Voters love term limits. That’s what the politicians, lobbyists and special interests in San Antonio, Texas, found out the hard way. Voters went to the polls on May 15th and smashed their attempt to weaken the city’s term limits law. The vote was overwhelming two to one just like the original vote for term limits 13 years ago, back in 1991.

And there’s more: term limits supporters were outspent, not 10 to 1, not 20 to 1, not 50 to 1 but 100 to 1. The mayor, city council members, unions bosses, big businesses and every political hack and special interest imaginable spent big bucks plastering the city with mail and billboards and radio and TV ads. They asked voters to extend their term limits from two 2-year terms to three 3-year terms and remove the lifetime limit.

Then, on a shoestring, the Homeowner-Taxpayer Association, led by president Bob Martin, using free publicity and holding street rallies with volunteers at busy intersections throughout the city, crushed the well-financed effort by the city’s political establishment. “I’ve never seen anything like it,” said Bob Martin. “They bombarded us with ads on TV and radio.” Still, citizens rocked the city council with such a lopsided vote.

As Martin pointed out, though, “A lot of these folks voted for term limits and they recall the days when we had career politicians running the city.” This huge victory sends a powerful message to politicians and special interests nationwide: hands off our term limit laws! Now listen, you politicians, ’cause . . .

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Nationwide, milk prices are soaring and consumers are angry. In the Midwest, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune recently predicted a jump of more than 60 cents per gallon in May. What’s going on here? It turns out this is no market hiccup: this is federal policy!

On May 1, the federal government hiked the minimum price for raw milk from $1.17 to $1.69. Now a gallon of milk that used to cost $2.99 might jump to $3.79. Why is the federal government doing this? Dairy farmers have been complaining that they need the higher prices due to rising costs and the devastating effects of Mad Cow disease. Besides, after adjusting for inflation, milk prices had hit a 20-year low. Sounds reasonable.

But wait a second. We live in a free country with a market economy. Why is the government setting the price of milk in the first place? Price controls cause real problems. If milk prices are set too low, dairy farmers will have trouble making ends meet, some will produce less, and some will go out of business. The result: milk shortages and less consumption.

High milk prices are just as bad, leading to higher grocery bills and less consumption. As commercials constantly remind us, milk is good for you. So the market price isn’t just the point where supply and demand meet. It’s also where consumers get the most calcium and the healthiest bones. Letting markets work would yield a cheap, reliable supply of milk without shortages or wildly swinging prices. Maybe we need a slogan: “The free market: it does a body good.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

The world is Kichul Lee’s oyster. Well, at least America should be. He lives here legally, and he passed the citizenship tests. What could stand in his way? Unfortunately, citizenship is closed for Mr. Lee.

A few years ago he collected a bucket of oysters on Puget Sound, was caught for going over the limit and fined $153. On that basis alone the Citizenship and Immigration Services denied his application to become a citizen. He “failed to establish . . . good moral character.” Mr. Lee’s crime was a mere misdemeanor. The game warden who ticketed Lee for the oyster violation was shocked to learn of the ultimate consequence of that one citation.

“It would have been very nice if [the Immigration Service] had contacted me to discuss the case. . . . I wouldn’t consider it serious at all,” he said. Now, I know what some of you are thinking: Keep as many people out of the country as possible. But Mr. Lee is legally in the country. He’s not going to get kicked out. He pays taxes. He obeys the laws now, I bet, even the oyster laws. He just can’t vote. But he is American enough to sue.

A number of would-be Americans who’ve been denied on similar grounds have joined in a class action lawsuit. They want the rules clarified. And they want to be reconsidered. More power to them. Moral character’s important. But to demand perfection of moral character is idiotic. How many natural-born citizens would deserve to stay? America should stand for character but also common sense.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Some legislators don’t like to be reminded that they’re there because of us voters. Well, us voters and all the incumbency protections. But we at least have some kind of walk-on role. A Florida voter wrote his representative to say that if the lawmaker voted for a certain nasty bill, the voter would definitely not vote for him again.

The legislation would have allowed local Florida governments to grab the land of private owners and sell it to a developer so that the local government could collect more tax money. It’s an increasingly common abuse of the principle of eminent domain. Arbitrary power is threatening; no wonder a voter might feel threatened. Radio talk show host Neil Boortz reports that this voter wrote state Senator Mike Fasano to say the legislation “is a clear attack on the rights of private property and I oppose this bill. You should not vote for it. Not if you want my vote again.”

The senator replied: “First, I don’t appreciate your threats. Second, I will consider your request and please don’t e-mail me any further if you feel compelled to throw out threats with your vote.” “This constituent,” Boortz observes, “feels strongly enough about a bill to tell his representative that his vote is riding on the representative’s stance on eminent domain abuse, and the representative acts as if his life has just been threatened! What arrogance!” Arrogant . . . and unsurprising. Fortunately, Florida’s legislative session ended before the bill could be passed. And Fasano won’t be around forever, thanks to term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Ronald Reagan once explained that government was a lot like a baby’s alimentary canal all appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. Mr. Reagan was right. Too bad he can’t pay an in-home visit to Governor James Doyle of Wisconsin.

Governor Doyle wants a new program where government counselors make in-home visits to first time parents to explain just how their newborn babies work. “[T]here is no owner’s manual and no easy step-by-step instructions,” the governor warns. “Parents may not know what services are available to help them, what to expect in terms of their child’s development, and what the warning signs are if there is a problem.”

Truth is, a baby’s warning signs are extremely effective. For thousands of years, even without a government program, parents have been having babies. Still, as a father, hearing that detailed explanation about how babies work might be entertaining. And I might have a few questions, too. One new father, John Germano, wouldn’t mind hearing the spiel, either. Asked about the governor’s proposal, he said, “Sure, just as long as I don’t have money coming out of my pocket” for the program.

Germano adds, “Yeah, babies don’t come with owner’s manuals, but there are people that have taken the drive already and know how to work the car. To tell you the truth, I’d rather listen to a close relative than a practitioner.” But could a close relative actually take the place of a government program? Maybe we need a government program to educate us to the warning signs of foolish government programs.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.