Common Sense with Paul Jacob

I’ve worked with people in the Reform Party, good people who want to bring about much needed reform of our political system. That’s why it’s sad to watch the Party split in two, with shouting and shoving matches. I suspect that one catalyst of the crack-up has been the free money that the federal government will bestow on the party’s presidential candidate.

Honey attracts bees and money attracts quite a few different species. The Federal Election Commission will now decide which one of the two sides of the Reform Party gets $12.6 million of our tax dollars as part of the federal matching funds program. But to me that raises the question: is the Reform Party choosing its presidential nominee or is the Federal Election Commission?

Whichever side is “chosen” by the FEC gets all the dough more money than will be raised by Ralph Nader, the Libertarian Party and all other third parties combined. Of course, the Republicans and Democrats get five times as much tax money, which is somehow “fair.” (By the way, hats off to both the Libertarian and Taxpayers Parties for refusing government funding.)

And here’s a perverse twist: The same FEC that allows Republicans and Democrats to break the debate rules and shut out the Reform candidate and other third party nominees, will now decide exactly who is the Reform Party candidate. Let’s even the playing field, but giving away free money isn’t the way. Some cures are worse than the disease.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

One of the reasons Americans are so fond of term limits is that once in office politicians change right before our eyes.

The longer a person stays in Congress, the more they vote for higher taxes and more spending. There’s logic there. The more you, as a congressman, think of taxes as money you get to spend, rather than just something you have to pay, the more apt you are to favor higher taxes.

Every tax dollar increases the political clout of politicians, meaning they can do more for or against various interests and thus ever more people come to them for special favors. Perhaps that’s why, according to a new study by the Cato Institute, the Republicans in control of Congress are increasing non-defense federal spending at the fastest clip in 20 years.

Yes, many of those who campaigned to put the federal government on a diet are now voting to make it dramatically fatter. Congressmen who self-impose term limits remain consistently for lower taxes and less government spending.

But those pursuing a political career, even when they start out as budget-cutters, soon change. When you’re a career politician when, in effect, you become the government big government isn’t such a bad thing. Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute says, “The dirty little secret is that there are two big government parties in Washington.” Moore is right. The only political leaders consistently on the side of smaller government are those who live by term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

The Republican National Convention in Philadelphia was billed as “inclusive.” But there was one issue that was excluded from the gala event and ever so quietly ripped out of the party’s platform: term limits.

It’s not that term limits aren’t popular. They are popular not only with grassroots Republicans, but with 3 of 4 Americans across every demographic group. No, the problem with term limits is that the GOP elite despises them.

Now comfortably in power, they plan to use incumbency to entrench themselves just like the Democrats they replaced. In 1994, Republicans won a House majority for the first time in 40 years by only seven seats. They did so by embracing term limits and winning reform-minded independents as well as energizing their base. But the longtime politicians in Congress were never enthusiastic. As Rep. Mark Sanford points out, “Only when shown polling data . . . on the power of the issue did Republican congressional leaders reluctantly change their minds. The [polls] made clear not only that term limits pulled higher favorable numbers than any other issue in the Contract, but that including a term limit provision could make the difference in as many as 15 House races enough to put the GOP in control of the House for the first time in four decades.” When they won a majority in Congress it was thanks to term limits.

Can Republicans keep that majority with the slogan, “When in Washington do as the career politicians do”?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

President Clinton says he’ll veto the tax cut Congress passed eliminating the marriage penalty. He says such a tax cut is not responsible, that the government can’t afford to lose that money. Sounds like the president is serious about fiscal responsibility, doesn’t it?

Actually, Clinton just wants to make a deal. The deal is this: Clinton will sign off on what he terms a “fiscally irresponsible” tax cut but only if Republicans will agree to Clinton’s new entitlement program on prescription drugs, which they believe is too expensive. In other words, it’s the usual Washington deal: I’ll agree to your reckless fiscal programs if you agree to mine.

