Category: Common Sense

As I speak, the highest court in the land has been considering the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. All 456 pages of it.

In the aftermath of the McCain-Feingold law incumbent congressmen are raising more money than ever, out-raising challengers nine to one by last report. Has the law done anything about the countless shady dealings between congressmen and special interests? Ha! We can hope that McCain-Feingold is struck down entirely by the courts as a congressional massacre of the First Amendment. But how can we find a way to make public policy without the corruption of special interests?

I do have an idea. A process where campaign spending is largely unlimited but which has again and again allowed people to overcome big spending. It’s called Initiative & Referendum. You can spend big money on initiatives, but if the public isn’t with you, ain’t gonna pass, buddy. Big spenders don’t always get big votes.

Direct democracy simply cannot be corrupted the way our representatives can be. Initiatives are written in black and white and, as conservative Grover Norquist notes, “One big difference between initiatives and elected representatives is that initiatives do not change their minds once you vote them in.” Liberal Ralph Nader calls initiatives our “ace in the hole.”

Perhaps someday we’ll discover a way to keep politicians honest. But until that miracle cure is invented, citizens must have a way to keep our government under control. That way is the citizen initiative: citizens in charge.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Lobbyists are unhappy. Why? Their strange complaint is that their power is increasing. All thanks to those darn term limits. “We must be stopped!” they say. Their complaints are aired most recently in an article in Christian Science Monitor . Everybody against term limits immediately started citing this article. “See?” they said. “We were right all along. Even the lobbyists want to give their extra power back now. They feel guilty about it.”

Lobbyists like anti-term-limits Common Cause are particularly adamant about how term limits have given lobbyists too much power. One of the “proofs” of how term limits let lobbyists run riot is a survey of lobbyists themselves. It seems 74 percent say legislators are “less knowledgeable” than they were before term limits. Which you would think, if true, makes their jobs harder. “Less knowledgeable” is lobbyist-code for “less willing to accommodate me, the lobbyist.” And that seems to be true.

The article reports that lobbyists in term-limited states aren’t really getting their way as easily as they might like. And we know this because some of the lobbyists are throwing temper tantrums or pulling publicity stunts to catch the attention of legislators, even screaming threats of retribution for opposition to a desired bill. Frankly, I prefer that kind of noise to a world of cozy, peaceful back-room relationships that the public never hears about because everybody involved has agreed to do things on the sly. I want to hear about it.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

We wouldn’t be human if our emotions weren’t torn apart by the special reports commemorating September 11, 2001 the attack on the World Trade Towers in New York, and on the Pentagon. What I remember most from that September day and the days that followed was a spirit, a pride and a commitment to be our best when things were at their worst. New Yorkers made us all proud. They had a strength in their sorrow as well as in the resilient spirit they took to rebuilding.

The same spirit was evident from folks at the Pentagon, friends and neighbors of mine. And then there were the citizens who just happened to book a flight from Newark to San Francisco the one hijackers wanted to divert to Washington DC. The passengers, having been alerted to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, went to war with the hijackers. They must have been terrified, but they stood up to the thugs who had taken over the plane, and caused the plane to crash in a field in Shanksville, PA winning our first victory in the war on terror.

The presence of mind of these heroes as they faced their doom is awe-inspiring. And there was something American about how they faced it, too. “Let’s roll,” a wife at the other end of a cell phone heard, after her husband bluntly told her he had to do what he had to do. The passengers made a plan and it seems they even voted on whether to attack the hijackers. They voted. Voted to be heroic. And were.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

I am so tired of how, if I want to get a raise, I have to ask the boss, and even give reasons. Hey, like, instead just give me access to a giant pool of money and let me hike my own salary as I decree fit. Actually, what I’d like to do is set an automatic so-called “cost of living adjustment” so I don’t even have to bother going through the motions of considering whether I deserve a raise. That way I could just get thousands of dollars more per year, year in, year out, regardless of how well I do my job.

Okay, I know you’re ahead of me. It’s our beloved Congress I’m talking about. Several years ago the House put in place what they call a COLA, or cost of living adjustment. So members get a raise every year, automatically, unless they go out of their way to refuse it. Which they never do. To them. this COLA is the nectar of the gods. And who cares if they deserve it or not?

The latest “adjustment” adds $3,400 a year, giving members an annual salary of $158,103. I guess it’s a bonus for the hundreds of billions in new debt we’re plunged into. The war is one cause of that debt, but then there’s all the endless pork-barrel spending congressmen do to sustain their something like 99.9999 percent re-election rates.

Somebody else should handle the job of raising their salary. Maybe it can be done by national referendum. I doubt that congressional pay would be hiccupping out of control if the whole country were voting on it.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Suppose terrorists sneak aboard your flight. Perhaps they have no weapons, All they have are their intentions, their training, and their willingness to die. Eventually you hear from one of the pilots. He says, “Welcome aboard, ladies and gentlemen. We’ll be cruising at an altitude of x-thousand feet, such-and-such miles per hour. The weather is good, and we should reach our destination on time today. Oh, by the way I’m unarmed. And the co-pilot is unarmed. Enjoy the flight.”

It would be insane for pilots to announce publicly that they are easy pickings. But if such an in-flight announcement were indeed made as things stand now, would the terrorists really have any more information than they already have? Pilots are protesting against government policy. The reason: almost a year after Congress authorized pilots to bear arms, the Transportation Security Administration is making it almost impossible for pilots to actually do so.

To fly a giant commercial jet, pilots already have to go through a lengthy series of tests. They are already being entrusted with the lives of thousands of people every day. But the reluctant TSA has thrown up endless roadblocks to intimidate pilots who apply for arms training. Two years after 9/11, less than 150 pilots are qualified to bear arms in the cockpit. There are over 66,000 members of the Air Pilots Association. Basically, we’re already telling the terrorists: “Don’t worry, the chances are vanishingly low that either pilot on the flight you pick is armed.” That’s scary, and that’s got to change.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Yeah, right. Congress passed the McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan campaign finance law to clean up corruption and even the playing field supposedly. My biggest concern is that the law gives Congress the power to regulate what groups like U.S. Term Limits and others can say about incumbents. Our Founders forbid such an arrangement in the First Amendment, which is why crazy federal judges needed a 1,600-page opinion to cook up some crumb of constitutionality. And why the case now sits before the U.S. Supreme Court.

I don’t have anything against money. Moreover, I am definitely not against money in politics. I’ve had cause to ask folks to contribute to political causes and I’ve felt glad, and not at all guilty, when they could. Unlimited power, not money, is the chief political demon. You can agree or disagree with my philosophical view, of course, but what of the conflict of interest Congress has in regulating campaign finance?

Passing the McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan bill was absolutely self-serving. Now that we have some experience under the new law even though it’s under a legal cloud what are the facts? The FEC report reads like a commercial.

• The initial impact of the campaign finance law? More money raised.
• Creation of an even playing field? Don’t be a sucker. Nine out of 10 dollars are going to incumbent members of Congress.
• Financial position of one of the laws sponsors, Congressman Martin Meehan? Ranked fourth in the House with a $1.8 million warchest to stomp out any challenger.
• The irony: priceless.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.