Today’s business news worth blogging:

• One word–shredders: USA Today reports that a little-noted feature of the same law that enables you to get free credit reports once every twelve months kicks in today:
  

  Starting Wednesday, employers must destroy personal information about their employees before they throw it out if they got the information from a credit report.

  That means “shredding or burning” paper documents or “smashing or wiping” computer disks.

  All employers — even if they have only one worker — are covered by the new regulations, which are part of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act passed in December 2003.

  Even individuals who employ a nanny or a yardman, for instance, and who have run a credit check must pulverize information before they throw it out. Employers could face state and federal fines or class-action lawsuits by employees.

• Matchless muddleheadedness: Laura D’Andrea Tyson, in Business Weak, (link does NOT require registration or subscription, for now) thinks the government should match IRAs like companies match employee 401(k) contributions at a level as high as 50%. Did I say that Tyson was chief Clinton Administration economist during its first two fairly flat years? Zheesh, this is just another weak idea from a group that doesn’t believe that people and companies react to economic signals. Many companies with low matches in their 401(k) plans would consider abandoning them, especially since the contribution limits on IRAs have gone up to levels above the typical employee’s annual 401(k) contribution. Also, many taxpayers would figure out that they could open up an IRA, collect the match from Uncle Sam, cash in the IRA, pay the taxes and penaltes, and still come out ahead.Exactly how does that help the retirement savings problem?
• The Tiger Tax? USA Today evaluates the idea of making everyone pay Social Security tax on all of their earned income (vs. the current $90,000 limit) with no change in the benefit structure, and asks “Can Tiger Woods Save Social Security?”Sure. Just like the 1993 tax change that applied the 2.9% Medicare tax to all earned income (1.45% employee, 1.45% employer, or 2.9% if self-employed) saved that program.

  What, you mean it didn’t?

Bob McEwen is touting his list of high-profile “moral” leader and celebrity endorsements.

One of his most prominent endorsers is Paul Weyrich, to whom conservatives, and really the entire country, owe a debt that can never be repaid (”progressives” will disagree, but in vain). Weyrich founded The Heritage Foundation in 1973 and began forming the intellectual foundation that ultimately led to Ronald Reagan’s election, the unprecedented prosperity of the 1980s, and the proactive overthrow of Soviet communism. He also was, and continues to be, a pioneer in tapping the social and cultural conservatism of grassroots citizens and giving it a coherent voice.

But that doesn’t mean he’s infallible. Weyrich’s endorsement of McEwen largely makes the case for rejecting him.

First, I’d like to know how the letter arrived. The Reading Road address is in Zip Code 45241, not the 45201 zip used in the letter (a zip code that is not in the 2nd District). The post office must have had a rare good day.

But I’m quibbling. Let’s look at the text of Weyrich’s letter:

I have known Bob McEwen for many years. I have watched him mature in his judgment. I have watched him grow since he has been out of office.

We’re grateful that you’ve seen the improvement, Paul, and I for one sincerely hope that it’s real. 12 years ago, the people of the 2nd District concluded improvement was needed. Trouble is, Bob hasn’t been around here much for us to see whatever changes may have occurred. So, Paul, how do WE know?

With all due respect to the fine conservatives running in the GOP primary, only Bob McEwen can hit the ground running due to his previous service. Everyone else will be number 435.

Weyrich doesn’t even identify the district where the election is being held. Perhaps he doesn’t know. Weyrich, who despite his conservatism has clearly caught at least a mild case of Inside-the-Beltway disease, is more worried about the Washington power game than whether or not the people of the 2nd District are represented by one of their own. I for one believe the latter is much more important. And what are the odds that Weyrich can name even one of the other “fine conservatives” he claims to respect in the race, let alone know enough of any of them to call them “fine”?

(Weyrich is also breathtakingly inconsistent on this point about seniority, to an extent that it deserves, and will get, its own separate post.)

Bob is a man of real integrity who is on the right side of every issue.

Would it be out of order to note that it is an open issue as to whether a person of real integrity would attempt to represent people he has essentially been away from for 12 years? What can any district voter under 30, or anyone who has moved into the district after March 1993 directly or indirectly know about Bob McEwen?

I hope the voters of his district will see fit to return him to Washington.

“His” district? Stop me before I scream. Can you say “entitlement mentality”?
“Return him to Washington”? He’s been in metro Washington for the last 12 years.

I can tell you if I lived there that is who I would be voting for.

Yeah, but Paul, you DON’T live here. And neither has Bob. And do you even know where “there” is?

As covered in this post, conservative pioneer Paul Weyrich has endorsed Bob McEwen for Congress in Ohio’s 2nd District. That post noted the obvious problems in Weyrich’s endorsement that really work to argue against McEwen’s election.

