Category: Common Sense

Sometimes people say to me, “Hey Paul, if term limits are so great, how come they’re not already in the Constitution?” Weren’t the Founding Fathers just as concerned about how power corrupts, and absolute power corrupting absolutely? Absolutely, yes, the Founders were concerned. And they did believe in term limits. They called it “Rotation in Office.”

In those days, folks would remain in office for only one or two terms before moving on. Nobody had to tell George Washington to decline the job of President for Life. They followed the honor system. Several state constitutions did provide for term limits, however. For example, the Virginia Constitution of 1776 declared that officeholders, quote, “should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, [and] return . . . into that body from which they were originally taken.”

And the Articles of Confederation, the national law of the land prior to the U.S. Constitution, also required rotation in office. The articles said that no person should remain in office for more than 3 years out of any term of 6 years. That’s pretty tough. Yes, the Revolutionaries wanted Citizen Legislators, not Career Politicians.

Indeed, Madison’s original plan for the U.S. Constitution required term limits. But in the end, the drafters decided limits were unnecessary, since the rewards of serving in Congress were few and the privations many. And in those days, it was more plausible to have faith in the good will of the politicians than it is today.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Look, most of us recognize that politicians are not way up high on the honesty list. But the awful truth about career politicians and the party bosses is that even when what they say is technically accurate, they say it in as misleading and hypocritical a way as is humanly possible. The Republican and Democratic parties call it political advertising.

One of the best tricks is to attack someone for an obscure vote that is stretched completely out of perspective. Like the Democratic Party ad saying Minnesota Senator Rod Grams voted against a gun-free school zone bill because he’s fond of guns at school. Then there’s the Republican Party ad accusing Florida candidate Linda Chapin of being “soft on convicts” because criminals watched cable TV until, that is, Chapin had it removed, a fact the ad forgets to mention. And the Republican ad attacking Democrat Calvin Dooley as soft on crime for voting the same way as House Republican campaign chairman Tom Davis, whose group made the ad.

Dooley says, “The Republican Party has a criminal case of hypocrisy. Do Republicans think their own chairman is soft on crime too?” But Dooley knows that members of the incumbency Republicans and Democrats couldn’t care less what anyone is for or against. Just use whatever you must use, twist whatever you must twist, smear whomever you must smear to win. And why is winning so important? Why? To lead a crusade for truth, justice and the American way, of course!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Well, the election has finally happened and looks like we’re gonna be stuck with what’s-his-face as our President for the next four years. Pundits say this has been the closest presidential race since the Stone Age.

Of course, it’s not a bad thing to have close contests in a system that is supposed to be competitive. Still, this contest could have been lots more competitive. Only the two major candidates were allowed to participate in the nationally televised presidential debates. Third party candidates with a different view to offer were shut out of the conversation. Candidates like the Green Party’s Ralph Nader. The Reform Party’s Pat Buchanan. The Libertarian Party’s Harry Browne.

Things weren’t quite as rigged in previous years. Remember John Anderson? Well, okay, that was a while back. How about Ross Perot? Folks like him add something to the conversation. Didn’t all his nattering about the national debt have an impact? A recent poll by Rasmussen Research and the Appleseed Electoral Reform Project found that much of the voting public agrees. About half of likely voters think Buchanan or Nader should have been in the debates. Looks like the pollsters forgot to ask about Harry Browne, though he has been about even with Buchanan in recent opinion polls. Oh well. Even pollsters aren’t perfect.

My point is, the career politicians want to run a closed shop, and they keep finding new ways to shut people out. Whatever happened to the politics of inclusion?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Congressmen George Nethercutt and Mark Sanford both favor opening trade with Cuba. They oppose the totalitarian Castro regime. But they argue that engaging the Cuban people in trade has a better chance of rocking the regime than the embargo, which after four decades has not loosened Castro’s grip on power.

Now Congress has passed legislation allowing Americans to sell food and medicine to Cuba. So why does Mark Sanford say the GOP leadership acted [quote] “shamefully” while George Nethercutt hails the agreement as the greatest thing since sliced bread? Simple: term limits.

