But this doesn’t mean all grabbing of property for “public use” is honorable or sensible. Government officials too often mindlessly deploy their power, simply because they possess that power and can get away with abusing it.

And if the easiest way to get what they want also happens to show brutal contempt for the rights of their constituents? Hey, them’s the breaks, pal.

The editors of a Phoenix area newspaper, the East Valley Tribune, also oppose such arbitrary assault on the property and rights of others. In the town of Chandler, Arizona, Lloyds Complete Auto Supply must close its doors. Not because they can’t make money any more, but because Chandler officials want a new town hall. Aztec Wrought Irons in the same neighborhood is also on the government’s hit list.

There is no more urgent reason for the peremptory bulldozing of these businesses than the expiration of a ten-year lease in a private office building where many city officials have their offices. That’s the crisis. That’s the dire emergency.

The Tribune believes that instead of using tax dollars and police powers to “knock down decades of hard work,” Chandler officials should take the trouble to align their plans with those of property owners.

Yes. They should.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Specifically, he wants candidates to sign the Reason Foundation’s “Oath of Presidential Transparency.” The pledge has two parts. The first endorses “effective management, accountability, transparency, and disclosure” of federal spending. The second is a commitment to enforce the Federal Funding and Accountability Act, passed by Congress in 2006.

This legislation was introduced by Senator Tom Coburn. Both Barack Obama and John McCain signed on as co-sponsors. It requires all recipients of federal funds to be fully disclosed on the Web. And hey, they even set up a website.

Obama has already signed the Oath of Presidential Transparency. I have to wonder who is asleep at the McCain camp, given that their candidate has yet to add his John Hancock. Same goes for Ralph Nader, Libertarian Bob Barr and the Green and Constitution Party nominees.

But since we’re all in agreement here, let’s demand more.

Like what? Like real-time updates about budget items, allowing citizens time to protest particular pork projects and other prodigalities. Like forbidding the last-minute stuffing of earmarks into reconciliations bills.

Maybe we need a new compact with our government, one where, as Leslie Graves of the Lucy Burns Institute suggests, there would be “No taxation without information.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

But there’s at least one reform practiced by candidate Obama that could yield some very good changes indeed: His rejection of government funding of presidential campaigns.

Note I say “practiced by,” not “advocated by.” Obama has opted out of the system for tactical reasons only. In doing so he broke a promise earlier in the campaign that he would accept matching funds — along with the limits on his own general election spending that this would entail. But he had scooped up so much financial support so fast that he decided it would be shooting himself in the foot to accept spending restrictions.

Obama may be uncomfortable with his flip-flop. I applaud it — no, not the hypocrisy of it, but the example it sets for policy.

We should never force taxpayers to fund campaigns they may not support. And while we’re at it, let’s cut away the tangle of campaign laws regulating how much money we can give a candidate, or what and when and where we can say things about candidates.

If Obama could sign on to that proposal, he could really punch away at McCain on the issue. Obama would then be advocating real reform. Real good reform.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

A few weeks ago I chose to criticize Subway for a kids’ essay contest that didn’t allow homeschoolers to participate. And I pointed out two misspellings in its printed rules. And, wouldn’t you know it, my readers detected several typos in the email version of my rant.

Radio listeners missed out on this bit of hilarity.

Subway had spelled “United States” as “Untied States,” and added an extra “t” to another word. I had used the wrong kind of “bear,” and left out a “c” in another word. Once an email’s out, it’s out . . . but right away I made sure the website had it right.

Since Subway’s instructions were printed, they had a harder time of it. But they were quick to correct the chief error I had chastised them for: Not allowing homeschoolers to participate in their contest.

When Subway realized that customers were angry, the company did more than confess to the lapse. With remarkable speed, Subway found a way to allow homeschoolers to compete.

This was a far more important problem than any typo. My proofreaders may have fallen a bit short in the homonym department, and someone at Subway got his or her fingers tangled. But leaving a contest open to everyone is very, very basic.

Thankfully, unlike in government, such mistakes tend to get fixed fast in the private sector. Why? Customers can choose to go elsewhere, taking their money.

That’s the kick in the pants.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* to speak truth to power, personally and through the press;
* to practice our religion — or not — as we choose;
* to associate with others and peaceably assemble together;
* to petition our government for a redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment, which recognizes our right to arm ourselves, means we — as individuals — may legally and practically secure the rights of the First.

Or does it?

The Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

A debate has raged over what these words actually mean. Does the Amendment support an individual right to be armed . . . or only when enlisted in a state militia? This makes a big difference for gun regulation and prohibition.

Now, in the case D.C. v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court has settled the issue. Voting 5-4, the court says Yes, the Second Amendment does enshrine an individual right to bear arms.

This makes perfect sense to me. That’s why the framers wrote “right of the people.”

Indeed, this is a wonderful victory for freedom.

It is also welcome news for Washington, D.C., residents who now, whether driving a cab or sitting at home alone, will be able to protect themselves. Which means, in the end, less crime and violence.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

For years I’ve been saying that a person can bring applicable experience to a new job, including a legislative job, and be effective right away. An accountant might get elected and still, as a freshman legislator, look at a state budget and say, “Uh, folks, the government is spending more than it takes in.”

