Category: Common Sense

Art imitates life. That emblematic movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, echoes in Michigan as I speak.

Jefferson Smith, played by Jimmy Stewart, is the boy scout leader appointed to the U.S. Senate because this political kingpin thought Smith would be easy to hoodwink. But Mr. Smith finds corruption, and he filibusters against the entire senate to end it.

Accused by one old-timer of blocking a needed relief bill, our hero retorts, “The people of my state need permanent relief from crooked men riding their backs.”

The media establishment condemns Smith, and when Smith’s scouts work to get their message out through homemade newspapers, thugs physically block, intimidate, and attack the lads.

In Michigan, similar nastiness has been directed against the campaign to recall Speaker of the House Andy Dillon. Dillon staffers have flocked into the district to intimidate those petitioning to recall their boss.

One such blocker, hired by the Michigan Democratic Party to “educate” voters, is an eight-time felon whose rap sheet includes armed robbery.  The police got involved . . . making robo-calls to residents claiming the recall backers were “extremists” engaged in an “illegal” effort.

The Detroit News piled on, arguing that the recall, precipitated by Dillon’s big tax hike, will cost Michigan taxpayers even more dough because it requires a special election. Except that it won’t. The regularly scheduled August primary will piggy-back the recall vote — which will happen, since last week more than enough signatures were turned in.

In the movie, the good guy wins. The same may be true in Michigan.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

First there were “internal improvements.” Then there was out-and-out “pork” — that is, spending by the federal government for projects of a local, not “federal,” or national, character.

Then, says H.L. Mencken, author of that great big book, The American Language, there was “pork-barrel spending.” Same thing as pork, really. But perhaps the amount of it had grown so much that Americans needed a metaphorical barrel to handle it all.

And then there were earmarks. These were pork spending initiatives not exactly inserted into legislation properly, but somewhat surreptitiously into legislative addenda.

And now there’s something even harder to find, harder to keep track of: “soft earmarks.”

It seems all congressfolk need do is ask, politely, that something be funded. No mention of who really gets the money; no mention, even of the amount. But hey, if asked-for nicely enough, the executive branch has proved more than willing to fund.

Fund what? Oh, a Christian shortwave radio in Madagscar. Pest-fighting efforts in Maryland. Saving hawks in Haiti.

According to the New York Times, these have all been funded without anyone ever really writing out what the cost would be, or even saying “fund this.” It’s all very polite.

And insidious. We work hard for the money; we don’t want it spent so easily that soft words are all that’s needed. I want it voted on. Openly. Honestly.

And preferably defeated.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

After the raid on their religious “compound,” one of the Texas mothers being forcibly bussed away from their children held up a sign.

It said: “SOS. Mothers separated. Help.” Another mom yelled, “We’re being kidnapped.”

The nightmare started with a call to Texas child-protective services by a 16-year-old girl claiming to be a victim of physical and sexual abuse at the FLDS “compound.” (FLDS is the acronym for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.)

It now appears that the call was a hoax. But because of this call, 462 children were removed the ranch. Many of the moms were allowed to stay with their kids temporarily, then forcibly separated.

Based on what evidence? This question should bother us all.

Yes, I know: It’s polygamy. It’s weird. But at issue is not polygamy, but this: FLDS members have been accused of abusing juveniles in the past.

What to do? Investigate. If true, prosecute.

What NOT to do? Round up people like cattle because somebody or other in the large group MIGHT be doing something criminal. If that’s reasonable, then as soon as a neighbor looks at you or me cross-eyed — or makes an anonymous phone call — the police could raid OUR homes, grab OUR kids.

That’s not American justice, is it?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Every year Tim Eyman in Washington state comes up with some new initiative to limit taxes or make government more accountable.

So of course politicians and media people are furious with him.

For years he’s been a member of the Republican Party. But not long ago he joined his county’s Democratic Party. And was surprised to find himself welcomed, at home.

He admits he shouldn’t have been surprised. Sure, his tax limitation measures really vex politicians. But they don’t bother most Democrats. Indeed, one savvy Democrat explained it all to him on his first night in the party. The man said he had never known a Democrat who wanted his taxes to be higher just “so we can waste them on an ineffective government program.”

Only politicians, bureaucrats, and some crazed leftists want that.

The rest of humanity knows that you have to be careful with your money. Even in government. Imagine that!

As Eyman summarized his conversations with his fellow Democrats, “person after person, story after story, suggestion after suggestion . . . it was the same kind of stuff I’ve heard from supporters for years.”

Now, of course not everyone agrees with Eyman. One woman shook his hand, laughing, saying she opposed every initiative he’s ever done, and every one he would do in the future.

But the real truth of the matter is that limiting government is a bipartisan — no, omni-partisan — issue.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

In the 1950s, Dorothy English and her husband bought twenty acres near Portland, Oregon. An investment in their future and their children’s future.

But in 1973, the family was shanghaied by draconian land-use regulations that stopped them from subdividing their property. Eventually Mrs. English’s lawyer counted 61 separate regulations hog-tying her property rights.

Dorothy English fought back.

In 2000, she championed a constitutional amendment to end regulatory takings abuse. The measure passed . . . but was struck down by judges who think it’s unconstitutional to prevent people from being robbed by government.

