ThisIsCommonSense.org

There’s a crisis facing California legislators and they are meeting it head on. Well, not exactly head on, but they’re tackling it. Well, they’re not quite tackling it, but they’re scheming pretty hard to get around it.

Think I’m talking about rolling blackouts that terrorize many who depend on electricity for life-​saving machines? And millions more struggling to pay astronomical energy bills? Heh heh. Think again. Naw, it’s term limits that have the career politicians’ full attention. The solution to every problem, according to these jokers, is to end term limits. Just give them some more time and they’ll solve each and every problem they’ve created. California term limits first took effect in 1997.

The asinine energy regulation bill, which caused the current crisis, was passed in 1996 by that last great, unlimited legislature a sort of parting gift. But while term limits has brought many new faces to the Capitol, too many of the old bulls switched chambers and are still around. Under current law they’re finally termed-​out of both chambers in 2004.

These super-​incumbents are using their tremendous experience not to fashion a solution to the energy nightmare, but rather to file and fund a phony new initiative. Proposition 918 pretends to “improve” term limits by allowing the politicians to continue to serve another eight years, even after already serving 14 years since term limits were passed, and years before that.

Well, the politicians aren’t going to get away with it. At long last, it’s going to be lights out for the power-​grabbing politicians.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Ever get the feeling that the politicians are trying to milk you for all you’ve got?Over the years, career politicians have stitched a crazy quilt of agricultural price supports. Peanut butter, sugar, and dairy products like cheese and milk are all more expensive because giant agricultural companies have good buddies in Washington.

Three or four years ago, Congress talked seriously about unraveling these supports. But old habits die hard. In fact, legislation is now pending in Congress to even further expand the milk cartels. This, though the National Taxpayers Union says we’re spending billions in higher grocery bills thanks to subsidies already in place. A few farmers may be helped, temporarily, by dairy and other farm price controls. But the rest of us suffer. And even many farmers are harmed when inefficient competitors rake in the dough mostly because of their size and propped-​up profits. The big firms are happy to be buffered from competition and they send crews of lobbyists to Washington to make sure things stay that way.

Various citizen legislators like Mark Sanford, the former congressman from South Carolina have led the battle in Congress on behalf of consumers. Thanks to Sanford, sugar price supports came up for a vote for the first time in years. But the lobbyists and the career politicians worked hard to protect their turf.

If we’re going to put an end to the price-​control regime in agriculture and get a cheaper grocery bill, looks like we’re going to have to put an end to career politicians first. All in favor say Aye.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

If there’s anything worse than a cover-​up of terrible crimes, it’s a cover-​up by the officials entrusted with investigating the cover-up.

That may well be what has happened in the case of the federal assault on a religious group in Waco, Texas in 1993, which ended in the deaths of 76 Davidians, including 27 children. It’s still not clear why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms felt obliged to assault the Davidians to begin with. And for years, independent journalists have argued that the evidence demonstrates reckless behavior not only on the part of religious leader David Koresh, but also on the part of federal agents.

Finally, signs of a cover-​up of crucial evidence became so blatant and so public that the Justice Department itself had to express shock and dismay over the matter. At any rate, at long last a special prosecutor, former Senator John Danforth, was appointed to investigate. Well, Danforth investigated, or so he says. He now admits he had to threaten the FBI with a search warrant to get the documents he needed. Nonetheless, his final report says nobody did anything wrong.

It was bad judgment, maybe, to indiscriminately fire 350 deadly ferret rounds into the building, or to ram it with tanks, or to assault a cameraman trying to record the siege for posterity. But criminal? Nah.

Criminal justice scholar Timothy Lynch argues that charges of reckless endangerment are in order, at the very least. He explains why in a detailed report at the Cato Institute web site, www​.cato​.org. Read it for yourself.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob

The good news, if you are inclined to view it that way, is that the government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is still functioning. If you didn’t know that was ever in doubt, you’ve missed one of our modern society’s latest brouhahas.

You see, Republican Governor Jane Swift recently became the first governor in U.S. history to give birth while in office. (Twin girls by the way.) Swift swiftly became a target. Political hacks combined their experience in partisan attack politics with their know-​it-​all busy body attitude concerning our personal lives. The amusing result was Democrats attacking a woman for holding a job and being a mother at the same time … and Republicans defending her.

Governor Swift’s past behavior has no doubt emboldened critics. Years ago, after her first daughter was born she was fined for an ethics violation for using aides as babysitters. Still, when Democrats recently threatened legal action against her attempt to hold certain executive meetings by conference call, the public sensed it was just more vicious partisanship and rallied around her.

Behind all the hyper-​concern about the governor’s absence is an idea that is … well, laughable: the idea that Massachusetts or any state for that matter cannot endure the temporary loss, or even diminished attention, of the governor, as if all of our lives depend on the constant manipulation of our society by the wizards in government. Governor Swift said of the criticism, “Unlike most of my adult life, two and a half weeks ago I stopped worrying about politics.” And Massachusetts has survived. Perhaps we can get other politicians to try it.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

The anti-​telephone brigade wants Congress to stop you from using your cell phone while driving. And Congress is listening.

So far, most of the action has been local. So far, few of the many bills that have been introduced in cities and states have become law. But now a House subcommittee is looking into this. There’s a real danger here. If Congress is willing to tell you how much water your toilet can flush, they’re not going to stop at outlawing phone calls. Maybe you’re thinking that the real danger is talking on the phone? That some drivers have even gotten in accidents while talking on the cell phone?

Hmm. I wonder what else might distract you while you’re driving your car. According to an analysis of 26,000 traffic accidents conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, events outside the car were involved in about 20 percent of accidents. Other top factors include eating and drinking in the car (19 percent), adjusting your radio or cassette player (11.4 percent), and distractions caused by other occupants (9.4 percent). Cell phone usage contributed to 1.5 percent of accidents. Adjusting the climate controls was a factor in 1.2 percent.

So what will we ban first? Sipping soda in the car? Talking to a passenger? Turning on the air-​conditioning? The fact is, all these things can be done while still driving responsibly. I have an idea. Why don’t we have rules of the road that people have to follow? Drivers could be ticketed if they break them. And if they break them and have an accident, we could hold them responsible for that accident.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

One thing I’ve learned over the years is that wanting to do the right thing isn’t enough. We also have to think about consequences. If things turn out badly, we can’t save the day by saying at least our intentions were good. Good intentions are not enough.

This is a lesson our political leaders have yet to absorb. They are often full of “good intentions.” So full of it that the minor matter of the consequences often gets lost in the fog. Recently we observed the 10th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act, or ADA, which introduced lots of laws about how we must make things easier for people with disabilities, and how we can all be sued if we do the wrong thing.

Sounds good. But lawyer Julie Hofius, who uses a wheelchair, says that ADA has more hurt than helped her. Why? Well, for one thing, firms are worried about lawsuits. If ADA weren’t there, a prospective employer would be able to openly ask questions during a job interview about how the disability might affect her capacity to do the job. And Ms. Hofius would then be able to give intelligent, responsive answers. But under ADA, employers are actually prohibited from asking such questions.

So it’s easier to take the path of least resistance, go through the motions, satisfy the legalities involved, and ultimately give the job to somebody else. Somebody who isn’t perceived as a “lawsuit on wheels,” as Julie puts it. Oh, our congressmen wanted to help. The president wanted to help. They didn’t, not really. But their intentions were the best.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.