By Steven Greenhut

SACRAMENTO — “As many as 100,000 crack babies are born every year,” reported the Los Angeles Times in an overheated 1990 article echoing the results of a Department of Health and Human Services study. The feds were calling for a massive influx of tax dollars to fund social programs for a new generation of Americans born to mothers who used so-called crack cocaine.

The article included a “must have” list for government agencies: more postnatal care and foster care, extra dollars for schools to deal with the disabilities these children reportedly would have, government-provided residential care, drug programs and more.

“But absent those billions of additional dollars, what can state and local government do now to help those innocents?” the article asked, almost hopelessly. This was typical of news coverage of what was called the crack epidemic.

More than two decades later, we learn the truth. The hysteria — which led to new drug laws that imposed unreasonably harsh sentences on the largely African-American users of that particular form of cocaine — was unwarranted. The numbers of crack babies were wildly exaggerated. As the New York Times now reports, “This supposed epidemic … was kicked off by a study of just 23 infants that the lead researcher now says was blown out of proportion.”

No one suggests that it’s healthy to use cocaine while pregnant, but years of study show that the “shocking symptoms” that crack babies displayed were actually symptoms found in many newborns. “A much more serious problem, it turns out, is infants who are born with fetal alcohol syndrome,” according to the Times.

‘Do something!’

I recall the “we must do something” attitude of the time, which clearly played on the public’s fear of inner-city crime. Never mind now. But it’s not as if the people who have spent years in jail for possessing crack cocaine can get their lives back. Don’t expect Congress or state legislatures to rethink any of the laws they hastily passed. And don’t expect anyone in authority to have learned anything from the new reports revising the crack-baby scare.

Then, the same week, comes word of a new study designed to scare us about marijuana legalization. It sounds even less believable than the discredited crack research.

“Children poisoned after eating brownies, other foods laced with medical marijuana, study finds,” blared the headline in the Syracuse Post-Standard. Basically, the feds contend Colorado’s new law legalizing marijuana is leading to kids inadvertently eating Mom’s pot-laced brownies, which isn’t good but hardly amounts to a poisoning epidemic.

There’s no evidence that pot legalization caused such mishaps. People have been eating pot brownies for as long as I can recall, even though it generally was illegal. But the goal of such studies isn’t a reasoned debate. The goal is to prompt upset legislators to pass laws designed to slow down the burgeoning legalization movement.

And as Reason magazine’s Mike Riggs just reported, “The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy released a study last week that found the majority of arrestees in five metropolitan areas tested positive for marijuana at the time they were booked, and that many other arrestees tested positive for harder drugs. There was one drug missing from the report, however, and it appears it was omitted intentionally. That drug is alcohol.”

I still regularly meet people who believe that the laws governing us result from a deliberative process conducted by legislators committed to the public good. Such thinking will result in more crack-baby scares and the funding of new armies of social workers, planners, tax collectors, cops and regulators, who are more than happy to lobby for higher taxes and to meddle in our affairs.

The key to understanding the political system is found in this quotation from journalist and social critic H.L. Mencken: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Crises

Members of the California Legislature, for example, specialize in looking for minuscule crises that they can blow out of proportion, then hold news conferences and push for new laws they author that help protect us, even as they steadfastly ignore the big problems (budgets, pensions, retiree medical liabilities) they themselves help to create.

So far this year, we have seen proposed new taxes on ammunition, on soft drinks and on clubs that sell alcohol and offer nude dancing. These taxes are meant to discourage certain behaviors and to protect us from ourselves, all while funding government “services.”

Government does this in all areas of our lives, including foreign policy, where unfounded scares justifying past U.S. intervention in another country will be forgotten in the face of some new supposedly menacing regime.

“Be outraged,” said former Assemblyman Chris Norby of Fullerton. “The crack-baby scare led to Draconian laws that cost billions and led to racially discriminatory drug laws.”

He is right, but most people will shrug, and many legislators will just keep doing what has always worked for them.

Steven Greenhut is vice president of journalism at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity; write to him at: steven.greenhut@franklincenterhq.org.

By Steven Greenhut

SACRAMENTO –- It’s been years since I cared deeply about any election, yet I find myself back to old habits — tracking polls and dealing with conflicting feelings that emerge this time of year. My sense of deep cynicism, born of years reporting on government venality and stupidity, collides with my sense of civic duty.

