Category: Common Sense

We’ve all been told that the attempt to recall California Governor Gray Davis is wild and crazy. Not so many realize that the state’s voters have probably already benefited just from having the recall measure on the ballot. But Michael New of the Cato Institute has noticed.

New notes that with a $38-billion deficit hanging like smog over the California legislature, those who wanted taxes to go through the roof had a lot of leverage. Yet the eventual budget compromise wasn’t anywhere near as tax-happy as some had feared. Why not? New says that a couple factors prevented the super-tax-hikes. One is California’s super-majority requirement to pass tax hikes. If all it took in California to boost taxes were a simple majority of the legislature, the pro-taxers would probably have won hands down. But the anti-taxers stood their ground. New believes that, “In the end, it was the recall effort that saved California taxpayers.

With Davis’s popularity hovering at Nixonian levels, Davis and Assembly Democrats realized that any substantial tax hikes would damage his chances of surviving the recall. Consequently, they were more willing to agree to a budget compromise that did not involve a substantial tax increase.” I agree with New that Democrats probably would have been more stubborn about tax hikes without this political reality punching them in the nose.

This argument isn’t quite new with New. The citizen initiative has always given voters greater control over their government. A good thing, too.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Jake Brown, a young history major, often eats lunch at a bench in a park near Independence Hall in Philadelphia. One day this summer, he brought a sign saying: “Free Independence Hall.” It was in protest of metal bike racks in the area that he thinks are ugly. Maybe a silly cause, but a harmless one. He wasn’t shouting. He wasn’t running around flourishing the sign. He just had it propped next to him.

But soon a park ranger was telling Browne he couldn’t protest there. Browne asked why, and the official said it’s because the park is federal property. Browne wanted to know, “What about my First Amendment right to free speech?” According to Browne, the park ranger replied, “This is a First-Amendment-free zone,” and that if Browne wanted to display his sign he had to take it to the “designated First Amendment Zone,” a couple blocks away. Intimidated, Browne suggested that he just turn the sign around while he ate his lunch. The official said, “Fine. [But if] you turn it back, you’re under arrest.”

Well, this isn’t a science fiction tale of a darkening future, it’s all been written up in the Philadelphia Daily News . Fortunately, under pressure from the ACLU, the park rangers seem to have reversed their policy. My small suggestion would be that before being hired, government employees be required to pass a test on the U.S. Constitution, with special attention to the Bill of Rights and with a failing grade for anyone who claims that this document doesn’t cover the whole country.

This is common sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Is it possible that what you do on the job is more important than how long you hold the job? I’ve always felt that you can get stuff done on Day One of any post. Just common sense. But many career politicians don’t think like this at all.

Many career politicians even though they yodel about how well-qualified they are when they’re running for office plead incompetence once they’re in office. They tend to do this especially in the 16 states that have legislative term limits. “Hey, give me a few years to find the bathroom!” is their plaintive plea. “And then I’ll start figuring out how to pass a bill. . . .” Yeah, we get it. And another decade to figure out how to get away with political corruption without anybody noticing. And another decade to name half the state after yourself. So it’s refreshing when somebody doesn’t try to pull this gag.

In Oklahoma, Democrats in the statehouse have nominated Representative Jari Askins as the new speaker. Assuming Democrats hold onto their majority after the 2004 elections, Ms. Askins can only do this job for two years.

She’ll be termed out of office in 2006. Does she claim that she needs more time than that just to find the bathroom? Not at all. “I knew if I had a chance to be speaker, it would only be for a two-year period,” Askins says. “My philosophy has always been that it’s more important what you accomplish during your time of leadership than the length of your time of leadership.” Good for you, Representative Askins.

This is common sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Self-help tip for the day: hand it off. Learn to delegate.

Critics of term limits often complain about how term limits kick experience out the door. And how tough it is for newcomers to learn the ropes.

What I keep hearing, though, is that new legislators bring experience to the table that is highly relevant. Experience as farmers, accountants, businessmen, taxpayers.

And what about all that complicated legislative stuff? Well, turns out the actual legislative procedure is not all that complicated. And even the arcane niceties of legal language don’t have to be a stumbling block. U.S. Congressman have their staffers to hack out bills for them. But state legislators get help too.

For example, I see at the Arkansas legislature’s web site that the actual drafting of the legal language of bills is handed off to the Bureau of Legislative Research. After that, according to the web site, “A bill is given to the Chief Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate and assigned a number. The sponsor(s) of a bill signs the original copy.” Then I guess at some point everybody gets to vote on it. Sounds like rocket science, doesn’t it?

No, submitting a bill isn’t the hard part. There’s a manual for that. The hard part is representing citizens fairly and governing fairly. And there’s no reason why a person can’t be experienced in balancing the books, the problems of particular industries or, for that matter, the basics of a just political philosophy long before entering public office.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Should we be scaring people to death?

The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a fatwa against low levels of mercury in pregnant women. They say that children of women with 5.8 parts per billion of mercury in their blood are “at some increased risk of adverse health effects.” But they present no evidence of this increased risk.

According to a recent EPA report, about eight percent of American women of childbearing age have this level of mercury. But 5.8 parts per billion is 10 times less than the threshold considered safe in the scientific literature.

If such announcements had no impact we could laugh them off as bureaucratic busywork. But politicians use them to push new regulations. Yet the few outbreaks of mercury poisoning on record involve massive dumping, not some kind of diffuse emissions.

