|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
Essays, Opinion, & Commentary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 15, 2005 Most Americans favor the death penalty. Though I'm all for getting tough on crime, I've never supported capital punishment. I agree with Thomas Jefferson, who once wrote that he would support the death penalty only when the infallibility of human judgment had been demonstrated. So, you'd think I'd be pretty happy about the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the death penalty for those under 18 years of age. But I'm not. Oh, yes, the death penalty to me is cruel and unusual punishment, regardless of age. But I also think the Supreme Court has once again used tortured and unusual legal logic to reach their decision. In 1989, just 16 years ago, the court interpreted our Constitution to mean the reverse. But the Constitution wasn't amended. The courts have, in effect, rewritten the law. And just what was it that caused the majority of the justices to overturn the death penalty for those under 18? The justices mentioned that several states had ended executions for young people. But that doesn't change the wording or meaning of the Constitution. Oh, the High Court also cited the fact that no European countries have the death penalty for juveniles. In fact, the Washington Post report mentioned that "perhaps the most significant effect of yesterday's decision is to reaffirm the role of international law in constitutional interpretation." Our Constitution is the best in the world. It's clearly written and shorter than most of the bills passed by Congress. Maybe our judges should read it, and stop relying on who's doing what in Europe -- or who knows where. This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
April 9, 2005 A million here, a million there, pretty soon you're talking real money. That's how the saying goes in Washington. In the real world, when we hear some of these financial figures tossed about, it's difficult to get a handle on the magnitude of spending. Take education spending. It's gone up and up and up. But how much is it going up and what does the increase really mean? Well, a new newspaper in Washington, D.C., The Examiner, quantifies the recent increases in education funding in Fairfax County, Virginia, the nation's 12th most populous county. Last year, spending went up $137 million dollars to $1.8 billion. That's almost $11,000 per student. This year, Superintendent Jack Dale is asking for another increase of $128 million, pushing spending to over $1.9 billion. The Examiner, being new and all, actually did some math, discovering that Fairfax County expected an increase of 186 students to their previous enrollment of 166,000, they calculated that the new funding request amounts to $688,000 per new student. Yikes! Of course, no matter how much money a school district has, it must still make tough choices. Here, again, The Examiner editorial illuminates the problem. The district is building brand-new administration offices while 12,000 students still attend classes in trailers. As The Examiner summed it up, "Just don't say it's for the children." This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
April 3, 2005 For years, I've gotten these email alerts saying that members of Congress don't pay into Social Security. You've probably gotten them, too. The implication is simple: no wonder congressmen don't care about fixing Social Security. It just doesn't matter to them, as they are above the system. Well, these emails are false. Congressmen do now pay into Social Security. Oh, indeed, congressmen were once exempt, but since the Reagan/Greenspan reforms, they've been required to pay into the system. And they receive Social Security benefits, too. Yet, the implication of these angry email alerts -- that Congress is above the rest of us -- remains true. Though congressmen are "in," their Social Security benefits are just a drop in the bucket compared to the lavish pensions they've bestowed upon themselves. For instance, the National Taxpayers Union reports that Tom Daschle's congressional pension will pay him $121,000 this year. If the former Senate leader lives to a normal age -- counting all the scheduled cost of living increases -- he'll rake in a cool $5 million. He's not alone. Former Senator John Breaux will get $114,000 a year and an estimated $4.1 million lifetime. Former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt gets $102,000 this year and likely over $3 million lifetime. With their gold-plated pensions, Social Security certainly doesn't matter to members of Congress on a personal level. A Florida Times-Union editorial suggests, quote, "Impose term limits or stop lucrative pensions -- or better yet, do both." This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
