Author: Redactor

One claim made by term limits supporters is that limits will provide more opportunities for women and minorities to play a larger role in the political process. Term limits also promise greater representation.

As a white male, I have nothing against white males, believe me. I also think someone’s principles and policies are what count, not their gender or race. But that’s just one more reason why I love term limits. Let me explain.

Term limits create open seats by not allowing any person to monopolize a seat of power. Open seats are much more competitive because the unfair advantages of incumbency are removed. So rather than “giving” advantages to women or minorities, or drawing districts designed to elect specific minorities, term limits simply open up the process to competition. Term limits allow the marketplace of ideas to create a situation where our representatives are more likely to represent us both in terms of their background and in terms of their goals for the future.

Under term limits, Maine and Oregon elected their first women speakers. Since 1990 when California voters passed term limits, Latino representatives have more than tripled. Says Hilda Solis, a state legislator, “When I came on in the Senate, I was the first Latina. Now, there are five. Never in U.S. history has that happened in such a dramatic fashion and so fast.” No quotas, no preferences, no need for affirmative action. Just fair and competitive elections. Term limits bring diversity the right way.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Isn’t it great when our representatives, both Republicans and Democrats, reach across the aisle and work together? Frankly, no. It seems that the cause that usually brings the career politicians together is grabbing yet another pay raise.

And they’re at it again.

The leadership of both parties has been huddling together to discuss an issue near and dear to their career-​oriented hearts. Seems $141,300 just isn’t enough to make ends meet. They need another $4,600. Party bosses agreed not to use the pay raise vote against any member of the opposing party. Challengers who dare raise the issue of the raise will lose all financial and tactical support from their parties.

Majority Leader Dick Armey says: “There is a good faith effort on the part of both leaderships to protect the members.”

Protect the members? For heaven’s sake, from whom? From you, of course. You’re one of those mean ole voters who might hold it against a politician who repeatedly raises his pay against the wishes of 80 percent of the country.

Not only should members of Congress vote no, but they should also follow the great example of Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. As a term limits supporter, Sanford walks the walk by limiting himself to three terms. The same goes for the pay raise. When he failed to stop the last raise, Mark donated that amount to the Treasury to retire some of the $5.6 trillion national debt Congress has run up.

Let your representatives hear from you.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Politics is boring. I can just hear my kids saying that, usually when I’m turning the TV to what they affectionately call “one of Dad’s arguing shows.”

Well, I like a good debate and politics is not boring, doesn’t have to be anyway. Still, I know that most Americans are on my kids’ side, not mine. That’s why it was nice of the folks who produce Monday Night Football to start their program later for a couple weeks. That way we can see some more of the political conventions without missing football.

Boy, politics vs. preseason football, I think we know who wins that battle. Certainly political folks will complain about the public not being involved enough in politics. But it would help convince people that politics isn’t boring if it weren’t in fact so darn boring much of the time. I have to admit that myself.

Take the conventions, please. When I was a kid political conventions were a lot more exciting than they are today. Back then no one knew for sure who would end up on top at the convention. Today everything even the choice for vice-​president is known in advance. In the past, presidential campaigns were marathons, not sprints. Delegates were fought for and their support had to be maintained through the convention.

Today, everything is decided within a few weeks of the primaries and delegates just go to party. Perhaps the powers that be like it this way. But it’s not good for democracy. Politics is too important to be boring.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, they say.

But that’s never been the view of our rulers in Washington. Members of Congress have been riding high lately after taking decisive action on campaign finance. They have passed legislation against groups known as 527’s.

In point of fact these profiles in courage did nothing to even the political playing field. They merely attacked speech that might cause some poor voter somewhere to perhaps re-​think voting for an incumbent. These groups that run ads talking about candidates and issues are being forced by Congress to disclose their donors.

Think this sounds swell? Think again. Politicians said they wanted the people to see who was contributing. But that’s not really so; it’s the congressmen who are desperate to know. You see, while PACs give over 90 percent of their money to incumbents, 527’s and other groups often target the records of incumbents in their ads. Thus they benefit challengers.

That doesn’t sit well with career politicians. If donors are publicly revealed then those in Congress can target them with all manner of legislative and regulatory threats. And get this: Congressional leaders say that their Leadership PACs are exempt from this new law. Exempt. The benefits of disclosure apply to everyone but them, supposedly. It is to laugh.

Reform Congress-​Style: One incumbent protection scam after another. We need a reform from the people term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

We get taxed so much while we’re living, it seems kind of overkill to tax folks when they die. To me, dying is bad enough already.

And now Terence Jeffrey, editor of Human Events , gives us another reason to oppose the death tax: it’s murdering the First Amendment.

Nearly half of the nation’s family-​owned newspapers have been lost in the last few decades. These independent papers are being gobbled up by corporate media behemoths like Gannett and the Tribune Company, and the result is fewer independent voices in the media.

One reason these family-​owned papers are disappearing is clear: the high death taxes simply can’t be paid without selling the business. That’s not right. A person who works hard to build a business does not deserve to have that business destroyed.

The government disagrees. Jeffrey points to a former IRS commissioner, who says, “… the owners of these things don’t look objectively at the world. I own it, I want to pass it on to my son, why should my son have to pay an estate tax to get it? [The owner] looks at it as his possession. The IRS, however, views those taxes as a means for some equalization of wealth nationwide.”

Two philosophies here. One says individuals should be free to gain from their hard work; the other says government should grab it away so we can all be squashed down to the same low level. For richer, for poorer, till death do us part. And part … and part … and part .…

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

While Rep. Tom Coburn hasn’t faced much competition in his two re-​election campaigns, this year is very different mainly because Tom Coburn isn’t running for re-election.

During his first campaign for office, Dr. Coburn pledged to serve no more than three terms in Congress. And he’s keeping his word. When asked about politicians who break their commitments, Coburn says plainly, “I don’t want to be associated with people who tell the American people one thing and then do another.”

This year finds a crowd of seven Republicans vying for the seat opened up by Coburn. Most admit they wouldn’t be running except for Coburn’s retirement. But one candidate, Steve Money, says that Coburn shouldn’t be leaving, that his departure allows someone “less able and less effective” to go to Congress.

Steve Money claims great admiration for Coburn, but he ignores Coburn’s number one strength. The longer you stay in Washington, according to Tom Coburn, the further you get away from the views of the folks back home “One of the reasons I’ve been such a pain in the neck up [in Washington] is because I knew I was leaving.”

Rep. Tom Coburn is arguably the best member of Congress. He’s courageous in taking on special interests and even his own party. He guards our tax dollars. All because he’s not a politician. And he hopes his replacement is not a politician either.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.