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, notes that “we don’t even know how much [industrially issued mercury] gets taken up by humans. [N]o one has ever bothered to see if the mercury in Americans largely resembles the mercury, in its chemical signature, that comes out of power plants. Nor has anyone ever asked if the patterns of mercury elevation in landlocked fish . . . looks like the pattern of mercury fallout from the nation’s matrix of power plants.”

So, no real proof of a problem. Just regulators and politicians eager to show how much they care . . . no matter who they may hurt and scare in the process.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Shooting gun makers in the back may be falling out of fashion.

If somebody shoots somebody else with a gun, you’d think if you were going to sue anybody, you’d sue the shooter. Not people who make or sell guns for a living. Unless we’re also going to start suing baseball bat manufacturers whenever anyone gets bashed with a baseball bat.

Yet over the last several years we have been hearing about lawsuit after lawsuit against firearms manufacturers, as if they were complicit in crimes they knew nothing about. Fortunately, many courts have dismissed the lawsuits as transparent attempts by gun-control advocates to win by lawsuit what they can’t win by law.

Some lawmakers have banned these frivolous lawsuits. For example, in Georgia. The U.S. House has also passed a ban on such suits, and the Senate may follow suit.

Some of the folks pushing these lawsuits have decided to throw in the towel. Recently the Cincinnati City Council voted unanimously to drop its own lawsuit, which sought to make gun makers pay for the costs of responding to crimes in which guns are used. I guess they’re reserving their right to bring the lawsuit again if the ban in Congress doesn’t pass.

Of course, if you sell a gun to somebody you know is planning to commit a crime with it, there you have knowledge and complicity. But you can’t punish vendors every time something they sell is put to evil use. Such a principle of liability has nothing to do with holding people responsible. It’s more of a license to kill.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

President Abraham Lincoln warned us: “If our American society and United States Government are overthrown, it will come from the voracious desire for office, this wriggle to live without toil, work and labor from which I am not free myself.”

Are state legislators in Ohio now working to prove honest Abe right? Or are politicians innocently attempting to improve state government operations? Or, perhaps it’s not legislators at all; maybe it’s a ghost at work here.

What am I talking about? A bill winding its way through the Ohio Legislature in this time of budget crunches was amended to spend $1.8 million dollars adding new seats to various state commissions. The skinny is that legislators were looking to provide themselves with a few cushy places to land before being term-limited out of office. What better than serving on a state commission at top-dollar!

The chief of staff for House Republicans says “simply not true.” Of course, I would much rather talk with the legislator that wrote the provision. But the sponsor of the idea may well have been a ghost: no legislator will own up to it.

The effort that was being attempted by legislators, or perhaps by some evil spirit, is scuttled for now, pulled from the bill much less mysteriously than it was tucked into it. Speaker Larry Householder says it was “just causing too much hell.”

Yeah, we know what you mean. Abe Lincoln talked about it. Thank goodness for term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

It’s always a good sign when the people in power enact reasonable limits on that power, all by themselves. It shows that they have respect for voters and democracy.

That seems to the attitude in Rhode Island, where Representative William J. Murphy, a member of the Rhode Island House who is about to become Speaker, is working with four other leaders to limit the terms of legislative leaders. And they don’t want to do it by gentleman’s agreement or easily rescinded statute, either. They want a constitutional amendment.

Murphy says he does not want to serve the same decade-long stint as Speaker that his predecessor served. He believes that eight consecutive years as House Speaker or Senate President should be the limit. His goal is to “help restore the confidence of the people of Rhode Island in the legislature and its leadership.”

Rhode Islanders have been critical of apparent abuse among legislative leaders in recent years which included an attempt to cover up allegations of abuse of power by a previous speaker.

Murphy says, “My most important priority as speaker will be to remove that siege and restore the confidence of the people of Rhode Island in the General Assembly and in its leaders. If I cannot accomplish that goal, I will consider my time as speaker of the House a failure.

“Term limits for the principal leader of each chamber is one of several legislative reform initiatives that I will be proposing.”

Great start on a great idea. Next, how about term-limiting all the members of the Rhode Island Legislature?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Let’s hope it’s not just tilting at windmills.

The National Taxpayers Union has just has just launched a national ad campaign to focus America’s attention on union violence. NTU believes that if corporate fraud is bad, then certainly beating people up for crossing a picket line is also bad. Why criticize one and ignore the other?

According to one of NTU’s ads, “Too many job actions include harassment, assaults, and even worse. In Ohio this spring, one union member was charged with plotting to launch explosives into a workplace.”

NTU tells the viewer to “tell Congress that union violence against hard-working Americans must stop. Tell them to pass the Freedom From Union Violence Act. Because that’s the only way the thugs who commit these crimes will get the message.”

Do we really need congressional action to counter violence that is already against the law? Maybe.

Authorities have too often turned a blind eye to union-led, union-bred violence. As if punching somebody in the nose in the name of the working man is somehow more forgivable than punching somebody in the nose because they looked at you the wrong way. The same union leaders wagging their fingers at fraudulent CEOs need to speak out at least as strongly against union violence.

Will the National Taxpayers Union succeed in their idealistic campaign against beating people up? I have to hope. It’s not the kind of thing anybody should have to put up with. And if enough people come to understand the problem, maybe we won’t have to.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.