This post, as promised, elaborates on Weyrich’s point that McEwen, because of his twelve previous years in Congress, “can hit the ground running due to his previous service (i.e., he will have 12 years of seniority starting on Day 1 of his new term). Everyone else will be number 435.”

That’s a legitimate argument one can bring to the table. McEwen will leapfrog 200-plus Members (just a wild guess; the number could be much higher) with less than 12 years in the House. Even the Congressman who defeated McEwen in 1992, Ted Strickland, who was voted out in 1994 but returned in 1996 (and who is a personal non-favorite of mine), would have less seniority than McEwen should McEwen win!

But, as unfair as it seems, the “practical” argument is that rules are rules, and if McEwen can jump ahead according to those rules, he should be allowed to.

Except that Paul Weyrich, of all people, has no business making this argument. You see, Paul Weyrich strongly supported the term-limits movement of the 1980s and 1990s, and still supports them today.

Incredibly (feeling old, very old), with the exception of a few congressmen who voluntarily promised to limit their tenure in office and backed out (sometimes successfully and sometimes not), it’s hard to believe that it has been ten years since the idea of term limits at the federal level has been a front-burner item (this web site might disagree). In 1995, the Supreme Court declared that states cannot limit the terms of their congressional representatives or senators. However, term limits on many state, county, and municipal political offices are in place throughout the land and have survived all legal challenges. For those who need it, this Wikipedia entry does a good job of reviewing the history of the term-limits movement and the arguments for and against.

Paul Weyrich has supported term limits initiatives in the past, and still supports them today. Some selected cites:

On the reasoning behind term limits:
– From The Washington Post - October 26, 1992 (eight days before McEwen’s first defeat):
Paul Weyrich, the president of the conservative Free Congress Foundation, thinks the term-limit movement reflects a basic change in public attitude toward Washington. “People for the last 20 years have been saying Congress is dreadful and my congressman is wonderful. Now people have come to the opposite conclusion: My congressman is dreadful.”

1994’s Contract With America:
– Interestingly, Weyrich’s attitude towards the Contract was lukewarm. Weyrich noted (go to Page 42 of the right-side pagination at the link) “that the Contract ‘was primarily an economic document’ that ignored the ‘reestablishment of values in our culture.’” Nevertheless, there’s little doubt that he supported the Contract’s specific proposals relating to term limits, which were essentially to limit Senators to two six-year terms and House members to either three or six two-year terms.

Proof that Weyrich hasn’t recently changed his mind on the subject:
– On October 30, 2004, complaining about the courts, he wrote:
Now repeatedly after the people vote the courts intervene. One of the worst examples was….a decision holding that term limits for federal officials, approved by the people of Arkansas, was unconstitutional. (Note: The ellipse is justified, despite the verbiage it skips, because an example not relevant to this discussion was cited first. Weyrich clearly believes that the Arkansas term-limits decision was also “one of the worst.”)

So Weyrich’s bona fides as a past and current proponent of terms limits cannot be disputed.

So, Paul, what’s with the exception for Bob McEwen? Twelve years ago, Bob McEwen was term-limited BY THE VOTERS of two different districts in a span of less than 5 months, after serving the maximum amount of time allowable under the Contract With America’s proposals. He was TWICE told “Your experience and seniority in Congress do not matter. We want someone else.” According to the Contract, Bob’s time is up.

So, here are three questions that I want Paul Weyrich to answer:

• What values-based justification is there for a supporter of term limits endorsing the return of Bob McEwen to Congress with his seniority intact, when living, breathing voters first threw him (AND his seniority) out of office, and then kept him out of office?
• Let’s say you can wiggle your way to a justification for McEwen retaining his seniority. How can someone like you, who has spent roughly 20 years arguing that congressional terms should be limited to 6 or 12 years, because spending too much time in the halls of power is a corrupting force (making officeholders “dreadful”), now say that McEwen’s 12 years give him an advantage(!) over his rivals?
• Finally, let’s assume you can somehow contort your way through the first two questions (which Mary Lou Retton in her prime would have found difficult). How in the world do you reconcile the core logic of term limits, which is that “we the people” should be governed by citizen legislators who return to their careers back home after they complete their service, with your support of Bob McEwen, when he has never left the Washington scene, and has been a lobbyist at this firm, a consultant at this firm, and a dealmaker (as “President and Founder” of Freedom Quest International, noted about halfway down the page) since he was voted out of office? If you believe in term limits, doesn’t the post-congressional career of “Citizen Bob” make the clear and convincing case against his return all by itself?

Paul Weyrich isn’t the first person to throw his principles overboard to support a friend and/or fellow traveler. But I can’t think of another example where someone has poured 15 or more years of effort into a cause, only to walk away from it to support one person’s unquenched political ambitions.