Few people can watch so many loathsome campaign ads without thinking that something is wrong with our system. Then again, we know the losers on Election Night will concede and go home without unleashing their militias on the streets, as happens in many other countries.

Things aren’t so bad.

I always hope that a leader will emerge to guide our country, state or locality to a better political future through less spending and more freedom-oriented policies. Then I get mad at myself for wanting a “leader.” We’re a self-governing people, and leaders always disappoint.

It’s foolish to have high hopes for politicians

“Evans Law,” named for conservative writer M. Stanton Evans, offers a reminder of why we shouldn’t put much faith in politicians: “When one of our people gets in a position where he can do us some good, he stops being one of our people.” I’ve seen council members, in essence, switch sides almost immediately after taking office. The few politicians who stick to their guns often end up being ineffective and ignored

No wonder. Journalist H.L. Mencken (pictured above) argued that “[g]overnment is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods.” It’s much easier being effective as a pillager than as someone who wants to halt the auction.

Yet, my loved ones can’t understand the roots of my cynicism.

My idealistic notion that Republicans might actually cut government died shortly into the first Reagan administration. There’s so much to cut. But all those programs have constituencies, and their workers are represented by unions, all of which have enough money to bury any politician perceived as a threat.

Between servicing the national debt, the defense budget and entitlements, the federal government already outspends its income.

The telling euphemisms we use for spending

In fact, those euphemisms hint at the problem: “servicing,” “defense” and “entitlements.” Few Americans get much service from paying for money that our government already squandered; much of our military budget is not defensive, and why should any of us feel entitled to a government paycheck?

I don’t believe Mitt Romney will fix anything, but it’s depressing to have a president, like the current one, who believes the answer to every question contains the same 10 letters: “government.”

Sometimes, I hope that this year’s fine Libertarian Party ticket (former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and Orange County retired judge Jim Gray) serves as a spoiler in, say, Colorado. If they cost the GOP the election, maybe Republicans will start paying attention to freedom-oriented issues and not just freedom rhetoric. But no one would learn anything, and we’ll all be stuck with another four years with economic policies based on the notion that one can take water from the deep end of the pool, dump it in the shallow end (after spilling some of it on the sidewalk) and expect the water level to rise.

It is difficult to make clear points in elections. Individuals have complex motives and ill-formed worldviews. Good-government types often say we should vote for candidates with the best character. But it gets complicated. Some of the most dangerous legislators are honest ideologues who know exactly what they are doing as they regulate our lives. The cad, Bill Clinton (combined with a GOP Congress), seems to be as good as it gets at the national level; there’s another disturbing, election-related notion.

Cynical pols less scary than true believers

Sometimes the most shamelessly ambitious politicians are the most malleable ones, willing to do the “right” thing if the People put pressure on them. Mencken has it right: “The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression.”

Having just finished a book about the puritanical and fanatical Khmer Rouge communists who created Cambodia’s “killing fields,” I see Mencken’s point.

Then I think of real reformers –- San Diego mayoral candidate Carl DeMaio, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait -– and that civic sensibility rises again.

At the state level, it is ironic that conservatives have come to depend on creations of the Progressive-era –- the initiative, referendum and recall –- to control modern Progressive politicians, but such are the inconsistencies and ironies of the political system.

The big statewide initiative Tuesday is Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed tax increase. My best advice: Starve the beast. California’s government outspends its revenue every year, during both economic booms and busts. The best hope for restoring some fiscal responsibility is to limit the cash politicians have to spend. Brown and Co. promise Draconian cuts to schools if you don’t yield to their political blackmail. It’s always best to call a politician’s bluff.

When options are bad, messages can’t be sent

And then there are those darn imperfect choices.

I’d love to see my district’s congressman, Republican Dan Lungren, booted from office; he long has advocated for civil-forfeiture measures that allow police agencies to take the cars, homes and other property of people, many of whom have never been convicted of crimes. It has led to countless abuses because it marries police powers with the profit motive.

But Lungren’s opponent is a left-wing Democrat who seems to get everything wrong and has not raised this issue. No matter who wins, no message will be sent, no deserved political punishment will be meted out. Oh, well.

I hope that if Romney wins the presidency, Americans will be reminded that wealth and the private-enterprise system are good things and should not be the objects of envy and scorn.

Then again, I don’t expect much. No matter Tuesday’s results, I console myself, again, with Mencken: “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.”

Steven Greenhut is vice president of journalism at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity; write to him at steven.greenhut@franklincenterhq.org.