Common Sense with Paul Jacob

Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler recently won an upset victory for the Republican nomination for governor of New Jersey over former Congressman Bob Franks.

I can say good things about Bob Franks. He supported term limits in Congress and even set a limit on his own time in office. He campaigned on establishing a citizen initiative process where New Jersey voters could truly take charge of their government. But political analysts suggest Franks wasn’t credible on those issues, in no small part because he had the support of Governor Donald DiFrancesco and the GOP establishment who simply could not be trusted.

Republicans took control of the New Jersey Legislature a decade ago promising to enact term limits, voter initiative, and other reforms. But once in power, Republicans turned on the people. Term limits had passed the House and was ready to be taken up by the Senate, with enough votes lined up, when Senate President DiFrancesco pulled it from the calendar. The Senate never voted on the issue. DiFrancesco himself had been the frontrunner for the gubernatorial nomination until several months ago when his unethical dealings as township attorney in Scotch Plains became public. He was forced to pull out of the race for governor. That’s why DiFrancesco is the real loser in the election along with his rusty GOP machine. After Schundler’s victory, Governor DiFrancesco even refused to endorse his fellow Republican. That may, in fact, prove to be another big boost to Schundler’s candidacy.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

We hear a great deal about money corrupting politics these days. But Paul Farago, with the Cascade Policy Institute, says politics is corrupting money.

He points out that much of the problem is created by politicians dispensing special favors or threatening to bludgeon the market to shake down contributions from various economic interests. Farago writes: “The total amount spent in elections is insignificant when compared to the economic value of laws and rules that favor particular interests. For example, spending on federal elections over the last two years amounted to about $2.5 billion . . . During the same period, the U.S. government spent about $3.25 trillion: roughly 1,300 times more money.” Farago is right: Politics corrupts money.

In the 1992 election cycle, Microsoft gave only $50,000 in political donations. But after an aggressive campaign by the Clinton Justice Department to tear the company apart, Microsoft felt it had to start ponying up big-time to save its neck. It gave over $4.5 million dollars in the 2000 election cycle a 9,000 percent increase. Farago says Congress is supposed to provide for the welfare of all citizens, not discriminate in favor of a few, nor function as a shakedown artist intimidating those with deep pockets.

Our political leaders are supposed to apply the principle of equality under the law. Politicians don’t need any new laws to stop corruption especially laws that allow incumbents to squelch criticism and regulate those who would oppose them. They need only follow the law and not be corrupt. That’s not too much to ask, is it?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Who is the most powerful man in all the galaxy? Why, Alan Greenspan of course, the chairman of the Federal Reserve. He’s twirling the dials of the whole U.S. economy. He’s scanning the indicators and figuring out where the economy has been and where it’s going. Where we’ve all been . . . where we’re all going. Are things too sluggish? Al will give it a goose, with a half-point interest rate cut here, half-point there, half-point everywhere. Easy money to keep everybody happy, everybody investing.

Uh oh. Now there’s some “overheating.” Hey, don’t worry . . . Al’s under the hood, checking the carburetor and nudging that interest rate back up. Are we saving or spending too much, too little? Don’t worry, Al is there to prod us in the right direction. Al will save us.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Mr. Greenspan is a smart guy. Anybody who can spout all that jargon the way our four-term Fed chairman does, has got to be pretty brainy. Greenspan is a trained economist who worked many years as a consultant in the private sector before he started spinning dials for the government. When he speaks publicly about the economy, he’s often right. But Alan Greenspan is just one guy. And our economy is very big, very complex, very various.

The totality cannot be conveyed in any one set of statistics, nor planned by any one mind. So maybe there shouldn’t be any single captain at the economic helm. Maybe it should be up to each of us where the economy goes. And maybe we’d do just fine.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Is it all over, finally? Bill Gates and Microsoft have had a tough time. They’ve been in the courts for umpteen years now, hounded for alleged breaches of anti-trust law. Anti-trust law is so fuzzy that even ever-lower prices and higher productivity can’t save you from the charge of harming the consumer.

In the present case, Microsoft was charged with such heinous crimes as “bundling” one part of its technology with another part of technology. Like combining shoelaces with shoes, or cars with tires. The kind of thing consumers like because it makes life easier for them. Microsoft was also accused of signing contracts with terms that some of its competitors didn’t like.

There is, of course, a big difference between violating a contract that both parties have agreed to and abiding by a contract both parties have agreed to. Needless to say, if a business partner believes Microsoft has violated a contract, he can take Microsoft to court and seek redress without any involvement of the Justice Department. And that has happened. But the Justice Department sued Microsoft not to deal with any such specific alleged wrong, but just because competitors like Netscape and AOL wanted to bring Microsoft down a peg or two. And last year, a vindictive judge even ordered a punitive breakup of the company.

That’s right. Ordered its destruction. For being too successful. An appeals court has now reversed that order and sent the case back to be retried. Let’s hope the new Justice Department will drop the case, and let Microsoft get back to work.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Do we really have the right to free speech? Our campaign finance laws, and the “burdens” they impose on First Amendment rights of free speech and free association are often justified by the courts because of what the courts call “the compelling state interest” in combating “corruption and the appearance of corruption.” That’s more compelling than freedom or even “the appearance” of freedom, apparently. S

et aside, for the moment, the notion that government may trash our most fundamental political rights if they think they have a “compelling” reason. Let’s consider another awfully strange legal principle, namely, that we can enact laws designed to outlaw the “appearance” of something or other.

