Category: Common Sense

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.

I’d like to thank the Washington Post for making the case for term limits for me. Thank you Washington Post.

In a recent editorial, the Post talks about yet another railroad bailout that’s in the works in Congress, this one handing out extra goodies to retiring workers, decreasing contributions while increasing benefits. Sponsored by Mr. Entrenched Pork Barreling Career Politician himself, Bud Schuster, the bill among other bad things would allow government planners to invest some $15 billion in the stock market. Instead of putting the retirement system on a stable footing, the bureaucrats are gambling with workers’ savings and our tax dollars. But that’s only part of the problem.

The Post notes that the railroad retirement system has been in the red forever, despite endless subsidies. As the Post says, “You can add the railroads to the list of petitioners . . . for whom the [congressmen] are vying to shovel billions of dollars out the door even as they head home to campaign as economizers.” Good point, Washington Post . Maybe now you can admit that it’s the true-blue citizen legislators like Tom Coburn and Mark Sanford the congressmen who limit their own terms and step down after a short time in power who tend to oppose runaway wasteful spending and look out more for the common good than their own personal political good. Yes, let us know once you realize that to put an end to the antics of career politicians, we need a retirement plan for career politicians.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Ted Kennedy is probably the perfect incumbent politician. Never mind the scandals, the personal problems, the body in the water, the high unfavorable rating. Kennedy survives by doling out tax dollars to special interest groups who in turn dole out big dollars to Kennedy’s campaign coffers. It helps to have the Kennedy name, of course, and to be the patriarch of America’s only almost-royal family. But what’s good for friends of monarchy is bad for friends of democracy.

Even in 1994, when scandal lured a challenger with deep pockets of his own, Kennedy won handily with 58 percent of the vote. Of course, Massachusetts is a Democratic stronghold. But ask yourself: why this particular Democrat, all the time, decade after decade, no matter his flaws? This year, Kennedy has no competition to speak of. Credible challengers are scared off by the sheer weight of incumbency. Kennedy has raised $5.8 million for his reelection campaign, spent $2.7 million, and has more than $4 million in the bank (some of that left over from previous campaigning). His three opponents haven’t got half a million between them.

The story is not unique. In Massachusetts alone, 5 out of 10 House incumbents face no significant opposition. Too often, the major parties just don’t bother to field a candidate when the incumbent decides to run again. And so the incumbents don’t run, they walk, to unchallenged victory. It’s time for term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Is it really so wonderful that the Republican leadership is trying to win elections “locally” this fall? Well, wait until you see what they mean by “locally.”

In 1994, Republicans snagged an historic majority of both houses of Congress by being national, not local. Their national theme was based on reforming the tax-and-spend culture of the federal government. Like-minded candidates signed a pledge to do so, the Contract With America. But Republicans squandered the political capital they gained in 1994. Except for a few stalwarts (including self-limited representatives like Matt Salmon, Mark Sanford, and Tom Coburn), they’ve caved on issue after issue at the first sign of trouble. They’re behaving like you guessed it career politicians.

And now the National Review reports that the GOP has a grand electoral strategy for 2000 of doling out as much pork as possible in districts where Republicans are at risk. Kate O’Beirne writes, “The House leaders can dispense enough pork and policy, with a dash of pandering, to insulate their members from political trouble. . . . After the appropriators take care of their own districts, 49 percent of what’s left over goes to the ‘vulnerable list.'” Great. And the purpose of gaining political power by handing out slab after fat slab of pork is to do what, exactly? Eliminate pork barrel spending? That’s not something you’ll ever be able to do while “Oink! Oink!” is your rallying cry.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Boy, the politicians in Washington are such kidders. Always joking around. What a hoot. So funny I forgot to laugh.

The latest rib-tickler is Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott’s gentle jibe about taking jobs away from Georgia voters if they don’t vote for a Republican for the U.S. Senate. While campaigning in Atlanta with Republican Senate candidate Mack Mattingly, Lott suggested in no uncertain terms that he would snatch away a lucrative military contract from an Atlanta-based company and flip it to Mississippi if Georgia voters don’t elect Mattingly to the Senate this November.

