Is loyalty important in politics?

Well, yes. Sure.

But I don’t think of loyalty as dedication to a party or a president. I think, instead, of principle.

In a debate early in October, Republican candidates Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul eagerly declared their disloyalty . . . to the Republican candidates that they thought were sending the country in the wrong direction. Neither Tancredo nor Paul said they would be willing to support the ultimate Republican nominee for president if the candidate chosen did not align with their views.

For Tancredo, that is about illegal immigration and border control. For Ron Paul, it’s about getting out of Iraq; he says America’s presence there has been a disaster. Ron Paul said he wouldn’t support any of his Republican competitors unless, and I quote, “they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home.”

Sen. John McCain quickly replied, “You don’t want me then, pal.”

Now some may see it as disloyal to the party to run for its presidential nomination without agreeing to support the eventual nominee. And party regulars are certainly free to vote against such candidates. But as for me, whether I agree with a candidate’s ideas or not, I like it when they are loyal — not to their party or some clique of supporters, but to their ideas, their principles.

Loyalty is important — Loyalty to the people one represents and the principles one stands for.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Americans have become foul-mouthed. Vulgarity, swearing, cursing . . . such talk is everywhere, and it’s getting out of hand.

Now, I’m not perfect, but I do try to keep my own such outbursts to a minimum. Besides, my mother was right: People who use profanity a lot tend to look stupid. When you replace the perfect word with the common vulgarity, you appear intellectually lazy, not bright enough to retrieve from memory and speak with the truly apt nouns and verbs and adjectives.

Yet, there’s a time and place for everything. I can forgive — indeed, almost laud — uses of profanity when the situation merits it.

Case in point: A woman in West Scranton, Pennsylvania, is facing a disorderly conduct charge for swearing at her toilet. She could go to jail for a whopping 90 days for this.

And all she did is curse her stopped-up toilet.

Unfortunately, her bathroom window was open, and her words hit her neighbor’s ears. Rather than offer to help her with her toilet, her neighbor complained, telling her to stop using profanity. She responded with gusto. Little did she know, however,a that the man was an off-duty cop. He filed a complaint.

Now I don’t want to defend someone’s use of bad language. But I wonder whether this woman isn’t the victim of one of those low-flush toilets mandated by Congress.

Justice may demand letting her go, and locking up Congress.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

On the Ides of October, the first baby boomer applied for Social Security retirement. A Maryland teacher, born a second after midnight on Jan. 1, 1946, will become eligible to receive early retirement benefits next New Year’s Day.

And so begins the next crisis.

When Social Security was set up, its supporters pooh-poohed critics who warned that by not investing the collected funds, the government was setting up a major fiasco. The pooh-poohers were wrong, of course; the skeptics, right.

Now, all those baby boomers whose FICA withholding kept the system afloat for years will begin to drain funds. Soon, the money going to retirees will far exceed money coming in. Hence the crisis.

What to do?

Putting the whole thing on an investment basis is essential. But we still have to pay out generations expecting retirement help whose funds were not invested. Raise FICA taxes? Been there, endured that. Raise the retirement age to, say, 72? Yikes.

To postpone Social Security’s inherent insolvency by either a dramatic tax increase or a setting back of the retirement age — or both — would be to admit, quite plainly, the swindle at the heart of the system, the system that politicians devised and politicians exploited and politicians still praise.

And as for a new government health care plan: Fix Social Security first!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Is there something wrong with the job of flipping burgers?

Pundits sometimes belittle certain kinds of job growth. For example, they say that all the good jobs, like high-paying manufacturing jobs, are fading away. And eventually we’ll all end up serving hamburgers to each other.

Yet I still see a very wealthy country in which most able-bodied adults have little trouble getting three squares, shoes, cars, cheap and powerful electronic gadgetry, and all manner of entertainment. And even if some folks overseas are answering phones or doing computer programming for some U.S. firms, such “outsourcing” hasn’t resulted in a mass transfer of American wealth and capital to India or Mexico. Just lower costs for U.S. firms and their customers. Trade benefits all the partners in trade.

Our economy has evolved, yes. Sometimes painfully. But Americans are still very well off, still enjoy many opportunities. And plenty of cheap hamburgers.

Who flips them? Sometimes retirees looking to supplement income. Usually kids. I go to McDonald’s, I see kids behind the counter. Is this a bad thing? That they’re starting out behind a counter instead of as CEO of General Motors?

You can bring diligence, honesty, pride in your work to any job. As author Charles Sykes puts it, “Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your grandparents had a different word for burger flipping. They called it ‘opportunity.’ ”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Happy birthday, Illinois Policy Institute!

This plucky Illinois organization recently celebrated six years in the think-tank biz, spreading free-market ideas. It was started in 2001 on a shoestring budget by a “displaced” public affairs consultant, Greg Blankenship, formerly based in Washington, D.C.

Be glad the outfit he founded is still around, especially if you live in llinois. Because it’s effective.

For example, recent testimony by IPI guys at state budget hearings helped expose a concocted “gross receipts tax.” Blankenship says, “We had been outspoken on the dangers of taxing businesses, and were happy our information was used to make a difference.” The tax was defeated.

IPI had clobbered another tax scheme a couple years earlier, a proposed “swap” of income tax and property tax. Blankenship reports, “Our main goal was to point out why decreasing taxes and limiting government is good for everyone.”

I have another reason to celebrate the Illinois Policy Institute. The most recent feather in their cap is the hiring of John Tillman as their new chairman, a guy I’ve worked with at the Sam Adams Alliance.

John says advocates of liberty must explain the fundamental alternative of our age, freedom versus statism, in practical terms everyone can understand. For example, show how statism means you have to work 80 hours for wealth you could achieve in just 40 hours in an unhampered market, and folks are with you. As John puts it, “When the ideas are properly communicated, people choose freedom.”

They do. Good point, John. And good luck.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.