ThisIsCommonSense.org

The whole country is talking about the little Cuban boy, Elian Gonzales, whose mother died trying to escape the tyranny of Cuba and reach the free soil of America. Now Elian’s become a political football of sorts and a difficult case for the INS.

As a father, I can’t help but put myself in his father’s place. The bond between parent and child dwarfs any political bond. In fact, one of the great things about our country is the recognition that the government must respect the family. But if I were Elian’s father, as much as it would break my heart, I would want him to stay in the United States. First, he has loving relatives. Second, he will have the freedom as an individual to become all that he is capable of.

Cuba is a totalitarian society. True, it’s not alone in having a repressive government, but it tops the list.For the last 40 years it has been ruled by one all-powerful politician Fidel Castro. In four decades of dictatorship, Castro has been able to politically wire the entire country. Opposition has been smashed. It’s terrible that Cubans must suffer. Many die trying to reach freedom. It’s a shame for Elian Gonzales and his family. But at least there is a country like ours that the victims of tyranny can come to.

You know, after our revolution some people say George Washington could have become king. But Washington stepped down and returned power to the people. Thank goodness he was no Castro.

This is Common Sense.  I’m 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.