Maybe even a pilot or belly dancer could figure that out.

Incumbent lawmakers also say experience is important. But they’ll add that the only way to get experience relevant to legislation is by accumulating years in a single seat of power. They explain that they can’t learn the job until they’ve been around eight, ten, twenty years or so.

Such confession of incompetence might seem, to most people, more an argument for resigning than for being awarded permanent tenure. Or an argument for term limits. But the self-serving assertions of American incumbents now receive a powerful boost from overseas. From Cuba. From a son of the sainted communist soldier and mass murderer Che Guevera, head of the revolution.

Seems Camilo Guevera has endorsed Raul Castro’s ascendancy to the presidency of Cuba. Fidel, dictator for decades, has been ill. Earlier this year his brother Raul, one of Fidel’s most important flunkies for almost 50 years, took over. Camilo says “it would stupid not to take advantage of all that experience.”

Hey, that’s just what our “experienced” politicians say! Maybe we can send them to help Raul?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

A former congressmen who pledged to limit his tenure to three terms max, Sanford was one of a number of self-limiters in the Congress who showed that keeping one’s word does not amount to a political death sentence. You get the idea of his level of commitment from both the title and content of a book he wrote some years ago, The Trust Committed to Me.

Sanford’s fiscal conservatism is a tough sell wherever political incumbents just want to spend, spend, spend taxpayers’ money. So the governor doesn’t always use his political clout on behalf of incumbents who share his party affiliation but not his principles.

Sanford recently endorsed the candidacy of Ed Rumsey, who is challenging Bill Sandifer for a South Carolina House seat. This was the third time in recent weeks Sanford had endorsed a GOP challenger over a GOP incumbent. This angers Republicans who prioritize partisanship over sound policy.

Governor Sanford has a different idea. He and Sandifer are at odds over the issue of bloated spending. The governor wants to increase the chances that his vetoes will be upheld, instead of routinely overridden.

Sanford’s politics may stir up a ruckus, but, as he puts it, “seats don’t belong to individual members. It is not a franchise one gets to own.”

That’s common sense — and so’s this! I’m Paul Jacob.

Recently, members of the Santa Clara water board approved steep salary hikes for two of their staffers, making them the highest-paid for their jobs in all of California. For example, the water district attorney will get an 8-percent hike so that she now pulls down $221,720 a year. Well, not exactly. She also got a $12,000 bonus. Then there’s her monthly car allowance: $750.

Yikes. Guess I’m in the wrong line of work.

Interestingly, the board doled out these huge hikes right after refusing to consider a proposal to let voters consider term-limiting board members. These antics are a strong argument for privatizing the water industry, frankly. Short of that, these guys definitely need to be term-limited.

It’s not exactly a secret in Santa Clara that the town’s water board is lavish with its budget. A spate of critical stories made the rounds of California papers after the board’s latest twirl of the financial spigot. As one reporter notes, the board has been “buffeted by charges of excessive spending.”

But you know, there’s buffeting and there’s buffeting. Trust me, any kind of buffeting that leaves incumbents in place to continue their exploitative fun and games is not enough buffeting.

Oh, forget “buffeting”! I’ll take term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

My question is — Why should any government entity ever be spending taxpayer money on stadiums? There are tickets and promotions and things that raise mucho dinero for franchises. Top players scoop up millions in salary. If big-time sports are not financially viable operations, what could be? And if sometimes owners lack as much money as they might like to spend on a stadium, why should a taxpayer who never watches a game have to pay for it?

Miami-Dade intends to fork over $347 million of taxpayer money plus a $35 million loan. All with no public hearings, no open discussion. No public vote on whether taxpayer money should be splurged on this. Zero due diligence.

So Mr. Braman is suing to expose the shabby politics surrounding the project.

Braman hopes to compel the city to function more responsibly. The evidence so far shows officials have been lazy at best. In one deposition, Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez admitted that he had never even seen a financial statement of the Florida Marlins. He never even requested a financial statement.

That’s strike number one. Let’s hope Braman pitches a perfect game.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

This election, I’m already sick of “change.” And hey: I want change; demand it. But the only change I can believe in is change with some specifics attached.

Put “Change” on hold, politicians, go to a thesaurus and look for another word.

For a change.

Another word I’d like to hear less of is “staunch.” Somehow, “staunch” only applies to conservatives. He’s a “staunch conservative,” they say; she’s a “staunch opponent of big government.”

Can’t we think of another word? Like, uh, “principled”?

Why not put the word “staunch” on our taboo list for a year? Or, at the very least, try applying it to liberals only for a while.

I have a friend who thinks the word “natural” should never be used by theologians or political philosophers. What’s natural, for them, he says, is to make too much of the concept. And I’ve noticed that “natural” is meaning less and less on packaging these days.

Another friend thinks it’s a pity that Democrats get to call themselves “democrats” when they usually oppose democratic reforms like initiative and referendum. He also regrets that Republicans have come to support imperial stances, not republican ones, including an imperial presidency. But they still call themselves “republicans.”

I guess our favorite political words become not only cliche, but become the very opposite of what they originally meant. The more things change . . .

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.