March 24, 2005 If you use email, or keep a Web journal known as a blog, beware. The government will soon be out to get you. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as McCain-Feingold, has never been just about keeping money out of politics. Political speech is its main target. This is clearer than ever, now that the Federal Elections Commission prepares to regulate the Internet. In 2002, the FEC exempted the Net from its purview. Though the clear meaning of McCain-Feingold prohibits all sorts of activities that can be done most effectively on the Net - such as passing on leaflets, campaign tracts, slogans, and the like - the FEC realized that many citizens regard the Net as their domain, and sagely tried to duck regulating it. But Declan McCullagh, in an important March 3 article on C/NET, notes that a judge overturned that exemption last fall. So now, whether the FEC likes it or not, bloggers and freewheeling email users are going to be subject to fines and censorship. Even mere links to campaign websites are going to be considered campaign contributions fully under the iron hand of the FEC, which can find no rationale to exempt bloggers. That is, unless Congress, which caused the problem in the first place, steps in. Congress could simply exempt email and website creators from the illiberal provisions of McCain-Feingold, keeping the Internet as a sort of "free speech reserve" in a sea of regulation and censorship. Or it could repeal McCain-Feingold in toto. In a free society, Congress would opt for the total fix, wouldn't it? This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
March 18, 2005 Private property is so simple that even politicians can grasp the concept. But given the choice between a concept and your wallet, they'll take the cash every time. It's obvious: what's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours. Politicians are just fine with that ... until they want what's mine or yours to be someone else's. That seems to happen a lot lately. Some business owners find it easier to have government take people's land than to plan their projects around those who won't sell. Since politicians love a growing tax base, and making powerful friends, they're happy to help out. But hey: Don't want to sell? Too bad. Don't like the price? See you in court. Talk about a marriage made in hell. Over the last few decades, homeowners across the country have been forced out in favor of malls, department stores and sports stadiums. Forced to give up the homes where they've raised families and where they'd planned to grow old. And to add insult to injury, "just compensation" is often in the eye of a very stingy beholder. The Institute for Justice is arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of New London, Connecticut homeowners who prefer living where they are to making way for a privately owned hotel and convention center. Their city fathers want to trade their quiet neighborhood's Victorian homes -- and their property rights -- for another thirty pieces of silver. This seems like an easy call. Let's hope the Justices see it that way, too. This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
March 11, 2005 Longtime readers of Common Sense are well acquainted with Mark Sanford. Sanford went to Congress on a pledge to stop runaway federal spending and term-limited himself so that he couldn't be seduced by the temptations of power in Washington. Soft-spoken, Sanford's actions in Congress spoke volumes. He acted from principle. And he kept his word on term limits. Now Mark Sanford is the governor of South Carolina and he's again delighting taxpayers and ruffling the feathers of the good ol' boy system. He's pushing to cut taxes and improve the state's education system, which ranks at or near the bottom of virtually every measurable educational category. Sanford is leading the charge for a universal tax credit that would allow parents more choice and flexibility in getting the best education for their kids. Mark has some great help. Just weeks ago, a grassroots group called Put Parents in Charge brought thousands of citizens to the capitol to urge passage of the legislation. That legislation could serve as a model for real education reformers across the nation. Heading up the grassroots group is Tom Swatzel, a small businessman who served two terms as a Georgetown city councilman and, like Sanford, limited his own terms. Swatzel's daughter is in the public schools, but he wants everyone to have more choices. "What this state needs is real, meaningful reform," says Swatzel. "Our whole point is ... we should care more about the kids than the system." Leave it to Governor Sanford to push against the system and really do something for the kids. This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
