Category: Common Sense

Governor Gray Davis of California just wants California taxpayers to know what a swell guy he is. So he’s going to send them back some of their own money. But first, he has to collect it from them.

Why collect taxes just to send them back to the taxpayers? Why not simply cut the car registration fee and stop overcharging taxpayers in the first place? Well, the governor’s answer was, “People don’t appreciate the fact that they’re getting a rebate unless they see it in their hands.”

Aw shucks, the taxpayers need to be a little appreciative. As The Los Angeles Times points out, “He’ll get to send along with the checks a personal message. It won’t quite say, ‘Who loves you, baby?’ but it will be close.”

Beyond the incredibly self-serving nature of this new, lucrative incumbent advantage is the cost. To process the rebate checks, rather than simply cut the tax, costs taxpayers at least $22 million dollars a year. Some estimates, which include the interest taxpayers lose on their money, push the cost to over $40 million.

Politicians using not only their public position to campaign for reelection, but our tax dollars millions of them! Glad you don’t pay taxes in California? The same thing happens all over the country. But you’ll never hear career politicians agree to stop using our tax dollars to run their reelection campaigns. It’s government of the politicians, by the politicians, and for the politicians.

Who loves you, baby?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Experience. You know what that is. What you collect when you’re a career politician looking for ever more clever ways to spend other people’s money and complicate other people’s lives. “Oh, we need experienced legislators here!” cry the expert denizens of our state capitol buildings. “It takes decades to get up to speed, given how complicated we make the legislative process! Don’t term-limit us! Heck, the freshmen take months just to find the bathroom. It would be chaos!” Or so says the career politician.

But let’s forget about bathrooms. Now it turns out that freshmen can’t even find the right elevator. Perhaps the problem is specific to Florida, where term limits are kicking into gear this session. It seems that no elevator in the Florida capitol building goes to every single floor, a setup that perplexes some of the new legislators.

When Florida voters passed term limits with a whopping 77 percent of the vote, they were saying that new ideas from the real world are more important than experience in the legislature, and that the courage to act on those ideas is more important than the perks of entrenched public office. And the track record in Arkansas, California, and other states shows that legislatures under term limits can greet newcomers and still get stuff done.

But maybe the Florida model offers hope for career politicians just the same. Maybe there’s a way careerists everywhere can rig the elevators, too, so that only those who have been studying the blueprints for 10 or 20 years can ever get to the right floor.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Thank goodness we live in a country where they can’t imprison you for speaking out. Too many governments just throw people in jail when they don’t like what they say. Fortunately, with new technologies like the Internet, it may be getting harder and harder to shut people up.

But governments still try. Even in communist China a lot of independent journalism has sprung up lately, helped by the advent of the Internet. But as you might expect, many of the stories make government officials uncomfortable, as freelance journalist Gao Qinrong discovered when he published a story about a fraudulent irrigation scheme. Now he’s serving a 12-year sentence.

Same thing in Cuba, where two visitors from the Czech Republic recently found themselves cooped up in a Cuban jail for almost a month. The government feared they would spread tales of how the Czech people rebelled against tyranny. The Czechs say they were told again and again, “What happened in Central Europe will not succeed here.” Yeah, right. Something tells me that if throwing off the shackles of tyranny couldn’t possibly happen in Cuba, you wouldn’t need to lock people up to prevent it.

Thank goodness in America they don’t throw you in jail for saying the wrong thing. But there is that debate on the Senate floor on the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill that would prevent people from mentioning the name of any congressman in any advertisement during the last 60 days before an election. Hmmmm. What’s that all about?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Remember Harry Nilsson’s song “Without You”? You know: “I can’t live/If living is without you.” Well, that’s exactly how career politicians in Congress feel when it comes to your sweet, cuddly tax dollars. They can’t live without ’em.

In fact, after 28 years in Washington, Republican Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici says Congress cannot live with an overall 4 percent increase in discretionary funding. Wait a second; I know we’ve heard our elected officials brag about being so fiscally responsible in the last couple years. They’ve actually got a budget surplus going. It’s amazing, though it’s nothing any fiscally irresponsible bum could fail to accomplish, if only he won the lottery. That’s what happened to the big-spending career politicians. While they were busy piling up $200 billion dollar deficits every year, the economy expanded in a major way and tax revenues rained down on Washington like manna from heaven.

What to do with all this easy money? Well, the career politicians worked long hours on new ways to spend this money to increase their power and prestige. Give a politician money and he’ll find a way to spend it. And he’ll say it’s urgent, even in a booming economy. Of course, sooner or later, when the economy slows down, we will confront the same problem of putting the federal monster on a diet, except the monster will be bigger and fatter than ever. When that day comes, you can bet this monster will be looking for your wallet or your purse, not manna from heaven.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

When you’re in the business of tracking career politicians, like I am, one of the things you notice is how often the careerists lard their legislation with pork. Pork is payola. It’s spending on specific local projects at national taxpayer expense. It may be a statue or a football stadium or a military base that the military no longer needs. Anything that funds a narrow local interest without regard to the common good.

Politicians push pork not to promote the general welfare but to get reelected. There’s concrete evidence that it helps them do just that. One study classified first-term representatives according to how much federal largesse flowed into their districts. It showed that, yes indeed, those who forked over the most pork won re-election by the most comfortable margins. Those with the least pork increased their share of votes by an average 4.6 percentage points over what their first election. And those who hauled the most pork projects home added almost 9 percent to their vote.