Who will fight for a better deal for millions of average taxpayers? Rep. Mark Sanford will. He’s a citizen legislator who has pledged to term-limit himself to six years in Congress. In his new book, The Trust Committed To Me , Mark says gridlock is preferable to the budget agreements of career politicians. “For thirty years lawmakers in Washington were willing to agree on pretty much any budget as long as they got out in time for evening cocktails.”

The result? It takes every single individual tax return filed west of the Mississippi just to pay the interest on the national debt. The career politicians spend money hand over fist to win votes today and let future generations worry about paying the bills tomorrow. Citizen legislators have no career plans that get in the way of doing what’s right. That’s a better deal.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Antonio Feliciano was fired from his job at 7-Eleven the other day. Was he showing up late? Watering down too many slurpees? Nope. Mr. Feliciano stopped a robbery attempt.

He may well have saved his own life and the lives of others in the store. 7-Eleven officials say disarming the robber goes against company policy, which states clerks should just hand over the dough rather than risk their lives for the store.

7-Eleven is worried about lawsuits, of course. When the woman who tried to rob the store pointed her gun at a cashier and cocked the trigger, Feliciano did not have time to pore through the 7-Eleven company policy on whether to stand by and do nothing when your co-worker is about to get blown away. Instead, he acted courageously. For his courage he has lost his job, thanks to 7-Eleven’s idiotic “zero tolerance” policy.

Antonio did give the money that was demanded from him. He wasn’t risking his life for the store. But when the robber pointed the gun at Feliciano’s co-worker and cocked the trigger, the thought that flashed in his mind was: “Oh God, I’m never going to see my kids again.” Acting on instinct, he grabbed the gun away from the robber and wrestled her to the ground. Good for you, Antonio Feliciano.

We are turning into a nation that worships victims and punishes heroes. When you think about it, maybe it’s the robber who’s really at fault here. 7-Eleven, give Feliciano his job back. And give him a raise.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

I’m beginning to feel sorry for poor little ole George Nethercutt. His case of Potomac Fever is becoming critical. You remember Mr. Nethercutt of Washington state he’s the fellow who pledged to serve no more than three terms in Congress.

That was three terms ago.

Citizens were so inspired that they defeated 30-year incumbent and House Speaker Tom Foley, sending Nethercutt to Washington in his place. But now Nethercutt is breaking his word to the voters.

Republican officials have generally circled the wagons for their incumbent, but some put principle first. One is former U.S. Senator Bill Armstrong of Colorado. Armstrong honorably served two terms in the Senate and then returned home.

In 1994, Armstrong sent Nethercutt a $1,000 contribution. So this year when Nethercutt broke his pledge, Armstrong was not amused, saying Nethercutt betrayed the very principle that got him elected.

When Rocky Mountain News columnist Peter Blake reported Armstrong’s change of heart, Nethercutt’s political handlers zipped off a quick e-mail berating the columnist: “Check your facts. We have no record of Senator Armstrong ever contributing a dime to this campaign.”

Armstrong forthwith produced the canceled check from 1994. Nethercutt should be embarrassed. But no, his campaign launched another e-mail attack on the columnist. “Flail away . . . no one reads your drivel in Spokane . . . you and your writing will wind up on the ash heap of history.”

The ash heap of history, huh? Perhaps one day Mr. Nethercutt might find a spot there. But then, how would the world ever spin without him?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

One claim made by term limits supporters is that limits will provide more opportunities for women and minorities to play a larger role in the political process. Term limits also promise greater representation.

As a white male, I have nothing against white males, believe me. I also think someone’s principles and policies are what count, not their gender or race. But that’s just one more reason why I love term limits. Let me explain.

Term limits create open seats by not allowing any person to monopolize a seat of power. Open seats are much more competitive because the unfair advantages of incumbency are removed. So rather than “giving” advantages to women or minorities, or drawing districts designed to elect specific minorities, term limits simply open up the process to competition. Term limits allow the marketplace of ideas to create a situation where our representatives are more likely to represent us both in terms of their background and in terms of their goals for the future.

