Common Sense with Paul Jacob

Astronomers are jumping up and down for joy. They’re ecstatic! They’ve got solid confirmation now that there is a black hole at the center of the galaxy. Hey, great.

A black hole is a stellar object that has become so dense that nothing in its path can escape its gravitational pull. Not heat, not light, not anything. That’s why they call it a black hole . . . it is just a lightless abyss. And, for that reason, very hard to detect from far away. Because of all the closely packed matter you’d expect in pretty much any galactic core, astronomers have long assumed there must be such a black hole in the middle of our own Milky Way. But now they can actually detect it. A NASA satellite observatory happened to be looking in the right direction when an intense x-ray flare erupted, the kind that would be produced when a black hole is chewing something up. As I say, the astronomers are dancing in the streets over this. Well, I’m happy for them, I guess.

But, is this really such a big deal? I mean, it’s not as if there’s never been a black hole sighting before. These guys gotta get out more. I’ve seen this phenomenon many times. Maybe not in its astronomical form but certainly in the political one. It’s called the ego of the career politician. It’s called the U.S. Capitol. It’s called Washington, D.C. What it is, is a huge and lightless void that sucks up the wallets and hopes of humble citizens, at a ravenous pace. And, there’s no hope of ever escaping. Or at least, that’s what they’d like you to think.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

What’s the best way to help a man when he’s down? Kick him? That’s what some folks in Washington seem to be saying. They say that with the economy weakening a bit lately, Bush made a big mistake giving us a few of our own bucks back. They say the only way for the government to put its financial affairs in order is to grab even more of our hard-earned money. Kick us when we’re down.

But making it harder for productive citizens to pay the bills doesn’t help the economy. After all, working folks are what make the economy. If Washington really wants to help us, why not start by taking their hands out of our pockets?

Listen to David Williams of Citizens Against Government Waste. According to Williams, “It’s the spending, stupid!” There’s plenty of bloat in our multi-trillion dollar federal budget that could easily be slashed and hacked, if only our so-called leaders put their minds to it.

As the Cato Institute notes, corporate welfare alone adds up to some $87 billion in the current federal budget. All it would take to get rid of that and all the pork and all the other dubious spending is a little common sense, a lot of political willpower, and a big pair of scissors.

One of the few congressmen who gets it is Ron Paul of Texas. “There is a lot of room in a two or three trillion dollar budget to cut spending,” Paul points out. “That’s what’s best for the economy, to cut spending and taxes at the same time.”

What? Cut them both? At the same time? Now that’s a kick!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

I am not a perfect man. For example, I’m behind in my reading. I’ve got a stack of books yea high on my desk, and some of those books have pages. I can’t keep up with it.

As I say, I’m not a perfect man. But at least I try not to make other people suffer as a result of my delinquency. Not so much can be said about our lords and masters in the nation’s capital. Our congressmen also have a lot of reading to do. But they never really get around to perusing all the legislation they pass before they pass it. Not all the way through. There is just too much of it, with too many clauses and sub-clauses. This is pretty mind-numbing stuff.

One result is that really nasty provisions sometimes get tucked into the bills, unconstitutional assaults on our freedom which few people know about, not even most of the congressmen, until it’s way too late. An example is a federally-mandated national database that is supposed to keep tabs of your every visit to the doctor, including what you thought was confidential conversation about your medical problems.

The mandate for this database was imposed by the 106th Congress, along with a lot of other haphazard track-and-spy provisions. What, you never heard of this database? Behind on your reading, huh? Well, I just found out about it myself. I am not a perfect man. And I don’t know everything about everything. But one thing I do know is that if our legislators can’t take the trouble to read the legislation before they vote for it, they shouldn’t vote for it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Some folks are rethinking our controversial drug laws. But while polls show more than a quarter of Americans now favor decriminalizing marijuana, not one of the 535 folks who represent us in Congress agrees. At least, no one has introduced meaningful legislation or come forward to champion this cause. And while initiatives in various states are legalizing marijuana for medical purposes and moving away from incarceration, federal penalties for drug offenses continue to get more and more draconian.