So pork works, in a way. Some voters respond positively to it. And some special interest groups respond very positively by helping line a candidate’s campaign coffers. But it doesn’t really help most folks. The cities and states that get the most pork remain the poorest. And pork certainly doesn’t help politicians fulfill their genuine civic obligations as servants of the common good. It only helps them achieve one pork-larded term in office after another. And who wants that?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

They call New York City “The Big Apple,” and New Yorkers like to think that, as the song says, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”

So it is with career politicians, too. In New York City, the city council has been a haven for entrenched career politicians spending decades in power. However in 1993, New Yorkers approved term limits with a 60 percent vote.

That didn’t settle the issue for the politicians on New York’s city council, however. In 1996, the council came back with a referendum to delay and deny term limits. The politicians who hated term limits were going to “fix” them. But voters caught on and kept term limits just as they passed them.

Then some clever council members discovered what they believed was a legal loophole: let’s just repeal the limits without the voters having any say-so! Soon-to-be termed-out council members signed on to the repeal in droves. But New Yorkers were furious, public hearings were packed, candidates gearing up to run for open seats in what promised to finally be competitive elections refused to back down. In short, council members caught hell. So they backed down. The people won, again. Even The New York Times , long an opponent of term limits, admitted that, “A large-scale change on the Council might provide a wealth of new ideas.”

Term limits have made it in New York City. And if we can make it there, we can make it anywhere.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

You had to know they’ve been looking for it. Well, they’ve found it. Proof that term limits don’t work.

Oh, forget all the arguments politicians made when term limits were first being debated that it would create utter chaos, that state and local governments would simply grind to a halt due to the loss of experience. Aw shucks, that didn’t happen. Or that lobbyists would take over. Well, lobbyists are still moaning and groaning about it and urging legislators to repeal the limits. Not much of a sign they are exactly “taking over.” Then it was suggested that the California energy crisis was the fault of term limits. Now, that’s a really good try. But the legislation was passed before term limits removed a single legislator from office. In other words, that was the pros doing.

But if term limits seem like a big success and you think every sign points to the politicians being all wet, not to mention hopelessly self-serving on the issue, just you wait. Proof has been found that term limits leads to, well, numbskull politicians who are just too darn soft on taxpayers. Former State Rep. Lynn Jondahl, a 22-year veteran of the legislature says term limits don’t “make sense.” She points to a most serious sin committed by the inexperienced term-limited legislature: phasing out the Single Business Tax that had been on the books for 29 years and become a major source of revenue. It’s gone. A tax actually repealed.

The politicians rest their case.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

I hope you’re sitting down, because I have shocking news. In many of the 19 states with term-limited legislatures, the politicians don’t really like the limits very much. They say legislators don’t have enough time in six or eight years to learn the ropes and be effective!! Hey, do you need the smelling salts?

When you stop and think about it, though, these legislators may be on to something, something pretty telling. Remember, this is personal testimony. These legislators just can’t “get it” in the six or eight years they’re able to serve. That puts this problem in a whole new light, don’t you see? When legislators vote to extend or repeal term limits they are really crying out for help; it is a legislator’s way of saying, “I’m not worthy.”

Of course, they aren’t honest enough to admit they aren’t up to the job. Instead, they suggest the job is so complex and human beings so innately dumb that just about anybody would have be train for a decade before he could figure out how to submit a bill to committee. But we expect the President of the United States to be competent to fill the job from day one and we only allow presidents to serve for two terms.

Aren’t folks who apply for a job supposed to make sure they’re qualified to do the job? Or at least get up to speed in pretty short order. Isn’t that what your boss expected? And when is the last time a politician ran for reelection on the slogan, “I haven’t found the bathroom yet, but send me back and I’ll keep looking”?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Sometimes you just have to do it yourself if there’s a way. For term limits and many other reforms, the citizen initiative process is a way that the people, not the politicians, can lay down the law. In 24 states, initiative and referendum allows citizens to propose a law and get a vote on it.

Career politicians hate this direct democracy, because it gives folks the ability to participate directly in determining important questions that affect their lives. The politicians are wondering, golly, shouldn’t I be the one running everybody’s life? So they work hard to throw a monkey wrench in the process.

And looks like they’ve got friends in the media, too. Recently, a horrified editorial in the Bangor Daily News complained that signature gathering was too easy these days, given how the “professionalism of it” has grown.

Why should democracy be easy, right? Maybe each voter should have to get a tooth pulled every time they lend their signature to a petition.

But geez, doesn’t the Bangor Daily News have at least one valid point? They complain about the excessive number of ballot questions that voters and newspaper editors in the state of Maine have had to think about and vote on over the past decade. I mean, there have been 9 whole referendum questions in Maine over the past five years. That’s an average of 1.8 referendums per year. Gosh, it sure is tough to be a citizen who has a say.

America, let’s hope this editorial writer never has to move to California.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

We elect representatives to draft the laws that govern our nation, but increasingly they are becoming glorified gofers for the federal bureaucracy. Why? In a word: votes. Votes, votes, votes.

Jerry Kammer with the Arizona Republic reports that “as [congressional incumbents] plan for their next election, nothing is more important than what their staffs accomplish for constituents whose Social Security checks haven’t arrived, whose military discharge papers have been lost or who are lost in the bureaucratic alphabet soup of agencies. . . . When senior congressional staff members were asked a few years ago what part of their work was most important to their bosses’ political futures, 56 percent identified constituent service. Only 11 percent pointed to the legislative record.”

Marlo Lewis of the Los Angeles-based Reason Foundation adds that constituent service is one more way that “our politics has become kind of an incumbency-protection machine in which the rules of the game are structured for the benefit of those who hold power . . .”

Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker points out, “[Constituent service] lets the members be seen . . . as friends . . . who can do you a favor.” And favors mean votes. So career politicians seek to be your special connection, to do you the favor of saving you from the bureaucracy they themselves have created, and allowed to run wild. Voters are so happy to get their government-created problem unsnarled, they forget who created it in the first place.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.