March 2, 2005 It seems like just a few days ago, but it was a few months. Long enough for Congress to forget a promise, no? In mid-November, Congress extended its ban on multiple and discriminatory taxes on Internet access. And so I wrote, "There will be no taxes on Internet access, at least not until October 31, 2007." Now I learn that Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation has been exploring another way to tax the Net. How? Why, simply widen the interpretation of an existing law. The law, a luxury tax enacted back in 1898 - yes, you heard right, 1898 - to support the Spanish-American War. It was a tax on that rarest utility, phone lines. Repealed in 1902, the law was re-enacted in 1914 to help pay for World War I. The committee's idea was to spiff up this still-existing law to cover "all data communications services to end users," including things that Congress had previously exempted, like broadband, dial-up, and cable modems. Thankfully, 13 congressional Republicans and two Democrats sent a letter of protest to the committee almost as soon as the news broke. Congress knows that to spend money, it has to take in money. Members know that taxes aren't popular, but they do get to spend them. And increasing them is inevitable as long as they continue to increase government spending. And that's something Congress has every desire to do. So get ready to expect more new - and painfully old - tax ideas to crop up on a regular basis. This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
February 25, 2005 I just read an ominous headline, "First Amendment No Big Deal, Students Say." The subhead elaborated, "Study shows American teenagers indifferent to freedoms." In an impressively large survey, a good third of students said that the First Amendment "went too far" defending individual rights. According to the AP report, "Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories." How could this be? Many reasons, probably. Consider just one, for now. Maybe the kids are picking this up directly from their government. It's not just a few idiotic programs of the current Executive Branch; faking news stories and turning a handful of columnists into ideological harlots. It's much worse! Congress and the Supreme Court have united to shove a government-regulated propaganda system into the very heart of our democracy. I'm talking about McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, which has exchanged America's heritage of a free-for-all of advocacy and spending and debate, for a government-approved and regulated line. It has not merely regulated who may give what amount of money. It prohibits some people from saying some things at election time. Its proponents may think that it's just about money. A few savvy political operatives may know it's mainly about keeping incumbents in power. But the kids are taking the policy to its logical conclusion; government should be in charge. Kids say - and see - the darndest things. This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
February 20, 2005 I'll start worrying about saving for my retirement, maybe tomorrow. After all, it isn't really a crisis. I mean, when you are 30 or 40 or even 50 you still have some years left to save for retirement. So why get all agitated? (Kinda)like Social Security, we're told there's no crisis. Why, it's solvent until 2042! Of course, that really means it is NOT solvent (which is easy to see if you plan to retire in '43). Trouble is, the money we pay into Social Security isn't working for us like retirement funds would in the private sector. Instead, for decades, the money paid into Social Security not spent immediately on retirees has been spent by the members of Congress on pet projects that insure their re-elections. Congress has borrowed trillions from the misnamed Trust Fund. The "trust" fund is full of IOUs. If you had been borrowing from your own pension for years, what would you do? Get three jobs to pay all the money back? IOUs are one thing; IOMEs, another. What will our government do? Make us all get three jobs? Or, slash spending (and pay the IOUs from a surplus)? Don't hold your breath or you'll never make it to retirement. We can act now, to prevent the looming crisis, or else adopt a "don't worry, be happy" attitude and let the crisis break later (on someone else's watch) at a far greater price, with deeper pain and suffering for both retirees and workers. What is your choice? What will the politicians choose? This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
February 11, 2005 In John Stossel's recent 20/20 special, "Myths, Lies, and Nasty Behavior," he once again proved he's no "TV icon." He's an iconoclast. For nastiness he took on littering, add-on charges to cell phone bills, noisy intrusions, idiotic federal pork. Then he turned controversial, with welfare payments to undeserving farmers, and hypocrisy about public schools. But busting myths is his specialty. Are gas prices higher than ever? With the help of common-sense economics, he showed that gasoline prices are surprisingly low. Is outsourcing really bad for America? Stossel revealed why it is that America's biggest outsourcers also created the most jobs...in America itself. Finally, he attacked the myth that "Sharing is better." Littering is worse on shared, public property. Shared public toilets are often disgusting -- but European pay toilets are clean and tidy. Private property, not "sharing," works. Even to save elephants. Elephant populations increase where tribes own the elephants and charge hunters to shoot them. But here Stossel missed something: those tribes share the profits. Obviously, we can share with private property. And still make things better. Maybe it's when we share benefits without openly sharing responsibilities that some sharing becomes so ineffective. In any case, Stossel gave viewers at least ten things to think about. More journalists should share like that. This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob
February 4, 2005 What? We need Clint Eastwood? I thought Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Terminator, was just what California needed in the governor's mansion. After political leadership led the state to the edge of the abyss, a citizen-initiated recall brought in Schwarzenegger. He's done pretty well, too -- willing to go to the people over the heads of politicians and lobbyists in Sacramento. But, just when it seems to be morning again in California, Schwarzenegger now talks up a deal with the political insiders: he might support crippling term limits in exchange for the legislators' help in putting a reform of the rules for drawing legislative district lines on the ballot. Why can't the people of California have both reforms? After all, term limits will provide a lot more new blood than redistricting reform. That's why legislators floated the idea of such a deal to begin with! As the Los Angeles Daily News editorialized, "Thanks to incumbency, most legislators' seats would remain safe even with redistricting. So, while the people would give up their only real check on political power, elected leaders would give up nothing." Arnold, your strength has come from standing with the people. Now, don't become a girlie man! Or worse yet, a backroom politician. The people of California need a "no deals" governor. When the politicians in Sacramento come up with these backroom schemes to undermine term limits, don't say "You'll be back" -- say "Make my day." You can do it, Arnold. Okay, quiet on the set . . . This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob
January 27, 2005 People talk about propaganda like it's a bad thing. It isn't. Propaganda just means getting the word out. Making some noise. Sending a message. This show is propaganda. It's my soapbox for telling you what I think and why you should think that way, too. Not long after the first propagandist climbed up on top of the first soapbox, the first soap company came sniffing around, offering him money to stand on their soapbox instead of their competitors'. And that's fine, too. Propaganda is work, and there's nothing wrong with paying for it. Really. Ask my staff. When it came to light that the Department of Education paid Armstrong Williams $240,000 to talk up President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program, a lot of people hit the roof. I don't blame them. Propaganda is free speech, an American right -- but the government shouldn't be spending your tax dollars on it. Nobody should be forced to pay for someone else's propaganda. I don't have an axe to grind with Mr. Williams, but there's an odor of hypocrisy around the whole affair. Some conservatives are sniffing sanctimoniously at objections from the left, noting that liberal propagandists get paid, too -- by foundations, corporate sponsors, and sometimes by government. (Is National Public Radio really anything but a tax-subsidized ad for the Democratic National Committee?). C'mon, guys. Two wrongs don't make a right. Free speech, and especially propaganda, belong in the private sector, regardless of who's talking or what they're saying. This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
January 21, 2005 Bloat. Fat. Corpulence. A billowing mass of ugly, unsustainable flesh racing - gracelessly - against time before the body gives out. No, I'm not talking about the latest obesity story put out by the health nannies. Or my own holiday-expanded girth. I'm talking about the federal government. It just keeps growing and growing. What to do? One theory trotted out by both Grover Norquist and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman is to starve the creature. Cut off funds. Enact more tax cuts! It sounds like a neat idea, tax-cut our way to a slimmer government. But like most neat diet ideas, it doesn't work. That's what Will Wilkinson and William Niskanen of Cato Institute have argued, recently. The evidence, they say, flies in the face of the "Starve The Beast" Diet Plan. You see, government doesn't feed off just taxes. It goes into debt to spend. And that's what it's doing now. Niskanen studied the actual behavior of Congress after its cut taxes. Spending tends to increase, not decrease, as tax revenue declines! They just keep feeding the beast. And the beast keeps growing. Fatter and fatter. The only solution is political discipline, say the Cato economists. I'm pretty agreeable to all sides. Let's cut taxes and government spending at the same time. After all, we're told that the best way to lose weight is to combine a good diet with exercise. But such diets are tough. Which is why term limits make sense. Keep politicians moving. Bring in new political athletes who might better whip our government into shape. This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
