Categories
Common Sense

Tale of Two Congressmen

This is the tale of two congressmen.

One congressman became famous for speaking plainly. He pledged to abide by the people’s vote for term limits, serve three terms and then come back home. He said he would be a good listener. In an upset of David vs. Goliath proportions, he defeated the then-​Speaker of the House Tom Foley. He sent a message far and wide of trust in the people and hope that there were people in public life of honesty, character and integrity.

But there was another congressman. This congressman pledged to term limits and not to take more than a third of his funding from PACs-​in short, not to become just another Washington career politician. He carried with him the hopes and dreams of thousands of citizens for a government they could believe in, even be proud of.

But once in power, he changed. He voted three times to raise his own pay and pad his million-​dollar pension. He went on junkets paid for by special interests. He took over a million dollars in money from outside his state, and a much larger sum from PACs and special interests than he had promised.

When it came time for him to honor his pledge to step down, he refused to meet with citizen groups. At a press conference closed to the public closed to the people he supposedly serves he announced he would break his word. So who are these two congressmen, you ask?

George Nethercutt and George Nethercutt. Wow, power really does corrupt.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

More Politicians?

Even in good economic times, Americans are unhappy with our government. So when someone suggests that what we really need in Washington are five times as many politicians as we have today, well, my first thought is, “Are you crazy?”

But that’s exactly what Bob Novak advocates in his new book. Novak says let’s increase the U.S. House from 435 members to 2,000. But cut the salary of each representative to one fifth what we now pay. It would mean that instead of representing 500,000 people, a congressman would represent about 100,000 people. More personal campaigning and fewer TV ads.

A candidate without much money would have a better chance to speak directly to voters. Instead of spending over a million dollars on their office and paying congressmen more than $140,000 a year, they’d get only $200,000 on their office and $28,000 for salary. Are career congressmen likely to chop their own personal power to do what’s best for the country and the institution of Congress? Nope. But they do talk a lot about taking the big money out of politics.

Well, if they’re serious, this is one way to do it without destroying the First Amendment and handing incumbents the power to regulate their opponents. Increasing the number of congressmen would strengthen the connection between the representative and the individual citizen. I never thought I’d say it, but we could use more congressmen. They would represent us better.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense

Save the Constitution

Last week President Clinton explained that he fought against his own impeachment to “save the Constitution.” It makes one wonder whether ole Bill even knows the difference between the Constitution and his own posterior because he was certainly trying to save one of those two things.

Of course, Clinton’s excuse-​making pales in comparison to the Justice Department’s snatching of Elian Gonzales. We’ve all seen the picture of a man shielding Elian while a soldier with a machine gun demands the young boy. The man in the photo is the fisherman who saved the boy’s life after Elian’s mother had drowned escaping Castro’s Cuba and trying to reach America.

Many Americans, whether they favor returning the boy to the father or keeping him with the Miami family, were deeply disturbed by the actions of the Justice Department. How could this happen in America? A court had just ruled that the boy had a right to seek asylum and attorneys close to the case claim negotiations over the disposition of the boy had not broken down at the time of the raid.

Now Janet Reno claims they were upholding “the rule of law.” She’s a lot like her boss, Mr. “I‑don’t-​know-​what-​the-​meaning-​of-​is-​is-​but-​I’m-​saving-​the-​Constitution” Clinton. I guess for this administration, “the rule of law” means government can exercise its power any way it wants if it can get away with it. And this administration sure does have a knack for getting away with it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability judiciary national politics & policies

Broken Contract

Politicians say Social Security is a solemn contract between government and the people. Well, a contract is enforceable in court. And in our litigious society it’s not surprising that someone did take the government to court to get what he said he was owed from Social Security.

The case, Flemming v. Nestor, went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. After paying in year after year, care to guess what the High Court says you are entitled to from Social Security? Is it (a) a set monthly payment, (b) at least 10 percent of what you’ve paid in, © whatever is behind door #3, or (d) whatever Congress says you get? The court’s answer was (d) whatever Congress says you get. Some contract.

The politicians are charging us over 15 percent of our income, but not guaranteeing us any specific benefit. You could die without ever getting back a dime, and your family wouldn’t get a dime either. Politicians have broken the contract on Social Security. They admit we must fix the System, but do nothing. They’ll simply wait until the money runs dry, blame others and then raise your taxes, slash benefits, or both.

Term-​limited Representative Mark Sanford has a different plan. He says take Social Security out of the hands of politicians and let Americans control their own financial futures. Sometimes tough problems have pretty easy solutions.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense

Animal House

Animal House” was a movie about the crazy antics of a college fraternity. But if you live in Massachusetts, you don’t have to buy a ticket to the movies, just stroll down to the state capitol and take a peek at your legislators.

Amidst the shouts of “Toga! Toga! Toga!” and drinking and partying, you’ll see an orgy of spending by entrenched politicians. Bay State lawmakers partied, drank and slept their way through a spending spree recently where they added nearly $200 million to state spending.

House Speaker Thomas Finneran admitted the session might be confused with a keg party. But another legislator defended himself, “I’m a responsible drinker,” he says. Perhaps he IS a more responsible when it comes to drinking than when spending the people’s tax dollars. Is this a legislature of rookies who just don’t know any better? Nope. These are elite professional politicians arguably doing what they do best partying and spending our tax money.

Sure, Massachusetts’s voters presented legislators with a petition for a constitutional amendment for term limits. The state constitution says the legislature must vote on it. But lawmakers ignored the constitution and refused to even hold a vote on the measure. No doubt they had a big night on the town planned and couldn’t be bothered by their constitutional duties. Career politicians are wilder than college students. And we need term limits in Massachusetts.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense

Waste Not

Okay, no big surprise that people don’t like paying taxes. But it may surprise you that the number one reason people hate paying their income taxes is that they believe the federal government will waste about half the money we fork over to them.

That’s right: according to an ABC News poll, on average, Americans believe 46 cents out of every tax dollar they pay is wasted by the Washington bureaucracy. But such waste isn’t simply bad management. The politicians will go to extraordinary lengths to have our tax money because it, after all, is the real source of their power. Once they’ve got it, of course, they’ll proceed to spend it to “help” people, of course.

President Clinton always wants to “help” people. Now he is giving 300,000 Native Americans heavily subsidized phone service. Mr. Clinton is giving it, but you are paying for it. The cost of your phone service is being raised by decree of the FCC. Is this what Indians want? If so, why don’t they spend their own money for phone service?

Keep in mind, this is the same Clinton administration that just last year was found in contempt of court for what a federal judge called “deception” and “abuse” in mishandling over $2.5 billion of Indian trust funds. Seems to me the federal government should stop swiping your money, the Indians’ money, and the money of the guy down the street. Heaven knows they’ll only waste it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.