What’s next? Laws outlawing the appearance of fraud, robbery, assault, murder? You’re not supposed to go to jail unless you really committed the crime. Of course, if we actually went by appearances, we’d have to lock up most of official Washington. Even the career politicians tell us the system is corrupt, that something must be done. But corruption isn’t so mysterious. It involves politicians shaking down economic interests or doing their bidding to get campaign contributions that will ensure their political careers. Yet congressmen who violate House rules or campaign finance laws are often given a slap on the wrist. They refuse to effectively regulate themselves, but want to regulate the rest of us.

Voters want politicians to change their actual behavior, not their apparent behavior. And we don’t need to pass a law for that one . . . well, maybe term limits.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

I love it when the enemies of term limits make the case for term limits for me. Because then I just have to quote their own words and I can take the rest of the day off. Consider the Portland Press Herald, a newspaper which says the Maine House of Representatives showed “real leadership,” quote-unquote, by calling unsuccessfully for a statewide vote to repeal term limits.

Career politicians who want to repeal term limits? Gee, that’s a profile in courage. The political scientists at the Herald also say that term limits prolong terms rather than limit them, because now challengers wait until the term limit kicks in before daring to compete for the seat. Hoo boy, that’s a good one. As if incumbents never had a lock on their districts prior to term limits. I guess the Herald thinks it would be best if challengers had to wait until incumbents die or retire.

Then, get this, the Herald says Maine needs somebody outside of politics to run the anti-term-limits campaign, the way Maine had somebody outside politics running the pro-term-limits campaign back in the early 1990s. As the Herald puts it, quote, “If the repeal campaign is to succeed, another outsider that the public will trust will have to lead it.” Uh . . . you don’t mean to suggest, do you, Portland Press Herald, that career politicians can’t be trusted? That when you really want something done that has credibility with the public, you need to get an “inexperienced” citizen legislator to do it . . . ? Gosh, that sort of sounds like a point in favor of term limits, doesn’t it? Hey, glad you’re on our side.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Doug Hart is worried. The Michigan state representative is worried that after legislators grabbed a 36 percent pay raise more than 20,000 smackers the voters won’t agree to change Michigan’s term limits law allowing these highly-paid politicians to stay in power twice as long.

Voter and grandmother Pat Endres said, “Every time I think about [the pay raise], I get angry about it all over again. I’d have liked to go in and fire them all . . .” Still, Hart is pushing ahead with a measure to gut term limits. His carrot for voters is to give back about half the money the politicians stole through the pay raise scam. Hart says, “If the public agrees to allow legislators to stick around another six years, it’s only appropriate we do things differently.”

Let me get this straight. What this guy is saying is, “We’ll give back at least some of the money we stole in such an underhanded way through that massive pay raise, but only if you let us kill term limits so we can continue running the government.” What chutzpah! Voter Steven Zolnierek isn’t fooled. He points out, “It doesn’t address the current thievery. What they need to do is give their whole pay raise back.” And he says term limits are a done deal that the politicians should not tamper with. “We don’t need professional politicians,” he states. “They’re the ones ruining everything by protecting their friends and special interests and businesses.” Politician Hart says that under term limits, “Voters are not getting their money’s worth . . .” You can say that again especially after that 36 percent pay raise, eh?

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

class=”medBr”>Well, whoop-de-do. To show how benevolent they are about giving us back a few dollars of our own money, the IRS is sending a letter saying the check is on the way, and ain’t it grand?

They say they must send us this letter to explain how the amount was calculated. What it really sounds like is more taxpayer-funded campaign propaganda, this time for the Bush Administration. Let’s accept for the sake of argument that it’s crucial to tell folks why they’re getting the $300 or $600 rebate check. And that you need to get a separate little check instead of simply being charged a lower tax next time you fill out a 1040.

Can’t the feds just include the explanation with the check itself, maybe on a little slip of paper? Here’s another rhetorical question: What’s the cost of this cheesy self-congratulatory communiqu? Oh, IRS spokesman Frank Keith has no idea. But we’re talking about 91.6 million sheets of paper, 91.6 million envelopes, 91.6 million units of postage. And somebody’s got to stuff all those envelopes, right? I’m sure they had that guy working overtime, at union wages. If you don’t grasp the irony here, let me spell it out.

You the taxpayer are being forced to fund a wasteful mailing to yourself saying that you’re going to get some of your own money back. But in the long run, the only way you can keep more of your own money is if the government stops wasting so much of it on things like this wasteful mailing. Do you see? It is very ironic.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

You know, I consider myself quite the authority when it comes to all the scurvy tricks that the career politicians use to try to thwart and undermine the people. . . . But today I want to turn the podium over to a patriotic citizen out in Gig Harbor, Washington, who is also quite expert on the topic of conniving careerists.

Doug Vandervelde wrote a letter to the editor of the Seattle Times , responding to typical feeble arguments about why the career politicians should be allowed to ride roughshod over the rest of us. Doug said, “The wannabee ruling class includes many judges, bureaucrats, professional politicians, big-business power brokers and their lobbyists, and virtually all the media, who like easy access to . . . ‘safe’ and predictable permanent legislators.

Term limits are indeed a ‘distinct threat’ to these power elites.” Doug goes on to point out that the power grabbers do their best to ignore the people whenever the people fail to support something that’s demanded by the power grabbers. That might be public funding of a sports stadium, yet another tax hike, even the destruction of term limits.

If ‘We the People’ vote no, the politicians try to push us to keep voting the same question over and over again until we’re just too tired to resist the power grab. That’s their game plan, anyway. Too often, instead of seeking to represent their constituents, the politicians plot to outmaneuver them. And term limits make that tougher. That’s why Doug and you and me love term limits, but the politicians want to bury them.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.