ThisIsCommonSense.org

If somebody arrests you and throws you in jail, does that mean you deserved to be arrested and thrown in jail? Not long ago I discussed the case of Gail Atwater, a Texas mom who was not only fined but also arrested and briefly jailed. Her crime? She and her children were not wearing their seat belts while looking for a lost toy.

The experience was a traumatic one for her, and especially for her kids. Atwater thought the treatment way out of bounds and sued, taking the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But the Court ruled that although the officer’s actions were unreasonable, they were within his proper discretion. Most of us can put ourselves in the shoes of Gail Atwater. Most of us have gotten a ticket for speeding at one time or another. A ticket is bad enough. What if the police felt they had the right to arrest us too, even without reasonable cause? Most cops would never do that, but a few bad ones might.

Say if the motorist seems to be looking at them the wrong way. Most listeners took my point. But a couple said, hey, you wouldn’t need to arrest me to make me wear a seat belt! I abide by the law! In other words, the sheer fact that Atwater was arrested proves she deserved to be arrested and tough luck. All I can say is, there are countries where people get arbitrarily arrested as a matter of routine, and there is nobody, no media, no legislature, no court, to protest or stop it. These countries are called dictatorships. And that’s not a road we want to travel.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

I’m confused. As in several other states with term limits, the career politicians in Michigan want to get rid of limits so they can stay in power longer.

The Chicago Tribune had a very interesting story about it by Tim Jones. What confused me was this bit about how one of the terrible effects of term limits is that it changes the balance of power so that now, quote, “skilled lobbyists … have far more power than ever before.” And guess who uttered that special insight? Why, none other than Al Short, term-​limit critic and lobbyist for the Michigan Education Association. Wow, what a public-​spirited lobbyist!

Mr. Short wants to give up all that new power he’s gotten as a result of term limits! Just like the other 80 percent-​plus of lobbyists who say they oppose term limits in public opinion polls. Also confusing is that the very next paragraph of the story says that term limits create annoying “new challenges” for lobbyists. One lobbying firm even passes out flash cards to its employees with pictures of the lawmakers, so everybody can learn the new faces. Talk about puppet strings!

Then, in the paragraph after that, Jones quotes another Michigan lobbyist, Richard Cole with Blue Cross/​Blue Shield, and a leader of the repeal effort. Cole says the legislature has been weakened because so many of the new legislators take “four years to figure out where the men’s room is.” Why do I suspect that what Mr. Cole really means is, the new legislators aren’t jumping when he snaps his fingers? I don’t know. It is all very confusing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler recently won an upset victory for the Republican nomination for governor of New Jersey over former Congressman Bob Franks.

I can say good things about Bob Franks. He supported term limits in Congress and even set a limit on his own time in office. He campaigned on establishing a citizen initiative process where New Jersey voters could truly take charge of their government. But political analysts suggest Franks wasn’t credible on those issues, in no small part because he had the support of Governor Donald DiFrancesco and the GOP establishment who simply could not be trusted.

Republicans took control of the New Jersey Legislature a decade ago promising to enact term limits, voter initiative, and other reforms. But once in power, Republicans turned on the people. Term limits had passed the House and was ready to be taken up by the Senate, with enough votes lined up, when Senate President DiFrancesco pulled it from the calendar. The Senate never voted on the issue. DiFrancesco himself had been the frontrunner for the gubernatorial nomination until several months ago when his unethical dealings as township attorney in Scotch Plains became public. He was forced to pull out of the race for governor. That’s why DiFrancesco is the real loser in the election along with his rusty GOP machine. After Schundler’s victory, Governor DiFrancesco even refused to endorse his fellow Republican. That may, in fact, prove to be another big boost to Schundler’s candidacy.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

We hear a great deal about money corrupting politics these days. But Paul Farago, with the Cascade Policy Institute, says politics is corrupting money.

He points out that much of the problem is created by politicians dispensing special favors or threatening to bludgeon the market to shake down contributions from various economic interests. Farago writes: “The total amount spent in elections is insignificant when compared to the economic value of laws and rules that favor particular interests. For example, spending on federal elections over the last two years amounted to about $2.5 billion … During the same period, the U.S. government spent about $3.25 trillion: roughly 1,300 times more money.” Farago is right: Politics corrupts money.

In the 1992 election cycle, Microsoft gave only $50,000 in political donations. But after an aggressive campaign by the Clinton Justice Department to tear the company apart, Microsoft felt it had to start ponying up big-​time to save its neck. It gave over $4.5 million dollars in the 2000 election cycle a 9,000 percent increase. Farago says Congress is supposed to provide for the welfare of all citizens, not discriminate in favor of a few, nor function as a shakedown artist intimidating those with deep pockets.

Our political leaders are supposed to apply the principle of equality under the law. Politicians don’t need any new laws to stop corruption especially laws that allow incumbents to squelch criticism and regulate those who would oppose them. They need only follow the law and not be corrupt. That’s not too much to ask, is it?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Who is the most powerful man in all the galaxy? Why, Alan Greenspan of course, the chairman of the Federal Reserve. He’s twirling the dials of the whole U.S. economy. He’s scanning the indicators and figuring out where the economy has been and where it’s going. Where we’ve all been … where we’re all going. Are things too sluggish? Al will give it a goose, with a half-​point interest rate cut here, half-​point there, half-​point everywhere. Easy money to keep everybody happy, everybody investing.

Uh oh. Now there’s some “overheating.” Hey, don’t worry … Al’s under the hood, checking the carburetor and nudging that interest rate back up. Are we saving or spending too much, too little? Don’t worry, Al is there to prod us in the right direction. Al will save us.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Mr. Greenspan is a smart guy. Anybody who can spout all that jargon the way our four-​term Fed chairman does, has got to be pretty brainy. Greenspan is a trained economist who worked many years as a consultant in the private sector before he started spinning dials for the government. When he speaks publicly about the economy, he’s often right. But Alan Greenspan is just one guy. And our economy is very big, very complex, very various.

The totality cannot be conveyed in any one set of statistics, nor planned by any one mind. So maybe there shouldn’t be any single captain at the economic helm. Maybe it should be up to each of us where the economy goes. And maybe we’d do just fine.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Is it all over, finally? Bill Gates and Microsoft have had a tough time. They’ve been in the courts for umpteen years now, hounded for alleged breaches of anti-​trust law. Anti-​trust law is so fuzzy that even ever-​lower prices and higher productivity can’t save you from the charge of harming the consumer.

In the present case, Microsoft was charged with such heinous crimes as “bundling” one part of its technology with another part of technology. Like combining shoelaces with shoes, or cars with tires. The kind of thing consumers like because it makes life easier for them. Microsoft was also accused of signing contracts with terms that some of its competitors didn’t like.

There is, of course, a big difference between violating a contract that both parties have agreed to and abiding by a contract both parties have agreed to. Needless to say, if a business partner believes Microsoft has violated a contract, he can take Microsoft to court and seek redress without any involvement of the Justice Department. And that has happened. But the Justice Department sued Microsoft not to deal with any such specific alleged wrong, but just because competitors like Netscape and AOL wanted to bring Microsoft down a peg or two. And last year, a vindictive judge even ordered a punitive breakup of the company.

That’s right. Ordered its destruction. For being too successful. An appeals court has now reversed that order and sent the case back to be retried. Let’s hope the new Justice Department will drop the case, and let Microsoft get back to work.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.