thus, despite all the setbacks, Indonesian democracy seems to be muddling through, may even flourish. As shall we.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Hey. Got a violin? Seems poor old Michigan lobbyist Craig Ruff president of something called Public Sector Consulting, if you can believe that has made a boo-​boo. And now he’s banging his head against the wall. Yeah, Mr. Ruff has got it rough all right.

In a recent op-​ed Ruff testifies that long ago and far away about 9 years ago, while he was helping pound out policy in the governor’s mansion, as a matter of fact he made the mistake of voting for term limits on state and federal officials. The federal limits did not survive the Supreme Court. But the state limits did. And now the results are coming in, and Ruff is regretful. Because it turns out that term limits actually limit terms. Oops. In Mr. Ruff’s eyes, Michigan voters are being denied an “opportunity” to re-​elect Governor Engler, as well as dozens of state senators and representatives who must soon make way for others. This could lead to a disturbing trend of electoral contests actually meaning something in Michigan.

Why is that so tragic, in Mr. Ruff’s view? Well, for one thing, more empowerment of average citizens means that the lobbyists will take control of the legislature. Huh? Funny how so many lobbyists are so eager to give up the loads of extra power term limits supposedly gives them. There must be quite an outbreak of public-​spirited altruism in the centers of power these days. Well, I could make a case against Lobbyist Ruff. But I think I’ll just let him make it against himself.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Someone once said, “No man’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” Now the people of Oregon are beginning to see just how far their politicians will go to serve themselves at public expense.

Top of the list: Kill term limits. But these honorables know that 70 percent of their voters want term limits. They don’t want to appear too self-​serving. So, Oregon’s career politicians are trying what they think is a brilliant idea: use the courts to overturn the law. You see, Oregon judges have recently been rewriting the initiative laws to block measures opposed by politicians but passed by voters. These rulings have made it possible for Oregon judges to strike down almost any constitutional amendment.

Legislators, who could have clarified the judicial haze, are instead exploiting it. They suspended their usual legislative business to pass a new bill designed for only one purpose: to allow an immediate lawsuit against the voters of Oregon over term limits. Just recently, a judge played along, striking down the term limits amendment, saying that congressional term limits and state legislative term limits were not, “closely related” enough to pass muster. Just one problem: that same ex post facto legal reasoning would also scuttle as many as 40 other constitutional amendments. Let’s hope the Oregon Supreme Court will end the insanity.

But, at least now we know that career politicians are happy to legislate their state governments into chaos, if that’s what it takes for them to stay in power. Quite a case for term limits, eh?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.