Common Sense with 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.