January 14, 2005 The United Nations is to last month's deadly tsunami as King Canute's ministers were to a normal wave. There's a difference, though: While those ministers of old needed instruction in their inability to command the sea, the UN needs instruction in its inability to command charity for the victims of the sea. I'm referring to one Jan Egeland -- the UN's "emergency relief coordinator" -- and his opinion that the wealthier nations are "stingy" with disaster relief. The United States bears the cost of about 25 percent of the UN's budget (and, by extension, Mr. Egeland's no-doubt comfortable salary). And what does it get in return? The opportunity to be snubbed and sniffed at by megalo-dilettantes. The Jan Egelands at the UN don't want to run the world. They just make an expensive hobby of pretending they already do. In the meantime, the U.S. has, in all likelihood, already provided more aid to the tsunami's victims than all the other nations on earth combined ever will. Not just government aid, but individual, voluntary donations of a dollar or ten or, as film star Sandra Bullock gave, a million. Wow, now that's Miss Congeniality for you. Truth be told, Mr. Egeland's real complaint isn't about the amount of aid. It's about who controls that aid. Money given to voluntary charities ends up buying silly, non-essential things like food, water and medical care for displaced millions, instead of a new suit for Koffi Annan or a new BMW for Jan Egeland to attach diplomatic plates to. This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
January 6, 2005 The government is horribly in debt, budgets are careening out of control. Understandably, many, many legislators like nearly every discriminatory tax" imaginable, tacking on charges here and there wherever they can. So why did Congress and the President just foreswear one whole new revenue stream, put it off for years? Because the tax in question was on Internet access. In mid-November, Senators George Allen and Ron Wyden, and Representative Chris Cox, pushed a bill through both houses; extending the ban on multiple and discriminatory taxes on Internet access. It's the law. There will be no taxes on Internet access, at least not until October 31, 2007. But think: We have multiple taxes on phone calls, and people barely notice them. So why not tax the Net? Well, the Net, for all its spam and pop-ups still provides communication and education opportunities, especially for the poor. So making it harder for them to access it would seem awfully counter-productive. But, you note, government is in the business of making things counter-productive! Why should this be different? Well, the novelty of the Internet has not worn off. Lots of people depend on it. Sure, taxing it would provide lots of government revenue. But the government doesn't dare anger so many people not in one fell swoop. People love the Net. They don't love Congress. So: to this extent, at least, our government serves the people. Hey, there's good news for a change! This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
December 31, 2004 JunkScience.com just published this year's list of Top Ten most embarrassing moments. Top stories show how far off some claims to science can be:
Obviously, too much of what activists and even scientists publicly claim as science isn't science. It's the romance of science wrapped up in a good story, about impending catastrophe (if at all possible). But, says JunkScience.com publisher Steven Milloy, "all too often, the media simply repeat such claims verbatim." Well, let's you and me honor science by remaining skeptical, by not believing everything we read. This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
December 24, 2004 The lights glaring at him, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist faced the cameras on "Face the Nation" and said, "I have no earthly idea how it got in there. But, obviously, somebody is going to know, and accountability will be carried out." Probably on a stretcher! To be retired, along with Responsibility and Common Sense. No place for these in Congress any longer. The "it" that Frist knew nothing about was something embedded in one of those door-stopper appropriations bills that no congressman ever reads. The sheer un-readability of such bills gives plenty of opportunity for congressmen and even un-elected aides to tuck crazy little provisions into the fine print. You know, when nobody is looking. Now it's a scandal: Somebody secretly slipped something into the middle of the mile-high bill that has appalled the nation. That something? A provision, allowing congressional committee chairmen to examine our tax returns at will...a provision causing Senate majority leaders to squirm on TV...a provision now dead. But what else is in the bill? What will we find in the next one -- long after it, too, has passed? Now, you'd think that actually reading the laws they pass might be in a representative's job description. What do they do all day? We hear a lot of talk about all the experience these congressmen possess. Yeah. Loads of experience in not reading the laws they pass. But this is hardly news, just par for the course for our very, very professional politicians. Quite a case for amateurism, eh? This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
