This March, armed Pennsylvania State Police bravely raided three popular bars in Philadelphia.

They confiscated liquors that allegedly had not been properly registered with the state Liquor Control Board. Brewers and importers must pay a $75 registration for each separate potable they sell in the state.

Some unnamed concerned citizen had complained. The three bars were affiliated, so maybe a resentful competitor had something to do with it.

According to the owners, many of the confiscated ales had been duly registered. But when the state police couldn’t instantly confirm this, they just grabbed cases and kegs and towed them away.

Even in the case of unlicensed ales, what is the virtue of raiding a bar to sloppily “check” their status and then steal supplies? Especially when it’s not the bar owners who are legally obligated to register the brands?

Some clerk could have just dropped by, inspected the booze, asked a few questions. Or just called the brewery and said, “Hey, you forgot to register such-and-such.”

Of course, the whole idea of requiring separate registrations of each separate beverage is silly to begin with.

Further, the state police could have, and should have, simply declined this wrongheaded mission.

Apparently we can’t count on better lawmaking and better, more sensible regulations. But we do count on our police.

This is Common Sense. (Let’s practice it.) I’m Paul Jacob.

When politicians begin messing with ballot access and signature requirements, watch out. Usually, they’re up to no good. (Always.)

Illinois State Representative Joseph Lyons would likely disagree. He’s sponsoring a bill to equalize the number of signatures required to get on the ballot for a Chicago alderman position. Currently, many wards require just a few hundred signatures. Lyons wants to up that to 500 per ward. Every ward should be equal, dontcha know.

Besides, he says, “To get 500 signatures should not be a burden.” Then comes his kicker. “The more friends you’ve got, the easier it should be. And if you don’t have any friends, you shouldn’t be running for alderman.”

And there’s the rub. Just who are his friends that would benefit?

Could they be his current Democratic buddies who already serve as aldermen, and don’t want the competition?

Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, is certainly skeptical about this reform. Quoted in an excellent Chicago Tribune article, she insists that the bill would have “a big effect in low voter-turnout wards.” But then, as she admits, she’s interested in getting more people to run for office, not making it harder to do so.

We know where Lyons stands on this. He’s like most politicians. Once he and his buddies get in, they want to keep the competition out.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Paul Krugman is getting sillier and sillier these days. He’s supposed to be an economist, and not long ago some people in Sweden gave him an award for his economic work. So why would he suggest that economic incentives just don’t matter?

The New York Times columnist bashed Republican Senator Jon Kyl for stating that generous unemployment benefits can reduce the incentive to look for new work. Krugman says that this isn’t the textbook view of things shared by himself and the Democrats. “What Democrats believe,” Krugman says, “is what textbook economics says.”

Gee. So what does textbook economics say?

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal actually checked a textbook in economics. According to this textbook, “Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job.”

Interesting. So who wrote this textbook? Yes, that’s right: Paul Krugman.

This partisan fellow, Krugman, often seems to go out of his way to be contradictory as possible. Does he believe his own babbling? Or is he just trying to get a rise out of us?

Or is it to please his editors over at the Times?

Call it an economic incentive.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

An article in Miller-McCune entitled “Ballot Initiatives: Making the Grade” reports on Citizens in Charge Foundation’s 2010 Report Card on Statewide Voter Initiative Rights.

Miller-McCune fellow Erik Hayden noticed that our report focused on the “accessibility each state provides for citizen-led ballot initiatives and referendums” and that most states received failing grades.

Hayden also compared this 50-state “nonpartisan” report card with the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center’s “progressive” 24-state report. BISC’s report “was designed to expose states that are rife with the potential for ballot-measure fraud.”

But Hayden did not ask what “the potential for ballot-measure fraud” really means. Had he done so, he would have discovered that there hasn’t been real, actual fraud BISC can point to.

BISC helps progressives launch initiatives. But the group doesn’t defend the existence (or support the spread) of initiative and referendum rights throughout the U.S.

Hayden concluded that “low grades on the report cards . . . illustrate the potential and the pitfalls of an electoral system dominated solely by citizens.”

Hmmm. So often we hear about government dominated by big money, overwhelmed by special interests, the tool of one political machine or another. When have we ever heard of government “dominated solely by citizens”?

Wait a second — isn’t that how the government is supposed to be, “We the People” and all? A government dominated by citizens would be . . . well, less dominating.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

When I heard what Nancy Pelosi said about the health care bill the other day, I did a double-take. And had to double-check the press release issued by Pelosi’s own office.

Yikes! She really said it! Then published it on her website to the accompaniment of bugles and trumpets!

Okay, maybe I invented the bugles and trumpets. But not the words:

“Prevention, prevention, prevention — it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

Ah yes, the “fog of the controversy”! The way critics of this 2000-page legislation have exposed the regimentation, price controls, new taxes, and choked-off choices we’ll all suffer if the bill passes. How dare we!

Terrible that there’s actually debate about whether we should permanently lose more of our freedoms. Can’t we all agree to be trampled and then find out what it all means? After it’s too late to stop it?

No. Let’s dispel the fog right now. Let the government mail a copy of the bill to every voter.

And let Congress agree that every voter must pass a 500-question multiple choice quiz on its contents before Congress moves forward.

Let’s dispel the fog before we’re saddled with this thing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.