Common Sense with Paul Jacob

Looks like our presidential candidates keep flunking their foreign policy exams. Question is, how much do we care?

Weeks ago, Governor George Bush failed a reporter’s pop quiz. He could name the leader of Taiwan but not the leaders of Chechnya, India, or Pakistan. More recently, a reporter tripped up Senator John McCain. McCain couldn’t recall the name of the Prime Minister of Ireland.

Of course, we do want Presidents who are knowledgeable. But they don’t need to be walking almanacs. There are plenty of smart people in the presidential race-​even those who don’t quiz so well. But the most important job requirement is strength of character. Yes, that’s right. Character. We voters care about honesty and integrity, and with good reason. Voters know that it makes a difference in times of trouble. Voters are looking for a person of character. To most Americans this means someone outside of Washington, or at least someone battling against the capital’s leaders.

Vice-​President Gore has lost so much ground against Bill Bradley, who is viewed as more of an outsider, that Gore moved his campaign headquarters out of Washington, DC to Nashville, Tennessee. Bradley recently chirped, “Only those who have never left Washington have missed the lessons of the last decade.” Maybe it is a good thing if a candidate can rattle off the names of foreign heads of state. But folks really want the next president to know a little bit more about America that is, outside of the Washington Beltway.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

One thing you can say about the political establishment in Washington is that at least they’re consistent. They consistently ignore what the American people think.

Consider public funding, or matching funds, given to presidential candidates. The program just doesn’t work. And the American people know it though Washington, DC isn’t paying much attention. First, the matching funds candidates were supposed to get aren’t there. Candidates are going to receive only half of the funds they were promised by the federal government. And why aren’t the funds available? Because the people don’t support the presidential matching funds program. Only 14 percent of taxpayers marked the box to provide public funds to presidential candidates, even though doing so doesn’t increase what a taxpayer owes the IRS. If 86 percent of Americans don’t support the program, why don’t our Washington representatives end it? Oh, I forgot they don’t listen to us.

The matching funds program certainly doesn’t help voters. Those who can raise enough money ignore the system. Those who can’t and feel they need the taxpayer funds to be competitive must agree to limit their communications to voters. How on earth does that give us better information? It doesn’t. It’s not surprising though. The campaign finance system is designed for the benefit of career politicians, not voters.

When it comes to presidential public funding, the politicians aren’t listening, but the voters have already spoken. No match.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Don’t feel too bad if you didn’t get your representative in Congress a Christmas present. Because the congressmen gave themselves a big one-​with your money. Yes, another pay raise. They’ll stroll into the new millenium pulling down a cool $140,000 minimum. Happy holidays.

More than 80 percent of Americans think congressional pay should be cut, not boosted. Yet the career politicians ignore the people and pad their own pockets anyway. This latest pay hike blatantly disregards the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits Congress from increasing their compensation without first facing the voters in a new election.

Back in 1989, a midnight pay raise was made possible by a signed agreement between the Republican and Democratic parties. They agreed to take the pay raise issue off the table in the campaign. Any candidate who failed to play along would lose the financial support of his party. A Democratic challenger who might have narrowly beaten Newt Gingrich in 1990 attacked Newt’s pay raise vote. He lost the election by less than a thousand votes when his own party cut off his funding.

The debate over congressional pay has helped draw a clear distinction between two very different kinds of congressmen. Those serving under self-​imposed term limits nearly all oppose raising congressional pay. But the professional politicians keep scheming to enrich themselves with pay, perks and million-​dollar pensions. They make up the self-​gifting Congress. Ho, ho, ho.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game. Old-​fashioned I know, but I think it’s right. Don’t care any less about winning. The point is to care most about playing by a high standard, which makes winning truly worthwhile.

Today, too often, we see a different standard in play: win at all costs. My team right or wrong. This morally degrades our society. Many Republicans were amazed that the country didn’t stand up behind them in the impeachment and trial of President Clinton. But polls throughout the scandal showed that most voters thought Mr. Clinton’s morality was about average for politicians in Washington. Had those in Congress held any true moral authority with the public it might have gone differently.

Take George Nethercutt from Washington State. He said Clinton should resign for breaking his word and misleading the country. But then Nethercutt broke his commitment to the voters to step down after three terms. Illegal Chinese money poured into the 1996 Clinton/​Gore campaign. We were shocked by it, but again there was no trust in Congress to investigate. Similar illegalities occurred in Republican Jay Kim’s 1992 race. A third of his campaign funds came from illegal contributions. Yet GOP leaders didn’t expel him; they supported him. Rep. David Drier said, “His plight has not diminished his effectiveness here in Congress.” What a rotten bunch! Given a choice, Americans will rally to those who play the game with honor and justice. Given a choice.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Mark Twain was a smart man. You know he didn’t like Congress very much. “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress,” Twain once said.

Well, the more things change the more they stay the same. A new report by the journalists at Capitol Hill Blue, an Internet site, details a large amount of criminal behavior by our esteemed representatives in Congress. They report that in recent years members of Congress have gone to jail for child molestation, fraud and other charges. Some of the stories belong in Ripley’s “Believe-​It-​or-​Not.” Did you know that Rep. Barney Frank’s roommate ran a prostitution ring out of their Washington townhouse? The report goes on to say 29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse. Twenty-​seven have a record for drunk driving. Nineteen members have been accused of writing bad checks. Eight have been arrested for shoplifting, seven for fraud, four for theft, three for assault and one for criminal trespass.