December 17, 2004 The most important news story of this fall, ultimately more important than the re-election of the president, was the awarding of the X Prize to Burt Rutan for his SpaceShipOne flights. For it shows that private enterprise is both willing and able to enter space. At a profit. Yes, the Space Age has launched into a new era, the Industrial Space Age. Now, NASA had big news, recently, too. Its X-43A scramjet broke the world speed record for an atmosphere-burning aircraft, going nearly ten times the speed of sound. It then glided down to the earth's surface for a soft landing. But after landing in the ocean, NASA abandoned its multi-million dollar plane to sink as junk. Contrast this with SpaceShipOne, which cost a tenth as much and has shot up into space several times and come back down for re-use. NASA's still mired in the old "throw money away" method of space travel. Testing such expensive equipment and throwing it away is wasteful, as if millions of dollars that went into it were nothing, and the jet itself, after the test, was of no more value than a model airplane. Burt Rutan, on the other hand, demonstrates the spirit of the new age: safety, reusability, economy. Rutan's spacecraft, not NASA's, presages the future. Let's draw the lesson. It's time radically to slash NASA's budget. Make way for the new Space Age by getting rid of the idea of subsidy. This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
December 9, 2004 Innocent until proven guilty. If we truly believes that, then House Republicans have a point: Why punish leaders by making them step aside when they are simply indicted? After all, they havent yet been convicted of a crime. A spokesman for Congressman Henry Bonilla of Texas says the rule change is designed to "prevent political manipulation of the process." Republicans charge partisanship by a Texas judge and admit that the change is being made largely in case Tom DeLay is indicted over fundraising there. The new rule allows Republicans to decide each case concerning an indicted leader on a separate basis. Arbitrarily, in other words. Some leaders might have to step down, some not. Republicans once used the old rule to show Democrats as corrupt. Now they change the rule when it actually bites them. Democrat House Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland said, "Today, Republicans sold their soul to maintain their grip on power." We might ask why it has become so routine for congressmen to be indicted? Partisan judges or not. And the simple fact is that Tom DeLay has also been admonished by the House Ethics committee several times. Since Republicans control the body, they cant simply blame partisanship. Congress is becoming a home for arbitrary rules designed to benefit those in power. What should the rules be? To Republicans and Democrats, there is no one answer. Because it all depends. This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
December 2, 2004 "This House election was the least competitive in history," according to Rob Richie, who heads the Center for Voting and Democracy. The House re-election rate was 98 percent. Of 402 incumbents running, only seven were defeated. One of the seven was a first-term congressmen who hadn't built up the incumbent advantages of longer-term members. Four others were caught in Texas redistricting -- two were defeated by other incumbents. Texas had the lowest re-election rate in the nation, with incumbents going 25-4. One incumbent lost in Georgia, Illinois, and Indiana. All other House incumbents, the entire delegations that chose to run in the other 46 states, went 335 for 335 for 100 percent re-election. In the Senate, the re-election rate was 96 percent. Only one incumbent -- Minority Leader Tom Daschle -- was defeated. Sadly, this election wasn't much worse than the norm . . . 98 or 99 percent re-election rates cycle after cycle. Even columnist David Broder has noticed. He writes that today's congressman has "more job security than the queen of England -- and as little need to seek their subjects' assent." Broder suggests redistricting reform, no longer allowing politicians in state legislatures to draw the district lines for themselves and congressmen. That's a good idea. But we need something far stronger. We need term limits. This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
The opinions expressed in Common Sense are Paul Jacob's and may not necessarily represent the position of U.S. Term Limits or the U.S. Term Limits Foundation. Paul's daily commentaries are heard on radio stations nationwide and on the Internet. To subscribe to Common Sense or notify them of an email address change, send a message to subscribe@termlimits.org or by signing up at the Common Sense home page: http://www.termlimits.org/Press/Common_Sense/ Copyright (c) 2003, 2004, & 2005 by Paul Jacob and reprinted with permission. |
|
Enrich your life with a book about politics and current events... Enrich your political & social life with a politics or news magazine... |
|
|
Common
Sense, by Paul Jacob
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, & 2004-05 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.