What’s the compromise between spending $14 billion and $15 billion?

In Washington, that’s $23 billion.

The recent Water Resources Development bill was originally approved by the Senate at $14 billion, and by the House for a billion dollars more. So negotiators between the two houses cooked up a compromise.

In most parts of the world, a compromise between two figures is somewhere in between. But math isn’t exactly the strong suit of our elected reps, so the compromise surged eight billion dollars or more too high.

Thankfully, the president stamped a veto on it and the pork-infested projects bill went back to Congress. Which voted to overturn the veto.

The bloated pus sac of special projects for the Army Corps of Engineers is now law.

Mark Tapscott, editorial page editor at the Washington Examiner, wrote about this in early November. He pointed out that Republican political support for the bill was strong. “Too many Republicans,” he wrote, “are more interested in protecting their ability to spend tax dollars to advance their own political interests than they are in using their position to do what they were sent to Washington to do.”

Tapscott then wrote that he thinks that the GOP is dead, for all fiscally conservative intents and purposes. So, he says, it’s time to start talking about “the dead elephant in the living room.”

OK, I may be a political activist, but I’m calling this early: I don’t have dead elephant clean-up duty.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Imagine an America in which a candidate for office fears prosecution if he answers a questionnaire . . . about his views. Which views? The ones voters want to know about.

Farfetched scenario plucked out of some bleakly imagined future? From the Twilight Zone? Sorry, no; just passing along what I read in the newspaper.

An organization called the Pennsylvania Family Institute sent a questionnaire to judicial candidates inviting their views on controversial topics. Many candidates felt they couldn’t answer it. Seems there’s a law banning statements by judicial candidates that “appear to commit” them to decide legal issues a certain way. These candidates feared prosecution.

Hey, it might be a bad idea for a candidate for judgeship to give a specific answer about a specific case apt to come up after he takes office. But the questionnaire wasn’t about such cases.

And then there’s the First Amendment, which protects free speech per se. Not merely well-advised free speech.

The Pennsylvania Family Institute and six judicial candidates in Lancaster Country sought relief in court. After a judge issued an injunction against the law, officials signed an affidavit swearing they’d enforce it only against candidates who promised a specific ruling in a specific case. It would be okay to answer a questionnaire.

So the case was dismissed. The plaintiffs accept the outcome as a victory.

It is. But it reminds us that even in America, freedom of speech is constantly at risk.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Can we give John Edwards a taste of his own medicine?

One of the nostrums the Edwards presidential campaign proposes is a two-year ban on advertising for prescription drugs. Even if a drug makes it through the FDA’s hurdles, Edwards wants to prohibit the drug company from telling you about it for two more years.

Why this assault on First Amendment rights? Edwards says it’s to “prevent television ads from driving consumers to drugs that haven’t been proven safe.” He also says the commercials imply that by taking the drug you’ll be skipping through fields holding the hands of your loved one. You’ll be conned into believing Nirvana is around the corner no matter what potential side effects the voiceover warns you about.

By such reasoning, Edwards could ban all prescription drugs forever. Or all advertising forever. Ever see a TV commercial imply that your love life will improve if you have the right toothpaste or hair coloring?

No drug can be shown perfectly safe regardless of individual circumstances. Edwards doesn’t want persons who need certain drugs and would be willing to try them to even find out about the drugs. Not even if these customers have no realistic alternative. In his view, people can’t be trusted to make their own decisions about things.

Say, if Edwards does win the presidency, can we outlaw him from actually saying anything officially — as president — for a couple years? Maybe even four? What a blessed gift that would be.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Maine legislators made a big mistake with the term-limits-weakening measure they referred to voters just weeks ago: they forgot to lie.

The measure’s ballot title pretty much admitted that it would loosen the current term limits. That’s why the measure went down in flames.

Voters said no. Loudly.

No doubt that’s why, way out west, California Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and their respective political hacks are not trying anything so silly as honesty. Instead, they’re selling their Proposition 93 as a way to make California term limits even tougher.

How? By slightly decreasing the years politicians can serve in both houses. But since a mere 8 percent of legislators serve full time in both chambers, the reduction is insignificant. More significant? The measure doubles how long politicians can serve in the Assembly, and extends Senate terms by half.

California bigwigs salivate at a return to leadership entrenchment and the seniority system.

Thankfully, as Maine voters were trouncing their legislature’s assault on term limits, California State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner announced he would lead the campaign against Prop 93, contributing $1.5 million to the effort. California voters may just learn the truth about Proposition 93. And vote no. Loudly.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Did you know that you could win cash from the Sam Adams Alliance by making a video or other media vehicle showcasing the battle for freedom?

I reported on the Sammy awards before. But darn it, not everybody catches every episode of Common Sense. And every freedom lover should know about this opportunity.

SamAdamsAlliance.org offers a top ten list about why to participate. #7 is: “Your bank account could really use $5,000. (Or $10,000!).” The website explains, “Sure, it’s not all about the money, but a job well done deserves a reward. We want to reward citizens for their efforts to defend liberty with outstanding leadership and creativity.”

Agreed. And hey: applying creativity should also be a hoot, which brings us up to #2 on the list. Sammy says: “Learning about important things is fun, but presenting them creatively is even funner.”

The #1 reason, of course, is that freedom needs our help. According to the Sam Adams Alliance, “many of the basic freedoms and rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are under attack by the very government that was formed to protect them. . . . You . . . can take part in fighting back. The Sammies are all about spotlighting and rewarding citizens working to defend liberty.”

And here you thought that the best you could get for your video was hits and cryptic feedback on YouTube! YouTube, shmootube — SamAdamsAlliance.org is where it’s at.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.