ThisIsCommonSense.org

Remember Mad Magazine and its fearless leader Alfred E. Neumann? His famous slogan, “What-​Me-​Worry?” increasingly seems to sum up our political elite from presidential candidates Bush and Gore to congressional leaders.

You see, when these career politicians act, thinking only about the next election and ignoring the long-​term health of our society, well, isn’t that a lot like the little kids who would spend every last dime for candy, or even a copy of Mad Magazine, without a thought about tomorrow? The presidential campaign has been about how to spend the surplus rolling into Washington these days, and taking credit for creating it.

But a new report from the Congressional Budget Office suggests the surplus exists not because of any change in policy Clinton and Congress long ago broke the promised spending caps but because of unexpected revenue increases from an innovative private sector. The CBO warns that as baby-​boomers retire the cost of Social Security, Medicare and other programs will shoot through the roof: “If the nation’s leaders do not change current policies … deficits are likely to reappear” and “drive debt to unsustainable levels.”

In other words, while Gore and Bush are telling us all they can do to spend this $5 trillion surplus well, it doesn’t exist. What are the career politicians in Congress doing? Spending money as fast as they can so they can take credit during their reelection campaigns. What-Me-Worry?

This is Common Sense. I’m 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.