Under term limits, Maine and Oregon elected their first women speakers. Since 1990 when California voters passed term limits, Latino representatives have more than tripled. Says Hilda Solis, a state legislator, “When I came on in the Senate, I was the first Latina. Now, there are five. Never in U.S. history has that happened in such a dramatic fashion and so fast.” No quotas, no preferences, no need for affirmative action. Just fair and competitive elections. Term limits bring diversity the right way.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Isn’t it great when our representatives, both Republicans and Democrats, reach across the aisle and work together? Frankly, no. It seems that the cause that usually brings the career politicians together is grabbing yet another pay raise.

And they’re at it again.

The leadership of both parties has been huddling together to discuss an issue near and dear to their career-oriented hearts. Seems $141,300 just isn’t enough to make ends meet. They need another $4,600. Party bosses agreed not to use the pay raise vote against any member of the opposing party. Challengers who dare raise the issue of the raise will lose all financial and tactical support from their parties.

Majority Leader Dick Armey says: “There is a good faith effort on the part of both leaderships to protect the members.”

Protect the members? For heaven’s sake, from whom? From you, of course. You’re one of those mean ole voters who might hold it against a politician who repeatedly raises his pay against the wishes of 80 percent of the country.

Not only should members of Congress vote no, but they should also follow the great example of Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. As a term limits supporter, Sanford walks the walk by limiting himself to three terms. The same goes for the pay raise. When he failed to stop the last raise, Mark donated that amount to the Treasury to retire some of the $5.6 trillion national debt Congress has run up.

Let your representatives hear from you.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Politics is boring. I can just hear my kids saying that, usually when I’m turning the TV to what they affectionately call “one of Dad’s arguing shows.”

Well, I like a good debate and politics is not boring, doesn’t have to be anyway. Still, I know that most Americans are on my kids’ side, not mine. That’s why it was nice of the folks who produce Monday Night Football to start their program later for a couple weeks. That way we can see some more of the political conventions without missing football.

Boy, politics vs. preseason football, I think we know who wins that battle. Certainly political folks will complain about the public not being involved enough in politics. But it would help convince people that politics isn’t boring if it weren’t in fact so darn boring much of the time. I have to admit that myself.

Take the conventions, please. When I was a kid political conventions were a lot more exciting than they are today. Back then no one knew for sure who would end up on top at the convention. Today everything even the choice for vice-president is known in advance. In the past, presidential campaigns were marathons, not sprints. Delegates were fought for and their support had to be maintained through the convention.

Today, everything is decided within a few weeks of the primaries and delegates just go to party. Perhaps the powers that be like it this way. But it’s not good for democracy. Politics is too important to be boring.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, they say.

But that’s never been the view of our rulers in Washington. Members of Congress have been riding high lately after taking decisive action on campaign finance. They have passed legislation against groups known as 527’s.

In point of fact these profiles in courage did nothing to even the political playing field. They merely attacked speech that might cause some poor voter somewhere to perhaps re-think voting for an incumbent. These groups that run ads talking about candidates and issues are being forced by Congress to disclose their donors.

Think this sounds swell? Think again. Politicians said they wanted the people to see who was contributing. But that’s not really so; it’s the congressmen who are desperate to know. You see, while PACs give over 90 percent of their money to incumbents, 527’s and other groups often target the records of incumbents in their ads. Thus they benefit challengers.

That doesn’t sit well with career politicians. If donors are publicly revealed then those in Congress can target them with all manner of legislative and regulatory threats. And get this: Congressional leaders say that their Leadership PACs are exempt from this new law. Exempt. The benefits of disclosure apply to everyone but them, supposedly. It is to laugh.

Reform Congress-Style: One incumbent protection scam after another. We need a reform from the people term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.