Common Sense with Paul Jacob

Before most people had ever seen TV, George Orwell wrote his famous novel 1984 about a totalitarian society where Big Brother watches citizens through their television.

Today, of course, most of us get our news from television. Unlike Orwell’s world, we cherish freedom of the press. No government control. Well, not exactly. While newspapers have a First Amendment right to publish as they wish, television and radio have no such rights and are regulated by the federal government. Certainly, that regulation is not supposed to force any particular content; that is, the substance of the news and other programs we watch are not to be dictated by the government. But are they being dictated?

We recently learned that YES the federal government has been in effect paying the six largest TV networks to air programs that contain the “proper message” on drugs. Some of the networks have sent their shows ahead of time to be reviewed by the White House. Now that’s frightening. Why would the networks go along? Well, the federal government is spending $185 million this year on anti-drug ads. That’s a big enough pot of money to attract a hive full of TV executives, and possibly to alter some of the shows you see. We must not violate the principle of media independence from government.

No matter how politically correct the message that government is encouraging. It’s no time for a sequel to Big Brother.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Campaign finance reform is a hot topic. Senator John McCain of Arizona has made it the number one issue in his presidential campaign.

When politicians talk about changing a system that so greatly benefits them, well, like most Americans, I’m pretty skeptical. McCain has talked a lot about the corruption of our representatives and the appearance of corruption that turns off voters.

We’re all sick and tired of politicians trading political favors for campaign cash. But now several stories suggest McCain too has gone to bat for big campaign contributors trying to alter federal government policy to their advantage. Has McCain sold out to big money or has he been snared by his own tangled net? One Arizona woman said, “John McCain is an honest citizen; nobody’s going to buy him with contributions.”

What is forgotten in all the talk of campaign finance is that our system depends on having honest men and women holding public offices. That’s why an office is called a public trust. No laundry list of rules and regulations can stop a corrupt politician from taking home a briefcase full of cash everyday from a special interest. We can’t stop dishonest people from being dishonest. So what we must do is make sure the men and women we elect are honest to begin with and will stay that way.

A congressman who makes a commitment to term limits has a strong defense against such corrupting influences. An honest man in Washington for a limited stay is likely to stay an honest man.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

When he wanted to win the election for Michigan Governor, John Engler supported term limits. He was loud about it. In fact, he pledged to serve only two terms. He made that pledge even though the term limits law Michigan voters passed in 1992 during his first term allowed him to serve two more terms.

Of course, that was when there was something in it for Mr. Engler; when he could extract votes on the term limits issue. In 1998 it was time for Engler to step down as he had pledged. But Engler ignored his promise. With the enormous powers of incumbency a sitting governor wields, he easily won re-election. Now Engler tells the Detroit News that he thinks the benefits of term limits were “oversold” and that they should be extended to 12 years double the limits now in place on the House of Representatives and 50 percent longer for Senators and the Governor. “Well,” said Engler, “that gives them a chance to have a reasonable career.” A reasonable career, Governor? The whole point of term limits is to make public office a public service again, not a career. Remember? Earth to Engler. Come in Engler.

John Engler rose to be a nationally respected governor by standing up for issues like term limits, not for being just another political hack looking for what’s in it for him. Our mistake. Term limits are making Michigan a better place. But that still leaves some of the state’s politicians complaining that there’s nothing in it for them.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

When you go to the polls this year, you’ll no doubt want lots of good choices to vote for. But the two major political parties are doing everything possible to make sure you don’t get much choice at all. They want the 2000 elections to be a real yawner.

For one thing, both parties are begging long-serving members not to retire. Why? Well, as even the anti-term limits Washington Post admits: “Congressional incumbents are almost impossible to dislodge.”

In congressional elections, with only rare exceptions, competitive elections are open seat elections where there is no incumbent titling the playing field their direction. Election analysts say Republicans may have three opportunities in the open seats. Democrats have a shot at seven, maybe eight seats. There are 435 House seats up for grabs. Only 2 to 3 percent are competitive. In 1998, virtually every congressional incumbent was re-elected 98.5 percent of them.

With all the advantages of incumbency, they usually aren’t even seriously challenged. No wonder fewer and fewer people even care to vote. There’s little to nothing to vote for. No wonder career politicians don’t care uncompetitive elections mean they stay in power. That’s why when we voters DO get an opportunity to take part in a competitive election, we need to make certain we don’t send just another politician to Washington who will become part of the stay-in-power-forever club. That’s nothing but a yawner.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

You can’t trust anyone in Washington. Politicians never keep their word. And there’s nothing we voters can do about it. Or so we’re told.

Well, it’s true enough that trust is in short supply in Washington. And I can’t say much good about most politicians. But those who go to Congress under self-imposed term limits aren’t regular politicians in my book. They’re citizen legislators. It’s also true that most elections don’t give voters much of a choice. But we voters can do something about OUR government, and we must continue to try.

Consider what’s happened in Jacksonville, Florida. In 1992, Rep. Tillie Fowler ran for Congress on the term limits issue and made a clear promise that she would serve no more than 8 years in Washington. She repeated the pledge on the floor of the House of Representatives. Yet, as the time for her to step down approached, she began to waffle. But Fowler’s constituents didn’t waffle. They insisted that Fowler keep her word. Everywhere Fowler went, she couldn’t escape the issue of her term limits pledge. A year ago, Congresswoman Tillie Fowler, the 5th ranking member in the House Republican Leadership, showed every indication that she would break her term limits pledge to step down this year. The firestorm from her constituents obviously had an impact. We the people had an impact. Tillie Fowler has now announced she will keep her word.

We now know that she can be trusted. We also know that you and I can make a difference.

This is Common Sense.  I’m 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.