Common Sense with Paul Jacob

Potatoes aren’t the only thing they have in Idaho. They also have potatohead career politicians.

Okay, that wasn’t nice. I apologize to any career politicians or potatoes who were offended.

But on the other hand, Idaho voters are being treated like potato salad. And that’s not right either. Idaho politicians have tried again and again to trash term limits. But the people of Idaho have refused to play along.

So now the politicians are taking the people to court. Last year, 6th District Judge Randy Smith heard a challenge to the Idaho term limits law. It pertained to the desire of county-level officials to remain on the job.

Of course, as soon as Judge Smith’s ruling made clear his bias against term limits, the true purpose of the lawsuit rapidly emerged. All kinds of statewide lobbyists and statewide politicians crawled out of the potato bag to demand an end to term limits.

Judge Smith stressed a section of the Idaho code stating that “Any person legally qualified to hold such office is entitled to become a candidate.”

But I think Judge Smith is missing something. After all, under term limits, whether one is “legally qualified” depends on how many terms one has served! And Judge Smith also admitted that the state constitution “allows the people the . . . right to propose laws and enact the same by initiative.”

The Idaho Supreme Court is about to decide this question. Let’s hope they realize that the constitutionally protected voting rights of the Idaho citizen cannot be sliced and diced at will.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Before what’s left of our liberty goes up in smoke, we need to take a deep breath and think things through . . . or at least our legislators do . . . at least the legislators of Montgomery County in Maryland.

The Montgomery council has just approved one of the most restrictive anti-smoking measures in the entire country. Now you can’t smoke in peace in your own home.

The new law is not an outright ban, but it does open the door to all manner of harassment and hardship. If you smoke in your home and some of the fumes happen to drift into the home of a neighbor, whether through a vent or a door or an open window, your neighbor can now complain to the county’s Department of Environmental Protection, which could then slap a fine of $750 on you or your landlord. Just think of it as a new cigarette tax.

Bob Levy of the Cato Institute can only shake his head over this eagerness to solve every little local headache by looking to the government. He says, “Ordinarily, we rely on common courtesy and mutual respect when individuals relate to one another. But nosy, intrusive government has polarized the dispute between smokers and nonsmokers.”

One member of the Montgomery council tries to reassure us. If people abuse the new law, we’ll repeal it, he claims. But I don’t think we can trust them to repeal it, seeing as how we couldn’t trust them not to pass such an outrageous law to begin with.

But I do trust you to complain, especially if you live in Maryland.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Trust in government has gone way up in the wake of 911. But the realities of Washington politicking are the same old same-old.

Take the recent anti-terrorism bill, the so-called “USA Patriot Act.” Who could be against that, eh? It has the word “patriot” in the title.

Well, Representative Ron Paul, a Texas Republican, was one congressman who voted against it. He said it was unconstitutional. Paul was especially annoyed by the tactics used to push the bill.

For instance, the vote was taken before members of Congress had seen a final version! In other words, your Representative had no way of knowing exactly what he was voting for before he voted for it which is how controversial items get tucked into lengthy legislation without anybody making a fuss.

The more complex a bill is, the more time lawmakers should have to review it. But as Paul points out, “that’s not the way it works in the Congress. As a matter of fact, it works almost the opposite way. The more complex, especially if controversial, the less likely it is that you’ll get to read it.”

Paul notes that when it came to this particular bill, the political heat was on to get it done, regardless of how. Even so-called “sunset provisions” designed to ensure that controversial government powers would not remain permanent turned out to be a farce.

However you stand on this so-called “Patriot Act,” it’s clear Congress is flying blind. Americans are more ready than ever to trust their leaders. But in the Congress, leaders are hard to find.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

The President of the United States asked him to do it. So did a number of elected officials and Republican Party leaders.

For the good of the party, for the good of the country, for all they hold dear, they wanted Representative Bob Schaffer of Colorado to do just one little thing. Break his word.