Of course, no one in the crowd seemed to know that it was a joke when Lott stated, “If Mack is not there [in the Senate], I will do everything I can to move the whole operation to Mississippi. If Mack is there, we’ll split the difference. We’ll build the fuselage and you’ll do the rest. You get my drift here?” Okay, Lott. We get it. Ha, ha, ha. Stop, you’re killing me.

Later, when a reporter asked Lott about his implied threat, he was told it was all in fun. Yeah. Well, perhaps if our career politicians didn’t make so many decisions that affect our safety and our pocketbooks with only their own political interests in mind, it would be easier to know when they’re joshing and when they’re turning the screws. Mr. Majority Leader, keep the day job. On the other hand, maybe it’s time you got out of politics as well as stand-up comedy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Washington, DC is blessed with an abundance of highly educated mouthpieces, who for the right price will eloquently defend the indefensible. But don’t try this at home.

The indefensible is Congressmen George Nethercutt’s decision to break his word to the voters to step down after three terms in office. His pledge won him his congressional seat, but now Nethercutt is willing to cast aside his integrity to hold on to power. In the recent primary, Nethercutt and his cronies splurged big-time, spending half a million dollars on a massive TV ad barrage in the last three weeks. His opponents did not have the money to air even a single TV commercial. Still, most voters cast their ballots against Nethercutt.

In the last ten years, seven of eight Washington State incumbents who got less 50 percent in the primary were defeated in November. The good news is that Nethercutt is in big trouble. The bad news is that his remaining supporters are still trying to defend the indefensible.

One recent letter to the editor called his 1994 pledge a “gimmick” and suggested we should “accept gimmicks as one price of democracy and move on.” Then there was the letter was from Randall Jones of Newman Lake, Washington. Mr. Jones writes, “I will hold my nose and vote for [Nethercutt.]” My goodness, is this really what our elections have become?! Should you vote for a guy if you can’t do so without holding your nose?

This is Common Sense. Let’s use some. I’m Paul Jacob.

It’s easy to imagine all that could be accomplished if you had the power. But it’s also easy to forget that power corrupts. That goes for you and me, too not just politicians. Once in power, our environment would change and so would the pressures we would face. And over time most likely we would change, too. Back in revolutionary days, Englishmen John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon wrote:

Men, when they first enter into [office], have often their former condition before their eyes. They remember what they themselves suffered from the abuse of power; so their first purposes are to be humble, modest and just; and probably, for some time, they continue so. But the possession of power soon alters their hearts. First they grow indifferent. Next, they lose their moderation: Afterwards, they renounce all measures with their old principles, and grow in conceit, a different species from their fellow subjects. And so, by too sudden degrees become insolent, rapacious and tyrannical. So that the only way to put them in mind of their former condition, and consequently of the condition of other people, is often to reduce then to it. A rotation, therefore, in power and [office], is necessary to a free government.

Power changes people. Not just bad people, but good people, too. That’s why we need term limits: because career politicians are no better than you and me.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Listener Horace Solliday writes: “Dear Paul, I am distressed every time you tell us of the good politicians who are fighting for term limits and then restrict their own terms while none of the career politicians have. Is that common sense? Wouldn’t it make more sense to stay there until they get term limits?”

Thanks Horace; it’s a fair question. But here’s the thing. No constitutional amendment for term limits is going to pass in a Congress dominated by career politicians. We’ve learned that the hard way. So we must change the Congress. That means real leadership, by example. Citizen legislators who walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

Experience hath shown that if our best representatives don’t term-limit themselves, as the years pass they tend to become co-opted by the system and play politics as usual. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, in his sixth and final year in Congress, still sleeps on a futon in his office and showers at the House gym, unwilling to become a native of Washington, DC. Says Sanford, “Some people tell me, ‘You know, Mark, you are a lame duck before you’ve even started.’ I respond, ‘You’re wrong. I’m a free duck, and there’s a big difference.’ . . . Term limits force you to maintain perspective. It’s an anchor.”

Sanford is right. It’s no coincidence that the best people in Congress have term-limited themselves. The challenge for our free society is to elect more representatives who will be “free ducks.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.