I don’t mean to comment here on the merits of our nation’s drug policies, or lack thereof. All I’m saying is that, yet again, we aren’t being well represented because our political system has been monopolized by career politicians. The system is stagnant because careerists are unwilling to take political risks for what they believe in.

New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is pushing for changes in the drug laws even though he knows it is not an immediately popular stand. He tells Rolling Stone magazine that he’s living proof of the virtues of term limits: “Would I have brought this issue out if I thought I could be elected to a third term?” he asks. “I don’t know. In the first term, I talked about the failure of the Drug War and that arresting people isn’t going to work. But it wasn’t until the second term that I made a conscious decision to turn up the volume and search out some solutions.”

Quite a telling admission. And whether or not you agree with Governor Johnson on the drug issue, surely there’s something wrong when our representatives run from important issues and play it safe.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

In my view, taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to subsidize criminal behavior. Would you agree with me on that? Yet that is what’s happening.

Maybe you’ve heard how law officers get to keep some of the money they grab from drug-trafficking suspects. No evidence or trial is required. Empowered by anti-racketeering and other laws, they can just snag the goods at will.

But that’s not all. Social workers now have a financial incentive to kidnap children. That’s what a Massachusetts couple, Heidi and Neil Howard, found out when their first baby girl was born terminally ill. A social worker pushed her way into their home and found it in disorder. The kitchen was being remodeled, and there was a lot of tension in the air, possibly the kind of tension associated with having a terminally ill baby. Social workers told Heidi that if she didn’t sign a complaint against her husband, she could lose her two sons. Then they used that signed complaint to take her two sons.

More and more, agencies are conniving to break up families. Feminist writer Wendy McElroy says the Adoption and Safe Families Act, passed by Congress in 1997, deserves a lot of the blame. The Act awards a “finder’s fee” of up to $4,000 to agencies that adopt out a child. Of course, to adopt out a child, you first need to have a child in tow, ready to go.

Taxpayer-funded payoffs alone won’t turn cops into robbers or child protection specialists into kidnappers. There has to be a certain lack of moral scruples also. But you know, the payoffs don’t exactly help, either.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Amazing. It’s happened before. But so infrequently that you want to grab the people involved by the shoulders and shout, “Hey! Good job! That’s what journalism is supposed to do: Report facts!”

I’m talking about an article in the Philadelphia Daily News that explains why it’s so hard to reform the Pennsylvania legislature: Incumbents in Pennsylvania rule the roost virtually unchallenged. The Daily News notes that only five seats out of 203 are now regarded as competitive. The culture of incumbency “breeds an isolated, insulated body eating millions of tax dollars each year, spending billions more without the scrutiny we give TV sit-coms.” Add all the charges and convictions for drunken driving, bribery, spousal abuse and the like, and it’s not a very pretty picture.

How to shake up the status quo? Here’s where the Daily News loses a few of its laurels. The paper says that campaign money is what’s to blame for super-high reelection rates. But Eric O’Keefe, President of Americans for Limited Terms, has studied the election, and he says, “it’s the low spenders who are most entrenched.”

O’Keefe agrees that party bosses can extort money when they have to, and throw it at the few contested races. But the question is, why are so many races uncontested to begin with? The real problem here is the power of incumbents to crimp competition and stave off reform, even without huge campaign coffers. To tackle that problem at the root, you need term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Onion pungency. Ornamental fish. Cranberry breeding. How to de-bone salmon.  Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against food. I just don’t think the nation’s taxpayers should be spending millions of dollars on onion pungency studies and anti-salmon-bone technology.

Our career congressmen no doubt disagree. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, over the past year our congressmen have splurged more than $1.7 billion on federal grants for just such academic projects, earmarked for the home districts of powerful legislators. In other words: pork. Something to serve up to a particular interest group in your district to help flavor the reelection bid.

Academic pork is, in fact, 60 percent fatter than it was just a year earlier. Can we be sure it’s pork? Well, let’s think about this. Nine of ten states that got the most grant money happen to have legislators heading up the relevant congressional committees. Meanwhile, nine of ten states at the bottom of the grant heap have no committee heads in their congressional delegations. This is the kind of pattern you expect to see when career politicians are putting personal careers ahead of the common good.

