Author: Redactor

We can argue about the nature of God from our different religious persuasions, but I’m certain we’ll agree He isn’t a member of either the Republican or Democratic Party.

Though politicians would probably argue the point.

Arguing is what the Washington crowd does best, after all. And, they’re at it again. The simplest decision in Congress, if it requires even the tiniest bit of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, becomes the equivalent of the Paris Peace Talks.

Now the leadership of both parties are squabbling about who should be the new chaplain of the House of Representatives. Democrats want a Catholic priest and Republicans want a Protestant minister. As usual, the career politicians in Congress are acting like children.

If they can’t get along any better than this, they don’t deserve to have a chaplain at all. It’s bad enough that they sling mud, but now they want to drag people’s religious faith into the mud with them.

Enough is enough.

And pray tell what does this signal about their ability to solve any of the problems that we confront? If they can’t choose a chaplain without a partisan jihad, do you really expect them to work together to solve more complex problems? All their bloody fighting only demonstrates the critical need in Congress for new blood.

When he was the chaplain for the Senate, Edward Everett Hale was once asked, “Do you pray for the Senators, Dr. Hale?” “No,” he replied, “I look at the Senators and I pray for the country.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Incumbent congressmen have many advantages over their challengers. So many that after two terms their reelection rate goes from an incredible 98.5 percent to an untouchable 100 percent.

Perhaps the biggest advantage is their ability to use the power of the federal government for their friends and against their enemies. Recently Congressman Jay Dickey of Arkansas told a group of black farmers that he would not support a judgement in a lawsuit that the farmers had won against the Department of Agriculture. His reasoning? Dickey said, “You want us to take away from projects that serve our base and give it to people who not only don’t vote for you but work for your defeat?”

There you have it. The merits aren’t the concern here, but rather, how effectively various interest groups can be bribed for their votes. As one of Dickey’s opponents said: “It shows what kind of man Mr. Dickey is, that they have to prove they are going to help him get elected before he will provide representation for them.”

Now we can see why politicians who seek a career tend to want an ever bigger and more powerful federal government. They can wield that power to protect a lifelong ride on the congressional gravy train.

A representative should do the right thing whether it wins him votes or not. That means they need to view their service as a calling, not a career.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

In the real world when two people have a disagreement and seek a compromise, they usually meet somewhere in the middle of their two positions.

That’s not how it works in Washington.

Back in 1997, Congress and the President made a compromise agreement that a paltry $580 billion dollars would be spent on discretionary programs in the 2000 budget. That agreement was ignored. The President sent Congress a discretionary budget spending $592 billion dollars, or $12 billion over the agreed on cap. That called for some consultations between Congress and the White House, and of course, a “compromise.”

But when they reached what they called a compromise the spending was $617 billion $37 billion over the agreed on cap and $25 billion more than the President asked for. Usually in a compromise, both sides give up something. But when Washington politicians compromise, they spend even more and send the taxpayers the bill.

Same thing happened with an agriculture bill. President Clinton asked for $469 million dollars. The Senate approved $474 million. Their compromise hiked spending to $486 million.

No wonder a compromise has been defined as, “An agreement between two men to do what both agree is wrong.” In the real world, you fight the good fight by compromising over details, but never compromising your principles. In the world of Washington, when the career politicians start talking of “compromise,” taxpayers better hold on tight to their wallets.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

President Clinton reminds me of my Mother. Boy, they both have a lot of energy!

And both Bill Clinton and my Mother seem to want to take care of me. But unlike my Mom, President Clinton thinks I’m entitled to an awful lot of things. And when I think about the part of my paycheck I don’t get to bring home, I remember my Mother never taught me I was entitled to stuff. I always had to earn things on my own and be independent. The flip side of that is that I don’t owe anybody else a living either.

Of course, sometimes people are down on their luck through no fault of their own, and Americans have always been generous when it comes to charity. But Bill wants to turn us all into charity cases. The Cato Institute counted Bill’s state of the union wish list. One hundred and four separate policy demands. All portrayed by Mr. Bill as wonderful benefits our government should bestow upon us. No mention was made of the cost of all the goodies, or whether the government can actually deliver the utopia it promises.

Looks like the era of big government isn’t quite over after all. Do we really believe that our government can or should take care of us every step of the way, cradle to grave? Is that what life is all about, a whole lot of something for nothing? I think most of us know different. Thanks Mom. Thank you for teaching me about the importance of personal responsibility and earning my own keep.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

As the presidential campaign heats up, politicians are apt to get even nastier in attacking their opponents. No one does that better than Vice-​President Al Gore.

Gore has claimed to be the inventor of the Internet, the inspiration for the book Love Story, and a ghostwriter for Hubert Humphrey in 1968. In each case, our impressive Vice-​President has been forced to admit his claims were, let’s just say, not true.

Now comes an ugly scene in New Hampshire where Gore’s campaign workers splashed mud on Senator Bob Kerry of Nebraska and called Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York “fatso.” All of this came as both men were campaigning for Gore’s Democratic opponent, Bill Bradley. It was intended to prevent the two from speaking to reporters.

Gore’s spokesman later defended the thuggish behavior as merely an exercising of the First Amendment. But here’s the kicker: Gore has attacked Bradley for stepping down from the U.S. Senate after 3 terms, as if everyone should worship the idea of a lifetime of Washington power-​wielding. And now his campaign workers chant “Quitter, quitter” at Sen. Kerry, who is leaving office after 18 years.

Our country was founded by those striving to limit political power. George Washington stepped down after two terms as president to make the point that our country shouldn’t allow anyone to monopolize political power. Abraham Lincoln stepped down after one term in Congress.

Were Lincoln and Washington quitters? Ask Al Gore.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.