Even after surviving the millenium, it’s enough to make you want to head for the hills. Sure, some go to Washington to cash in on a career riding the gravy train. But there are those who don’t. Those who come to serve for a limited time and then return home. They are far less likely to sink into corrupt activity. So don’t give up. Southern Illinois University political scientist George Harleigh says the answer is simple, “Congressional service should be just that service, not a career.”

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

The millenium: it’s not this New Year’s Day, as the media’s been telling us, but next year January 1, 2001. So rather than grapple with a thousand years of history, why not consider this decade. It’s the term limits decade.

So far in the 90’s, term limits have been placed on 18 state legislatures from zero state legislators to over 40 percent term-​limited. Local term limits have swept the country capping over 3,000 officials including those in 8 of the 10 largest cities in the nation. Seventy-​six percent of governors are now under term limits along with many other statewide offices.

Term limits have been around since the Ancient Greeks and Romans an idea as old as democracy itself. But the modern term limits movement is a babe in the woods, not even a decade old yet. It began in 1990 when citizens won initiatives in three states California, Colorado and Oklahoma. Since then term limits have become what one newspaper calls “a mild form of permanent revolution.” The impact of term limits at the state and local level is being felt. Over 400 legislative seats will fall under term limits for the first time next year. More seats will follow in 2002 and 2004.

The fabulous 50’s are remembered for cars with fins and sock hops, the turbulent 60’s for protest and social change, the 70’s for inflation and disco music, the 80’s saw the Cold War end. But the 90’s this is the term limits decade.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

We’re a nation of laws, not men. Before the American Revolution, men were ruled by other men. Mankind’s struggle for freedom has been a battle to place all men under the law so that no one could rule others. That’s why in America, presidents unlike kings can’t pass laws by decree.

Or can they? Presidents can issue executive orders to tell the executive branch agencies the bureaucracy how to implement the laws passed by Congress. In theory, these executive orders cannot establish new laws. But many fear in reality that’s exactly what’s happening. The President is pursuing an ‘executive order strategy.’ Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt admits, “We’ve switched the rules of the game. We’re not trying to do anything legislatively.” Presidential advisor Paul Begala smugly told The New York Times , “Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool.” No, it’s not cool. One man changing the law unilaterally isn’t conducive to freedom.

The crusty old politicians in Congress, looking always to their personal political well being, ignore the president usurping their constitutional powers. But Representative Jack Metcalf of Washington is fighting to protect the rule of law. He’s introduced legislation to stop executive orders from masquerading as laws thus restoring the separation of powers our founders established. Metcalf is not a career politician angling for a safe slot in Washington. He’s limited himself to three terms. Thus the Constitution matters more to him than playing Washington politics. Now that’s cool.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

To prove their relevance to us, career politicians try to address whatever problems are on the minds of voters. But in doing so, the Washington politicians only show how irrelevant they really are.

Parents care about education; it’s a top issue. So before Congress adjourned for the year, they passed legislation to fund 100,000 new teachers. Boy, how nice of them! What good guys!

But wait a second, the federal government doesn’t run a single school. They don’t directly hire a single classroom teacher. So why on earth should we parents and taxpayers send our money all the way to Washington? The federal government only returns a small part of it to our local communities.

Why not simply cut federal taxes and let us set our own educational priorities locally? Simple.

Once our tax money flows to Washington, the professional politicians want to keep it. Our tax dollars are the source of their power. Career congressmen aren’t about to give back any of their power. Only term-​limited representatives, who have shunned longtime careers as powerbrokers, have the courage to champion the taxpayers over the political elite. Heaven knows there are a lot more direct ways to squander our tax dollars, but Congress wants the power that comes from control.

To really solve our problems, we need to get the career politicians in Congress out of the way and make decisions back home where we live.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

My wife and I had children because we wanted to hold those bundles of joy, to hear that pitter-​patter of little feet, to tackle the challenges of a teenager. Well, not so much the last, but we’ll deal with it.

We certainly didn’t take federal tax policy into account. No one should be making decisions about marriage and family on the basis of the tax code. And politicians shouldn’t have the power to alter our plans, our families.

But that’s what they seek to do when they manipulate the tax code. Get ready voters are about to be hit with all kinds of special tax proposals. Proposals to reward marriage, punish marriage, reward having children, punish having children, reward us for staying home with our kids and reward us for sticking our kids in day care.

Where will it end? And is it really any business of the federal government?

Career politicians in Washington think so. They want your vote so they offer to alter the tax code to your advantage. The next moment they suggest changes for another group’s interest. The winners? Politicians who confiscate ever more influence over our most personal and important decisions.

When it comes to marriage, having children and caring for them, people should choose from what’s in their hearts and NOT what government will take, or not take, out of their pockets. Politicians should cut taxes across the board instead of trying to manipulate our behavior as if we were lab rats. Career politicians in Washington need to know that when it comes to our families, we do it for love, not money. Our kids are too important.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.