Nethercutt’s in trouble because he broke his word on term limits. He’s eager to show he’s “delivered” for wheat farmers in his district. The GOP leadership wants to hold onto his seat. As Appropriations Chairman Bill Young said, “We need to find a way to make Nethercutt look like a strong, powerful member of Congress.” But the leadership also wanted to derail other legislation that went much further in ending the embargo. So they gave Nethercutt the empty victory of authoring a watered-down bill that won’t really increase trade with Cuba at all and won’t even allow travel to visit sick or dying relatives in Cuba.

Real citizen legislators, like Mark Sanford who’s stepping down under self-imposed term limits, aren’t impressed by meaningless political charades designed to make politicians look good before an election. They want to do what’s right. Career politician Nethercutt likes the bill, because . . . well . . . it works for him. Or so he hopes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

He nobly served the national interest, which he never defined as his own reelection,” so says National Review ‘s Kate O’Beirne about Rep. Mark Sanford. The South Carolina congressman is keeping his word to voters: stepping down after pledging to serve only three terms in Washington.

Sanford’s not a career politician. They equate the national interest with their political interest. The longer in power, the more they’ll do anything to stay in power. First the Lincoln bedroom becomes Motel 6, now ABC’s “20/20” reports that big campaign contributors are being rewarded with lavish state dinners at taxpayer expense. Our First Lady defends the practice. When told how state dinners used to host folks “who’d contributed a lot to this country or the world,” Hillary was at no loss for words: “I think contributing to the Democratic Party is a contribution to the country.” So why shouldn’t she grab our hard-earned tax dollars to reward the party faithful?

The Democrats are not alone. President Bush had fewer guests at state dinners, but a similar percentage of big donors. And now it’s okay for Republicans to throw around tax dollars in vulnerable districts in a blatant attempt to buy votes. “This is a battle,” says House GOP campaign head Tom Davis. “Both sides are using whatever assets they have . . . in a legal and dignified manner.” Perhaps in the no-controlling-legal-authority world of career politicians, what they’re doing is “legal.” But spare us the spin about how “dignified” it all is.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Remember Mad Magazine and its fearless leader Alfred E. Neumann? His famous slogan, “What-Me-Worry?” increasingly seems to sum up our political elite from presidential candidates Bush and Gore to congressional leaders.

You see, when these career politicians act, thinking only about the next election and ignoring the long-term health of our society, well, isn’t that a lot like the little kids who would spend every last dime for candy, or even a copy of Mad Magazine, without a thought about tomorrow? The presidential campaign has been about how to spend the surplus rolling into Washington these days, and taking credit for creating it.

But a new report from the Congressional Budget Office suggests the surplus exists not because of any change in policy Clinton and Congress long ago broke the promised spending caps but because of unexpected revenue increases from an innovative private sector. The CBO warns that as baby-boomers retire the cost of Social Security, Medicare and other programs will shoot through the roof: “If the nation’s leaders do not change current policies . . . deficits are likely to reappear” and “drive debt to unsustainable levels.”

In other words, while Gore and Bush are telling us all they can do to spend this $5 trillion surplus well, it doesn’t exist. What are the career politicians in Congress doing? Spending money as fast as they can so they can take credit during their reelection campaigns. What-Me-Worry?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

What if they held an election and nobody came? Well, it happened several weeks ago, in New Ashford, Massachusetts. But before folks start wringing their hands about voter apathy, they should take note of the fact that there wasn’t anything to vote for. Oh, sure, candidates were on the ballot for the U.S. Senate, Congress, state senate and the state house of representatives. Only thing is: there were no opposing candidates.

That’s right, not a single competitive primary race. Not one. Poor Richard DeMyer, the Town Clerk, opened the polls at 6:30 am and closed them at 8:30 pm. He spent 14 straight hours, alone, staring at the walls. To be sure, there are only 187 registered voters in New Ashford, but zero for 187 isn’t much of a batting average. Asked why he didn’t vote, DeMyer responded, “Why . . . should I? Nobody else did.” DeMyer told me he plans to vote in November, but only out of a “sense of duty,” not “interest.”

