Author: Redactor

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is one of the all-​time great movies. The late Jimmy Stewart plays Mr. Smith, an honest man who knows nothing about politics, but who is chosen by the power brokers to fill a U.S. Senator’s unexpired term. They think Smith is such a novice that he won’t get in the way of their pork-​barrel and graft.

But Jefferson Smith turns out to be smarter than the big boys suppose. He can’t be bought off or scared off. When he discovers a graft scheme that would destroy a Boy Scout summer camp, Mr. Smith takes to the floor to filibuster against the bill. Today, another representative has taken to the floor of Congress to fight for what is right. Dr. Tom Coburn, the citizen legislator from Muskogee, Oklahoma, is serious about holding the line on spending and not allowing Congress to steal Social Security money.

When career politicians piled on a 12 percent increase in overhead funding for the Department of Agriculture, Coburn said no. He has offered 100 amendments to block the increase. The Republican leadership is upset with Coburn for not going along with their big spending. Many Democrats are attacking him for “hurting farmers.” But Coburn’s term-​limited himself and in his final term. He’s determined to do what’s right to get the nation’s fiscal house in order.

n the movie, the politicians complain that Mr. Smith is holding up the Relief Bill and hurting people. Mr. Smith says, “The people of my state need permanent relief from crooked men riding their backs.” In the end, Mr. Smith won and so will Dr. Coburn.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Quick! Hop a plane and fly to Washington! The Congress is about to rip you off for another two cents on every packet of Kool-​Aid you buy!

Think I’m crazy? I’ll have to plead no contest on that one. But what’s even crazier is the way our Congress again and again does the bidding of special interests at your expense. Perhaps saving two cents on Kool-​Aid isn’t that important to you. But subsidies our Congress gives the sugar industry cost the taxpayers $1.4 billion every year. The top 100 sugar farms each rake in over $1 million in benefits.

And of course, it doesn’t stop with sugar. Many other products receive subsidies which benefit a few special interests in Washington at the expense of the average taxpayer. If you were to grow peanuts in your back yard and sell them, you could be arrested. As Rep. Mark Sanford, a leader of term-​limited members of Congress, points out, “No one in my district would say that that makes sense. Such programs survive only because special interests support them, and because career politicians need the support of the special interests. The only way to solve this problem is to change a representative’s perspective something term limits do very well.”

Okay, so maybe you don’t want to hop a plane for Washington and lobby your congressman for that two cents. But what kind of person do you want to represent you in Congress? A citizen legislator committed to coming back home? Or a career politician ready to cut yet another deal with the special interests so he or she can stay in Washington forever? Your choice.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Our Constitution is a magnificent document, unrivaled in human history. It protects the individual freedom we cherish and limits the power of government.

Everyone in politics claims to be “for” the Constitution. But guess what happens when a second-​term Congressman introduces a bill to require every law to explicitly state its constitutional authority. The career politicians can’t muster the votes to pass it.

But it gets worse. A group called Citizens for the Constitution made up of former congressmen, federal officials and Washington lawyers is even more unfriendly to the Constitution. These are the same folks who have been running the Congress and several presidential administrations, passing unconstitutional laws for decades. Their goal is to block constitutional amendments.

Now, most Americans are very cautious about amending the Constitution. That’s why only 27 of the thousands of proposed amendments have been adopted. But to suggest our Constitution should not be amended is to say women shouldn’t vote (the 19th Amendment) or slavery should not be outlawed (the 13th Amendment).

The Constitution was written by men not God. Part of the wisdom of the document’s drafters is their recognition of their own fallibility. That’s why they provided a process to amend it. The Constitution isn’t a dead relic to be placed on a museum shelf. It’s a living, breathing document. Let’s protect the Constitution. Sometimes that means amending it in ways powerful politicians oppose. Term limits come to mind.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Powerbrokers in the media have never liked term limits.

Over and over they write that term limits are dead. Of course, the fact that they write about term limits again and again only shows the activity of the movement, and the ridiculousness of their claims. Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newsletter, has muttered last rites for term limits so many times that we may request a volume discount at the cemetery.

Last year, one career politician defeated another career politician in California’s race for governor. The media called it a sign that the movement had lost steam. Of course, they ignored the fact that at the same time California voters passed a statewide initiative for term limits. In 1998 five states voted on six different measures. All of them passed.

Today, polls show massive voter support for term limits better than 3 out of 4 voters. And without mandatory term limits on Congress, voters favor candidates who limit themselves by a whopping 7 to 1 margin. Media opponents of term limits are at it again, though. While the vast majority of those in Congress who pledged to term-​limit themselves have kept their word, a few are waffling and thus some suggest the movement is doomed.

For goodness sake, it’s never been the politicians leading the charge for term limits. It’s come from the grassroots. Term limits are alive and kicking. In fact, limits on state legislatures will open up 417 seats next year. And many candidates for Congress are already signing the Term Limits Pledge. Mark Twain’s famous retort comes to mind: “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Let me speak frankly about the frank.

The frank, or franking privilege, is the ability of incumbents in Congress to send out mail at taxpayers’ expense. There seems to be no end to the perks Congressmen bestow upon themselves. But what gives them one of the biggest election advantages is this franking privilege.

Many career politicians are shameless enough to pretend this free mail is simply used to respond to letters from constituents. That sounds like a reasonable and necessary expense. But the truth is that over 80 percent of our tax dollars spent on franked mail goes for unsolicited campaign-​style mailings. The average incumbent spends a whopping $846,000 each year! That’s significantly more money than most challengers spend in their entire campaign.

While challengers have to raise the money from voluntary contributions, the career incumbents simply take this money from you and me the taxpayers. Sadly, this is another rip-​off brought to us by politicians who put their careers ahead of your pocketbook.

But there are those who don’t abuse the franking privilege. The lowest spender in the Congress was Rep. Bob Schaffer of Colorado, who returned close to 90 percent of his postal allowance. What makes Rep. Schaffer different? He’s term-​limited, having pledged to stay in Washington no more than 3 terms. Therefore, he isn’t spending his every waking hour chasing re-​election. An aide said, “He feels he can be more frugal with the taxpayer’s money.”

Unlike career congressmen, citizen legislators like Colorado’s Bob Schaffer speak frankly without abusing the frank.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

We cherish the right to choose our representatives to Congress. But before we choose our representatives, they choose us as voters. Confused? Well, you should be because the redistricting process doesn’t make any sense.

The Constitution stipulates that every ten years a census must be taken to count all Americans. State legislatures then draw a map setting the boundaries for congressional districts. So far, so good.

What doesn’t make sense is the way state legislatures draw the districts. And the court decisions on redistricting make even less sense. In recent years, a number of court cases have challenged congressional districts that are drawn to create a majority of black or Hispanic voters. Courts have ruled that setting districts along racial lines violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. North Carolina recently argued before the Supreme Court that their intent in drawing the latest map was “to help guarantee the reelection of Rep. Melvin Watt …”

Guarantee reelection? Huh? While the courts have ruled that state legislatures cannot gerrymander districts along racial lines, they have approved districts drawn to reelect all the incumbents. Now any two high school students with a calculator and a map could redistrict a state in a weekend. But it takes state legislatures months of political deal-​making to set districts for the benefit of their political buddies in Congress.

Incumbents are virtually “guaranteed” reelection, because they get to choose the voters before the voters get to choose them. Does anybody think this is what our Founding Fathers had in mind?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.