But Bob Schaffer refused. Refused to break his word to the voters by continuing to serve in Congress. Said no to the usual Washington two-step of saying what voters want to hear to get elected, then doing the opposite once in office. Schaffer said that he didn’t want to follow the path of politicians who “find a way to weasel out of a promise.”

No doubt the congressman was tempted to break his word. He had grown to enjoy serving in the congress. And his district is safely Republican. He likely could have survived thumbing his nose at his constituents. All the more reason that good people need a self-imposed time limit: so they won’t succumb to the sirens of power.

But Schaffer did the right thing by keeping his three-term pledge. At his press conference to announce his decision, he offered words that must sting the power-brokers in Washington like holy water splashed on vampires.

“The biggest issue for me,” said Schaffer, “is maintaining commitments and keeping my word.” Ouch. Gee whiz, a lawmaker who really, truly believes in walking the walk. It may be common sense to you and me, but it sure is mighty uncommon for all too many in Washington.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Even the Washington Post has to admit it.

“You know the Democrats are the party that cares most about the poor,” says a Washington Post editorial, “because [the Democrats] tell you so, world without end, and bask in the glow.”

But it’s a “lie,” says the Post . And Exhibit A is the farm bill presently larding its way through Congress.

The House Agriculture Committee has $70 billion dollars to “play with” as the Post puts it. About 5 percent goes to food stamps and other programs for the poor. But most goes to subsidies for the largest ag-producers. Half of all these government subsidies go to a mere 5 percent of the large farming concerns.

The measure was so offensive that the Bush Administration felt it had to break with the House Republican leadership to oppose it. Republican Senator Richard Lugar tried to change the formula to send more to the poor and less to large agricultural companies.

BUT two farm-state Senators, Harkin of Iowa and Daschle of South Dakota both Democrats blocked Lugar and plunged for the pork instead. The Post says it’s because they want to maximize price supports.

Congressmen see themselves in a bidding war for the votes of farm states. From farm spending to defense spending, the highest priority of the career politicians be they Democrats or Republicans seems clear.

Dole out our tax dollars in whichever manner will best buy votes. Which means, when you think about it, that reelection campaigns cost not millions, but billions, every year: your taxes their bribe money.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Thank goodness Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online has all the answers. He’s settled the argument about whether we ought to worry about big government gobbling away our civil liberties or just worry about big government when it’s under the wing of those lousy left-wingers.

Goldberg says that during this time of security crisis we should simply trust our government to do the right thing. Don’t worry. Be happy. Great idea. Don’t worry your pretty little head about a written constitution enumerating the limited powers of government. And who needs a clumsy old legal code? How silly of us! You gotta have trust, people.

Boy, I feel better already. But folks like William Safire aren’t quite in Goldberg’s corner. Safire is more than a little perturbed that our president has declared a fuzzy martial law to deal with non-citizens living in the U.S. who are “suspected terrorists.” Any chance that a federal government armed with tremendous police powers and secret trials might abuse that power and the people on trial? Well, it’s possible.

But where’s your trust? You’re not going to give it to rabble-rousers like George Washington, are you? Washington said: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master . . .” How can an old fogey like Washington understand what we face today? Better to trust our sage new politicians to make it up as they go along without a lot of legality mucking up the works. Don’t worry. Be happy.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Looks like we’ve approached touchdown on another national debate over national security. The Congress seems to be resolving the issue of airport security with a “compromise” that will federalize rather than privatize. A few airports will be allowed to experiment with private security options. And, supposedly, in a few years airports that don’t like the government-provided security will have a chance to opt out.

Thing is, private airport security is what works and private airport security is what we haven’t even tried yet. Oh, you think that’s what we have now? Think again. Bob Poole of the Reason Foundation and Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute have both pointed out how dispersed responsibility for airport security has been. Higgs says the way things stand now, “local law enforcement, the airlines, the airports, and the FAA” all share the responsibility, which means none of them have it. So none of them is actually accountable. Heck, United Airlines can’t even give tasers and stun guns to its pilots without first begging for permission from the government.