For example, New Hampshire wasn’t doing very well in the academic pork area until Congressman Judd Gregg became top dog of a subcommittee overseeing the Commerce and Justice Departments. Now Dartmouth is getting an $18 million earmark to study cybercrime and the University of New Hampshire is getting $14 million for a marine lab and a pier. Sounds fishy to me.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Do term limits help? I mean, do they really, really help our political leaders behave in a more responsible manner?

Well, my goodness they would have to, at least insofar as they show the door to the most corrupt careerists and make way for new people, more idealistic people. If you have some actual electoral competition in your democracy, that’s got to help some, don’t you think?

But is there anything more specific we can point to in the term-limits track record? Well, yes, there’s plenty. For one thing, it turns out that the state legislatures that have been term-limited for a while are now more willing to put a lid on out-of-control taxing and spending.

In an article for the Cato Institute, Michael New points out that term-limited legislatures in California, Maine, Colorado and Oregon have each enacted tax cuts that have surprised long-time observers. And the Montana statehouse, which has just seen a big influx of freshmen legislators, has passed a Tax and Expenditure Limitation bill that will be one of the toughest in the country if it becomes law. In Colorado, taxes were curbed by the same initiative process that brought term limits to that state, forcing the state government to hand back $2.3 billion to taxpayers over the space of just a few years. Colorado’s tax cut of 3.4 percent was the largest among the Rocky Mountain states, just as Maine’s 3.8 percent tax cut was the largest among New England states.

Term limits can’t bring tax limits all by themselves, of course. But gee, they sure do seem to help.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Shocker! This just in from Oklahoma . . . the career politicians there want to kill term limits!

Oh, I know . . . big surprise, right? But the anti-social attitude of the career politicians still appalls me every time I hear tell of it. It seems career politicians are all in favor of electoral competition and suchlike, right up until the minute revitalized democracy threatens to loosen their hammerlock on power.

There is a new twist now in Oklahoma. You see, in virtually all the term-limited states, citizens have capped service at six or eight years. And when the career politicians in those states realize that they can’t get away with getting rid of term limits altogether, they often talk instead about “strengthening” term limits, as they call it. Often what they mean is extending the limits, say from eight years to twelve years.

Well, anyway, the twist in Oklahoma is that the politicians there already have their twelve years, and that’s still too brief a candle for the careerists. Twelve years is still not enough time to find the bathroom, they say. Oklahoma’s term limits don’t even take effect until 2004, but the careerists want to kill the limits right now, before they have a chance to get off the ground.

The politicians have friends in a group called the Association of County Commissioners. Apparently the county commissioners in Oklahoma would rather deal with the same good old boys they’ve known all along than have to contend with fresh faces and fresh ideas. But I’m betting Oklahoma’s citizens will make clear that the term limits in their state are here to stay. And maybe even could use a little trimming.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Several years ago at a news conference, a reporter got confused and thought I’d advocated term limits for the media, you know, in addition to politicians. I told him we weren’t advocating such limits for the press, but nonetheless he ought not mention the idea above a whisper for fear it would take off.

Today, there are term limits on 19 state legislatures and 38 governors, but, of course, there are no limits for the media and nobody seriously advocating them. Yet, there are self-limiters in the media. Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot is leaving Washington of his own accord, and sounding a lot like a citizen legislator.

Gigot says about our capitol city, “It is horribly seductive . . . there is no more parochial place in America. Most of the city’s intrigues, which can seem so compelling, count for little in the end. . . . I started out trying to cover Washington the way a foreign correspondent would, trying to explain the bizarre native rituals to the rest of America. But the longer one stays here, the harder that is to do. Covering the city can lead to tunnel vision that focuses on political tactics and trivia over substance. I’ve sometimes found myself falling into that trap, a sign that some distance is in order.”

Gigot concludes, “The imperative of the political class is to accumulate even more power. Politicians don’t arrive here corrupt, or at least most don’t, but the attraction of power is corrupting to all but the hardiest souls.”

Paul Gigot, lessons learned, is headed to New York to become editor of the Journal ‘s editorial page. Good luck to him.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.