Says DeMyer, “There’s no competition.” There could be competition in Massachusetts this year like there is in California, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and other states with term limits for their legislatures. Don’t blame Massachusetts voters. They passed term limits back in 1994, but the state courts blocked it. If they had term limits, there would be plenty of open-seat races with plenty of competitive candidates to choose from. And there would have been something else it’s kind of nice to have in a democracy: voters.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Education. Education. Education. That’s what the U.S. Senate race in Virginia is all about this year. And boy, are we voters getting a heckuva education on politics!

Incumbent Senator Chuck Robb and challenger George Allen are both former governors. They know very well that the federal government provides little money to the state’s school system just lots of bossy mandates. Only 6 percent of Virginia’s public school funds come from the federal government. Still, both men are campaigning as the savior of Virginia’s public schools. They can’t fulfill that role from the U.S. Senate, but to win votes they’re pretending they can solve everyone’s problems.

George Allen is being helped by almost $1.2 million dollars in TV ads paid for by Virginia taxpayers. Allen’s buddy, Republican Governor Jim Gilmore is running ads talking about the great success of the Standards of Learning tests. These student tests, designed to ensure accountability in public schools, were Allen’s major educational achievement as governor.

Now accountability is a good thing, sure. But everyone knows that these ads are running right before the election to boost Allen. Needless to say, taxpayers aren’t thrilled with being forced to spend a million dollars on campaign ads. The governor’s spokesman Mark Miner defended the ads, saying, “People have a right to know where their educational dollars are going.” He’s right; people should know that our tax dollars are going to politics. And the politicians should know we’re sick of it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Do you use the Internet? Do you like sending super-fast email for a super-low price: nothin’? I sure do. It’s a great way to keep in touch with folks. Of course, half the time my Internet connection is down, but that’s another story. Whenever I am able to use my email, it’s fabulous. Wonderful. Love it. But wait. Now rumor has it that the government wants to charge you 5 cents tax for every electronic missive you send. What!! Those robber barons of the treasury! Say it ain’t so, Joe!

Well, it ain’t so. It’s a hoax that’s been floating around the Internet for more than a year. The hoax email says that there’s a federal bill 602P that would empower our federal government to charge 5 cents tax on every email you send. But there is no such bill. Never was and I hope never will be. The interesting thing is, though, that a lot of people who aren’t normally taken in by Internet hoaxes sure fell for this one hook, line, and sinker. Even the candidates for U.S. Senate from New York were fooled. First Lady Hillary Clinton told the reporter moderating their debate, “Based on your description, I wouldn’t vote for that bill,” Rick Lazio echoed the sentiment. “I am absolutely opposed to this,” he said.

For some reason, it just seems so plausible that the career politicians infesting our nation’s capital would try to pull something like this. Now, why might that be?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things is just not the same. Can you guess which one?

First is the antitrust suit against Microsoft, undertaken at the behest of Microsoft’s competitors, like Netscape and AOL. They pushed the Justice Department to do something about the big bad software company that was doing so much better than them at satisfying the customers. Of course, Microsoft is not a monopoly by any reality-based definition of that term. There are plenty of operating systems to choose from, and plenty of software applications. The lawsuit is a lie.

Second is the suit against Visa-MasterCard undertaken at the behest of American Express. Amex pushed the Justice Department to do something about the big bad credit card company that was doing so much better than them at satisfying the customers. But there are plenty of credit cards to choose from 25,000 according to cardweb.com . The lawsuit is a lie.

Third is the anti-trust suit against the United States Postal Service, a government-protected monopoly. It is illegal to compete with the postal service to provide first-class mail. So while there’s plenty of software companies and credit-card companies to choose from, there’s only one first-class mail carrier.

Oh, wait a minute. The Justice Department hasn’t launched any kind of anti-trust suit against the postal service, have they? One of these things is not like the others. One of these things is just not the same. Can you guess which one?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.