Roll Call reports that we have advocates of gun control in the Congress who are getting guns and armed bodyguards now. Yet our government won’t let responsible citizens like former law enforcement officials bear arms while riding on a plane. We need to privatize airports altogether, and let private airports and airlines act to improve the security of their passengers.

I say, let them decide their own security precautions. And let them advertise like hell to the rest of us about what they’re doing better and faster than everybody else.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Wearing gloves and masks to sort the mail…standard now for many postal workers in New Jersey, New York and Washington, DC. A nerve-wracking situation, but maybe there’s an opportunity here, too.

The United States Postal Service is a government-protected monopoly. It still exists because it’s a monopoly. Because a ten-year old kid can get arrested for taking a piece of mail across town for a quarter instead of 34 cents. Over the years, the postal service has hemorrhaged red ink. But it is protected from its own inefficiency. And now taxpayers will have to shell out even more, for all the new security requirements the bug killing equipment and so forth. The new costs could add up to $2.5 billion.

Here’s my idea: Why not let private business deliver the mail? Let’s treat first-class mail delivery like any other business. Do that, and the competing companies will brag not only that they can deliver the mail better, but also make it more secure. They’ll deploy systems like the kind of electronic mail metering, and monitoring, that UPS and other private companies use right now. And private companies would no doubt pay a little bit better attention to protecting their workers than has the Postal Service during the Anthrax contamination.

The folks at the U.S. Postal Service are doing the best they can under very trying and often unfair circumstances. Let’s make things better for us and for them just as fast as we can. Let’s deliver on postal reform. And who knows? Maybe the price of a stamp will go down instead of up.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

I’m not one of those guys always badmouthing Microsoft. Sure, I’m always badmouthing my computer. And Microsoft has a lot to do with what is going on in my computer. But if Microsoft has something to do with the glitches, it also has a lot to do with what works.

We get impatient if it takes three minutes instead of three seconds for an email to reach someone half-way around the world. Still, it’s a dang miracle, ain’t it? The law moves a little slower, but we do seem to be near a resolution of the Justice Department’s years-long anti-trust suit against Microsoft. A few states must still sign off on the deal. But it looks like there’s light at the end of the tunnel.

For those of us who view this lawsuit as the misbegotten brainchild of envious competitors, the proposed settlement is both a relief and a disappointment. A relief, because at least the company isn’t going to be chopped in half. A disappointment, because Microsoft will still be handcuffed. It will be banned from entering into exclusive contracts with PC makers, for example. And it will have to put up with a three-man regulatory tribunal that will be allowed to hunker down in Microsoft’s own offices, at Microsoft’s expense, in order to monitor Microsoft’s every move.

Who knows? With a little luck, we still might be able to turn one of the most hard-driving and successful companies in U.S. history into the functional equivalent of the post office. Not that I’m rooting for that outcome, mind you, and somehow I don’t think that would make our email go any faster.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Okay. Here’s the scoop the U.S. Senate is on board. They have agreed to move forward with a new round of military base closings that the U.S. House has already signed onto. These will be closings of bases that the military itself regards as obsolete. Now a special panel will meet to decide which bases should be shut down. Then the Congress must vote up or down on these recommendations, which means the closings will probably go through.

This bill’s passage is thus a victory for the common good over crass special-interest politics. Still, it passed by the narrow margin of 53 votes to 47 votes. So even with national security at stake, it seems that the career politicians are still protecting their reelection prospects. Which political party you belong to seems almost irrelevant. Actually, in this case most Senate Democrats sided with the Republican President, who favors the base closings. As does his Secretary of Defense. As does the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Harry Shelton, who argued that the country “cannot afford the costs associated with carrying this excess infrastructure.”

Yet most Senate Republicans opposed the bill, apparently more worried about the immediate economic impact in their backyard than the long-run impact on national security. As Minority Leader Trent Lott put it, “The timing is not good.” Lott says that the base closings are too much to ask of local communities at a time when their boys are being called upon to defend the country. Um . . . But that is the point, right? Defending the country.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.