Then, in 2004, Mrs. English helped pass Measure 37, which orders compensation for victims of regulatory takings. Measure 37 survived challenge. Under its terms, Multnomah County had to waive the regulations on Mrs. English’s land or pay damages exceeding a million dollars.

By now Dorothy was in her 90s. The county knew that if she died before her case was settled, it could avoid paying her the judgment.

The county did run out the clock. The valiant lady has just passed away. Moreover, last year a deceptive ballot measure passed in Oregon that rolled back much of Measure 37.

Dorothy English died without finally regaining the rights to her own property. But she did win a legacy. Many will benefit because she refused to give up. Ever.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Beware of enemies of property rights bearing pallid imitations of the real thing.

Californians face an alternative on the upcoming June ballot: protect their private property, or expose it to the continued attack of politicians and private entities seeking easy ill-gotten gain.

Proposition 98 is the real thing. It would outlaw taking private property for private use. It defines “just compensation” in detail so that persons who lose property to a public use have a better chance of being fairly compensated. It would enable the original owner of a property to buy it back if it was grabbed under false pretenses. And Prop 98 also phases out rent control.

All this is spelled out in California’s official ballot summary. But opponents complained about the official title — “Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property” — saying it doesn’t mention the ban on rent control. Which is, however, clearly stated in the summary. In any case, the courts have rebuffed this attempt to undermine the measure.

Opponents prefer Proposition 99, a much more limited measure. It states that eminent domain may not be abused to steal an “owner-occupied residence.” So Prop 99 basically sanctions the state’s grabbing of small businesses — or any property for any purpose at all if you happen not to live there.

Sorry, 99. But you’re not the right choice for real advocates of property rights.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

For 18 years, the U.S. government studied algae as a source for biofuel, giving up over a decade ago because managing pond scum was just too hard.

Ah, but algae is just too efficient a source of oil to let it fizzle.

Plant physiologist and multiple patent holder Glen Kertz has figured out a way to manage algae growth and harvest.

Forget ponds. Place the algae in plastic bags and line them up vertically. Like corn, I guess.

Except that corn is amazingly inefficient at producing biofuel. Yeah, the government is subsidizing ethanol grown from corn. But farmers only get 20 gallons of fuel per acre per year. Kertz estimates 100,000 gallons per year from his method, which he calls Vertigro.

Vertical rows of algae-and-water bags move on conveyor belts to maximize sunlight. And, if this research pans out, it won’t be just algae moving, it will be Kertz’s own wealth moving upwards.

The project is a joint venture with Global Green Solutions, a Canadian alternative energy company. They’ve invested about $5 million in a Texas facility, where right now they’re trying to figure out which kind of algae makes which kind of biofuel best.

Now our government is getting involved in algae research, again. But we’ve dumped so much money into scummy ponds, and on almost certain failures like corn ethanol, that at this point subsidy seems a waste.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Expensive coffee is my besetting sin. But the hugely successful Starbucks — which I’ve defended before — recently did something so oddly irksome that maybe I’ll get a handle on my occasional vice.

Starbucks offers a debit-card-like “customer card” that allows you to pay for your purchases in advance. Or to give coffee to the Starbucks addicts on your gift list.

This is a great marketing gimmick . . . to which I’ve never succumbed. So I had to read about the controversy from David Boaz of the Cato Institute in an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal.

A friend of David’s got a card. And he went to Starbucks’s website to get it going. Starbucks offered to “customize” his card with a personalized motto that the website says would make the card “as unique as you are.”

David’s friend chose the motto “Laissez-faire.”

That means “leave us alone.” It’s the living expression of tolerance and lack of regulation, often used in conjunction with free-market capitalism.

Great slogan. I use it. It fits with other ideas of tolerance I have, too, the common, more liberal ones about free speech and such.

Unfortunately, Starbucks wouldn’t print the slogan. It was rejected.

They let plenty of leftist political slogans see printing, but not “laissez-faire”!

It makes me want to leave Starbucks alone.

Hmmm . . . Starbucks has competitors. Maybe I’ll try one.

That’s “laissez-faire.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Dentistry! What a job, sticking fingers into opened mouths. Probing. Drilling. Filling. Ugh.

And it must not be easy managing patients, or clients, or whatever they call the people who pay their bills.

It’s bad enough here in America; It is obviously much harder in Britain, where dentists were just told to go on vacation. By the government. Why? They had filled their work quotas. Even while millions — yes, millions — of English people can’t get in to see any dentist!

Dentistry is socialized in Britain. The government hires the dentists. Tax money — not patients directly — pay for the dental work.

So no wonder there aren’t enough dentists in Britain, and why British teeth, in general, are getting worse, even though the service is “free of charge.”

Just try to provide a free service using tax monies — you still can’t void the laws of scarcity and value by edict. If you want something, you still have to pay for it. You still have to invest. Scarce resources must go from some use and be put to another.

The trouble, as economists starting with the Austrian Ludwig von Mises have shown, is that when you try to run things by bureaucracy, forfeiting private means of production and capitalist investment and competitive markets, you give up some amazingly effective tools to organize scarce resources. And you are left with guesswork. And politics.

And, under socialized medicine, bad teeth.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.